The recent developments in Venezuela represent far more than a regional crisis. They mark a defining moment for the international system itself—a stress test for the rules, norms, and institutions that have governed global affairs since the end of World War II. What unfolded in Caracas is not merely another episode of interventionist foreign policy; it is an alarming signal that the fragile architecture of the world order is under unprecedented strain.
President Donald Trump’s decision to use direct military force to remove the elected president of a sovereign state has set a precedent unseen in modern history. While regime change has long been an uncomfortable feature of American foreign policy, the Venezuela incident stands apart in its brazenness, scale, and implications. It will not fade into obscurity. Historians will remember it as a moment when power politics openly trumped international law.
Regime Change: A Familiar but Dangerous Pattern
To be clear, the United States has a long and well-documented history of intervening in the internal affairs of other nations. From Latin America to the Middle East and South Asia, American administrations—across party lines—have supported or orchestrated regime changes in countries perceived as hostile to U.S. interests.
In Iran (1953), a CIA-backed coup removed Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh after he nationalized oil resources. In Guatemala (1954), a democratically elected government was overthrown to protect strategic and corporate interests. Chile (1973) witnessed the removal of President Salvador Allende, plunging the country into years of dictatorship. Panama (1989) saw direct military invasion to depose Manuel Noriega. Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) reshaped entire regions, leaving behind prolonged instability.
These actions were often justified under the banners of anti-communism, counterterrorism, democracy promotion, or national security. Yet, in most cases, the long-term outcomes included civil war, economic collapse, radicalization, and deep resentment toward Western powers.
Still, even within this controversial history, Venezuela represents a qualitative shift.
Why Venezuela Is Different
What makes the Venezuela incident exceptional is not only the removal of a sitting president but the manner and message of the action. It was swift, unilateral, and unapologetic. There was no meaningful multilateral process, no United Nations authorization, and no credible attempt at diplomatic resolution. The justification—ranging from drug trafficking allegations to economic mismanagement—failed to convince much of the international community.
More troubling is the immediate assumption of control over Venezuela’s strategic resources, particularly oil. This blurs the line between intervention and occupation, between political pressure and economic exploitation. The optics are devastating: a powerful state removing a government and managing another country’s resources under its own authority.
This is precisely the kind of conduct the post-1945 international order was designed to prevent.
The United Nations: Sympathy Without Power
The crisis has also exposed, once again, the structural limitations of the United Nations. The UN Charter mandates respect for sovereignty and prohibits the use of force except in self-defense or with Security Council approval. Yet when major powers act unilaterally, the UN lacks the means to enforce its principles.
In the case of Venezuela, the UN Secretary-General and multiple UN bodies expressed concern and sympathy. However, sympathy does not stop invasions. Statements do not protect elected leaders. Resolutions, when blocked or ignored, become symbolic gestures rather than instruments of justice.
The same paralysis has been evident elsewhere. Israeli military actions in Gaza and continued annexation in the West Bank proceed despite widespread condemnation. The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza continues, widely described by legal experts and human rights organizations as genocide. Yet the UN remains unable to enforce its own resolutions or international humanitarian law.
This institutional weakness is no longer theoretical—it is dangerously consequential.
China and Russia: Limits of Strategic Solidarity
Before the Venezuela incident, China and Russia had both demonstrated political and diplomatic solidarity with Caracas. Venezuela was viewed by many in the developing world as part of a broader push toward a multipolar order—one less dominated by Washington.
However, when the decisive moment arrived, neither Beijing nor Moscow was able to prevent the intervention.
This failure has raised serious questions about their geopolitical credibility. It is not an isolated case. Russia, despite its military presence, could not fully shield Syria from years of devastation. China and Russia, while standing rhetorically with Iran, have been unable to prevent repeated Israeli and American strikes. Their support for Palestine has not stopped the ongoing atrocities in Gaza or the annexation of Palestinian land.
The issue is not lack of concern, but strategic restraint. Neither China nor Russia is willing to risk a direct confrontation with the United States. As a result, countries that align with them may receive diplomatic backing—but not protection.
For many in the Global South, this realization is sobering.
A Shaken Global South
Across Africa, Latin America, and Asia, numerous states have sought alternatives to American dominance. They viewed China and Russia as counterweights, offering economic cooperation without political interference.
The Venezuela incident has shaken that confidence.
If a sovereign state with powerful allies can still be forcibly reshaped, what security do smaller or resource-rich nations truly have? Oil, gas, minerals, and strategic geography increasingly look less like assets and more like liabilities in a world drifting back toward imperial logic.
This fear is amplified by President Trump’s openly expansionist rhetoric—whether about purchasing Greenland, absorbing Canada as a hypothetical 51st state, “managing” Gaza, or exerting pressure on countries such as Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Mexico, and Nigeria. Even when framed as jokes or negotiating tactics, such statements normalize a worldview where sovereignty is conditional and power is transactional.
The Slippery Slope of Normalized Aggression
Perhaps the most dangerous consequence of the Venezuela precedent is imitation. If one major power can act without consequence, others may follow. History teaches us that norms erode quickly once violated without accountability.
A world where great powers invade neighbors, remove governments, or seize resources under vague justifications is not a stable world. It is a return to pre-1945 geopolitics—one marked by spheres of influence, coercion, and perpetual insecurity.
Such a trajectory would not only endanger weaker states; it would ultimately threaten global peace itself.
What Must Be Done
The international community still has choices. But time is not on its side.
- First, international institutions must be reformed and strengthened. The UN requires enforceable mechanisms—not merely moral authority—to uphold its charter.
- Second, unilateral military action must be delegitimized, not normalized. Silence and inaction are forms of endorsement.
- Third, major powers must recommit to diplomacy, restraint, and genuine multilateralism. Strategic competition cannot be allowed to override humanity, law, and common sense.
- Finally, the Global South must work collectively to protect sovereignty—not by choosing sides, but by insisting on rules that apply to all.
A Moment History Will Remember
Venezuela is not just another crisis—it is a warning. It signals what the world may become if unchecked power replaces international law. Whether this moment marks the collapse of the existing order or the beginning of its reform depends on how global actors respond now.
History is watching. And future generations will ask whether the world chose restraint—or surrendered to chaos.
