Venezuela strikes signal troubling erosion of international law

Editor's note: Xu Ying, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The U.S. military strikes against Venezuela represent more than a sudden escalation in a long-simmering standoff. They mark a significant shift in Washington's conduct in the Western Hemisphere – one that abandons strategic ambiguity in favor of overt aggression.

According to public statements by U.S. officials, the operation involved direct military action and the capture of Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro. This constitutes one of the most consequential unilateral uses of force in the region in decades. China's expression of shock and its strong condemnation are therefore not rhetorical excess, but a sober response grounded in the core principles of international law.

At stake is not simply Venezuela's political trajectory, but the integrity of the international system itself. The use of force against a sovereign state without United Nations authorization, and particularly the targeting of a head of state, strikes at the heart of the UN Charter.

These norms were established precisely to prevent powerful states from resolving political disputes through violence. Treating such actions as exceptional or justified by circumstance risks hollowing out the very restraints that have, however imperfectly, prevented systemic conflict since the mid-20th century.

For years, U.S. policy toward Venezuela has been framed in the language of counter-narcotics, migration management, humanitarian concern and the restoration of democracy. Yet the latest action exposes the contradictions of that framing.

Military strikes and the capture of Maduro are not instruments of humanitarian relief or democratic persuasion. They are tools of compulsion. When employed, they reveal a deeper logic at work: the reassertion of an exclusionary sphere-of-influence mindset that treats sovereignty in the Western Hemisphere as conditional rather than absolute.

By defining the region as a "core area of interest," Washington has revived the Monroe Doctrine, which says any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the United States, in contemporary form.

The doctrine's modern iteration is less explicit but no less consequential: Political choices that align with U.S. preferences are deemed legitimate, while those that do not are portrayed as threats to regional order.

Venezuela's resistance to external pressure and its cooperation with non-Western partners were not accepted as sovereign decisions, but reframed as provocations requiring correction. In this worldview, diplomacy becomes subordinate to discipline, and regime change substitutes for negotiated problem-solving.

This approach rests on a deeply flawed, zero-sum understanding of political diversity. Governments that diverge from U.S. strategic preferences are cast as inherently unstable or illegitimate, regardless of domestic realities or regional context. Such thinking reduces complex political systems to ideological caricatures.

History offers a cautionary record. External interventions across Latin America, often justified as stabilizing measures, have repeatedly produced the opposite effect: weakened institutions, prolonged conflict, social polarization and enduring mistrust of external powers.

Proponents of military action frequently argue that "limited" or "precision" force can manage risks and prevent broader instability. This argument collapses under scrutiny. There is nothing limited about the precedent set by intervening militarily against a sovereign state and capturing its president. Such actions lower the global threshold for the use of force, normalize political abduction under security pretexts and invite reciprocal behavior by other powers in other regions. The erosion of restraint does not remain geographically contained; it travels.

The damage, moreover, is cumulative. Each instance in which force is used without collective authorization weakens already fragile norms. Each exception carved out in the name of urgency becomes a template for future violations. Over time, the distinction between lawful and unlawful use of force blurs, replaced by a more dangerous standard: Capability determines legitimacy.

China's response to the strikes is notable not only for its firmness, but for its clarity. The condemnation rests on two principles that are increasingly contested in practice but remain foundational in law: The use of force without UN authorization is illegal; and sovereignty is not negotiable. These are not abstract ideals. They are practical safeguards designed to prevent precisely the kind of escalation now confronting the Western Hemisphere.

Washington's intensified assertion of control closer to home also reflects a broader strategic contraction. As global power becomes more diffused and resistance more costly in distant theaters, there is a temptation to consolidate influence where asymmetries appear more manageable. This is often presented as realism or strategic focus.

In practice, it is coercion repackaged as order. For the Caribbean and Latin America – regions that have spent decades building norms of non-intervention and regional dialogue, such consolidation threatens to reverse hard-won progress.

There is, however, an alternative path. Engagement rooted in sustained dialogue, economic stabilization, humanitarian assistance and respect for political plurality lacks the drama of military action, but it addresses causes rather than symptoms. Sanctions combined with force tend to harden positions, deepen social fractures and foreclose negotiated exits. The choice facing policymakers is not between action and passivity; it is between coercion and constructive statecraft.

Venezuela's future must ultimately be determined by Venezuelans themselves, through inclusive political processes free from external compulsion. The international community can play a constructive role not by dictating outcomes, but by facilitating dialogue, supporting humanitarian needs and upholding the principles of the UN Charter consistently rather than selectively.

In an era of accelerating multipolarity, "backyard" thinking is not merely outdated; it is destabilizing. The Western Hemisphere does not require renewed demonstrations of dominance. It requires restraint, respect for sovereignty and a recommitment to international law. Power exercised without principle may deliver short-term shock, but it corrodes the very order upon which long-term stability depends.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)