Amid Washington’s use of force, there is a sense that global affairs are drifting towards a modernised version of the law of the jungle
More than 36 years after the United States invaded Panama to arrest Manuel Noriega, Washington has once again launched a military operation to seize the sitting president of a sovereign Latin American country. The move echoes the logic of the Monroe Doctrine revived for the Trump era: enforcing US dominance in the western hemisphere through the use of force rather than law.
Beyond its immediate impact on Latin America, the operation has sent a wider signal. It underscores a willingness to bypass international norms, intimidate smaller states and expand the scope of unilateral action, raising concerns not only in the Americas but also in regions as distant as Europe.
The use of force, especially actions that endanger international peace and security, should constitute the gravest of global crises, demanding caution, restraint and accountability. Yet when the US president speaks casually – even with levity – about military strikes against Iran or likens the arrest of a sovereign head of state to “watching a television show”, and when some take to social media to celebrate the “surgical precision” of such operations, a deeper alarm emerges. The international order painstakingly built since the end of the second world war is facing one of its most serious tests.
Rule-based institutions and multilateral mechanisms are being steadily eroded. International law, once invoked as a universal constraint, is increasingly applied selectively. The result is a growing sense that global affairs are drifting towards a modernised version of the law of the jungle.
This new order differs from the era of naked territorial expansionism before the second world war. In a world shaped by nuclear deterrence, artificial intelligence and transactional politics, power now manifests itself in more refined forms: precision strikes framed as technical necessity, economic coercion disguised as discipline, control of strategic resources justified by supply-chain security and bloc politics driven by ideological alignment rather than shared responsibility.
At the same time, the US has come to resemble an empire defined less by democratic restraint than by overwhelming military capability. The US president’s broad discretion to employ force abroad, combined with the growing concentration of authority across executive, legislative and media institutions, has weakened the checks and balances that once defined American constitutional governance. It is legitimate to ask whether the spirit – if not the letter – of constitutional democracy is being hollowed out.
In response to recent US actions, the Chinese foreign ministry expressed profound shock and strong condemnation, stating that the US move constitutes a serious violation of international law and an infringement of Venezuela’s sovereignty.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva also publicly condemned the US military’s attack on Venezuelan territory and the kidnapping of its president, denouncing the act as a blatant violation of international law and a dangerous move that places power above multilateralism.
By contrast, many US allies in Europe and Asia have adopted carefully ambiguous language, expressing concern while avoiding principled opposition. This posture is difficult to reconcile with their earlier unequivocal denunciations of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The inconsistency has not gone unnoticed, and it undermines claims to moral authority.
The contrast is even sharper when these same countries use the Venezuela precedent to speculate about Beijing’s intentions regarding Taiwan. Such comparisons are fundamentally flawed. Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory and the Taiwan question is an internal matter.
Under the UN Charter, the core prohibition is against the use of force to interfere in the internal affairs of other states, not against sovereign actions to preserve territorial integrity. For any country, safeguarding national unity is not only a legal right but a moral responsibility.
Ironically, the US has openly acknowledged that Taiwan’s strategic value lies primarily in its geopolitical location and semiconductor industry. Yet some in Japan and European countries continue to frame their involvement as a defence of “democratic values”, disregarding the international consensus – recognised by most UN member states – that Taiwan is part of China.
They overlook historical realities, including Taiwan’s experience under Dutch and Japanese colonial rule, as well as binding international instruments such as the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945, which clearly affirmed mainland China’s sovereignty over the island.
Faced with expanding hegemonic tendencies and growing geopolitical double standards, China has little choice but to adopt a clear and principled stance: defending international fairness, safeguarding its legitimate national interests and upholding a stable global order. The right of countries, including China, to engage in lawful trade and investment in Latin America must not be obstructed, and China’s eventual reunification remains a non-negotiable core interest.
History offers sobering lessons. In Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War, US scholar Lindsey A. O’Rourke documents 64 covert US operations to overthrow foreign governments. Even when such interventions succeeded, they often left behind prolonged instability and social fragmentation. Venezuela is not likely to be an exception. The removal of its president by force does not negate its sovereignty, nor does it resolve its internal challenges.
As Washington hints at the possibility of further military escalation, the international community must reflect on what is at stake. Can the Venezuelan people revive the spirit of justice and courage represented by Che Guevara? Can Latin America resist a return to interventionism? Can global institutions still constrain power? Will the post-war international order endure? These questions will shape not only regional stability but the moral direction of the world itself.
