Editor's note: Guo Bowei is an associate professor at the School of Applied Economics and the director of the Center for Research on Global Energy Strategy at Renmin University of China. Zhang Xuan is a senior engineer at the Energy Research Development Institute at China Southern Power Grid. The article reflects the authors' opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The recent US military operation in Venezuela, which culminated in the cross-border capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his forcible transfer to the United States, marks a disturbing escalation in international affairs. Some American media describe Washington's Latin America policy as a revival of a Trump-style Monroe Doctrine – sometimes labeled "Donroeism." The term refers to a strategy centered on coercive diplomacy, political intervention, and the use of proxy forces to reassert US dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Beneath the rhetoric of "democracy," "reconstruction," and "humanitarian concern," however, lies a deeper and more persistent logic – the return of resource imperialism.

Resource imperialism does not resemble the colonial conquests of the past. It is not defined by territorial occupation or overt annexation. Instead, it operates through more sophisticated mechanisms to reshape who controls strategic resources and who benefits from them, including sanctions, financial controls, political engineering, and narrative framing. Its ultimate objective is not simply to extract oil, gas, or minerals, but to control the rules, the channels, and the distribution of power surrounding those resources.

Venezuela holds the world's largest proven oil reserves and occupies a strategically significant position in the global energy system. Yet US policy toward the country has been shaped less by genuine concern for Venezuelan society and more by the geopolitical implications of Venezuela's political independence and external partnerships. Over the past decade, Washington has imposed sweeping sanctions, restricted access to international finance, supported parallel political structures, and repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of Venezuela's government. These measures have dramatically constrained the country's economic capacity and narrowed its political autonomy.

What is striking is the contradiction between declared intentions and actual outcomes. US officials often justify pressure on Venezuela in the language of democracy and human rights. But in practice, the impact of sanctions and external pressure has been to weaken national governance, erode economic sovereignty, and reduce the state's ability to manage its own strategic assets. The result is not empowerment, but dependency; not stability, but fragmentation. This pattern is characteristic of contemporary resource imperialism: sovereignty is hollowed out not by tanks, but by systems.

Unlike classical imperialism, resource imperialism is exercised primarily through institutions and structures. Sanctions regimes can determine which countries may trade and which may not. Financial systems can be weaponized to deny access to capital. Political actors can be selectively supported to reshape domestic power structures. Media narratives can delegitimize governments that resist external influence. All these tools function together to achieve a strategic goal: to influence who controls key resources and under what conditions they enter global markets.

In this sense, the real issue is not how much Venezuelan oil the United States wishes to import, but who ultimately determines Venezuela's energy policy, investment framework, export partners, and revenue distribution. Control over these decisions confers enormous structural power. It shapes pricing, market access, currency settlement, and the broader geopolitics of energy. When external actors seek to reshape these decisions through coercive means, the issue ceases to be one of domestic governance and becomes a matter of global equity.

The implications extend far beyond Venezuela. The resurgence of resource imperialism poses serious challenges to the foundations of the international system. The United Nations Charter is built on principles of sovereign equality and non-interference. Yet when powerful states increasingly justify intervention on the basis of self-defined moral authority, those principles are gradually eroded. This not only destabilizes individual countries but also weakens the legitimacy of global governance itself.

Moreover, such practices risk generating broader instability. As strategic resources become increasingly important in a world shaped by energy transition, technological competition, and geopolitical fragmentation, more countries may find themselves under similar pressure. If access to critical resources becomes governed by power rather than rules, the global system will move toward greater uncertainty and mistrust. Developing countries, in particular, may conclude that sovereignty offers little protection unless accompanied by diversified partnerships and strategic autonomy.

Ironically, this approach may ultimately undermine the long-term interests of those who pursue it. Heavy-handed intervention tends to breed resentment rather than cooperation. It encourages affected states to seek alternative alliances and accelerates the emergence of parallel financial, trade, and governance arrangements. Instead of reinforcing leadership, resource imperialism risks accelerating fragmentation and weakening the very influence it seeks to preserve.

There is a more constructive alternative. Sustainable international cooperation must be grounded in respect for sovereignty, mutual benefit, and non-coercive engagement. Resource-rich countries should have the right to determine their own development paths, manage their own assets, and choose their own partners. External engagement, if it is to be legitimate and effective, must be based on dialogue rather than pressure, on partnership rather than control.

Venezuela's case serves as a reminder that the struggle over resources is not merely an economic issue but a question of political dignity and systemic justice. The world does not need a return to doctrines that divide the globe into spheres of influence. What it needs instead is a renewed commitment to equality among nations and a recognition that global stability cannot be built on the erosion of others' sovereignty.

History has shown that systems built on dominance are inherently fragile. Those built on respect and cooperation, by contrast, offer the only durable foundation for peace and shared prosperity. The challenge facing the international community today is whether it will accept the normalization of resource imperialism – or whether it will choose to reaffirm the principles of fairness and autonomy that underpin a truly multipolar world.