![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmut posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsYou must have all heard the news. Today the US executed a direct military operation against Venezuela, striking key targets, capturing president Maduro and his wife, and announcing their transfer to the US to face criminal charges, including alleged narco-terrorism and drug trafficking offenses. The rapidly unfolding events mark the most significant US military intervention in Latin America since Panama in 1989. The US government has framed this action as a response to alleged criminality and illegitimacy, but global reactions underline deep concerns about violations of sovereignty and international law. Overwhelming condemnation has come from the UN, China, Russia, and numerous Latin American governments, with calls for respect for the UN Charter and regional stability:
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/world/971543/trump-says-venezuela-s-maduro-deposed-captured-after-us-strikes/story/
To understand these developments, it is useful to recall John Perkins's Economic Hit Man framework, which posits that US foreign policy often disguises economic and geopolitical objectives - access to resources, debt leverage, and strategic realignment - as benevolent interventions. Perkins describes a range of methods: economic pressure via loans and conditional aid, covert manipulation of political elites, engineered crises to justify external influence, and, in extreme cases, overt regime change. Whether or not one accepts every detail in Perkins narrative, its core thesis - that the US systematically prioritizes its corporate and strategic interests, often at the expense of local sovereignty - provides a lens through which to view the US behavior across decades.
Linking that framework to Venezuela, the Maduro removal fits a historical pattern of US conduct: sustained economic sanctions, rhetorical delegitimization of elected authorities, and ultimately kinetic intervention to install a government more aligned with US priorities. In this case, Venezuela's vast proven oil reserves and its strategic location in the Western Hemisphere are unmistakable factors. This intervention did not occur in a vacuum - it followed months of escalating economic pressure, naval buildup, sanctions, and public vilification of Maduro. It echoes prior US interventions against governments that resisted US economic influence, from Chile in 1973 to Iraq in 2003, and reflects a bipartisan continuity of US power projection irrespective of the party in the White House.
There's more to this story, of course. There is persistent online speculation that China has "turned its back" on Maduro. In reality, Beijing has not abandoned Maduro by formal declaration, but neither has it offered substantive military assistance in the face of US action. China's Foreign Ministry strongly condemned the US use of force and described it as a violation of sovereignty and international law, consistent with its broader diplomatic posture. China historically supported Maduro diplomatically and economically, and it opposed foreign interference. However, analysts note Beijing's reluctance to escalate beyond rhetoric or to commit military support, prioritizing its own economic interests and geopolitical calculations. There is no credible evidence that China has formally withdrawn recognition or support; rather, its response has been one of condemnation without material engagement. Which by itself tells a whole story:
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/world-reacts-us-strikes-venezuela-2026-01-03/
Looking forward, the implications extend far beyond Venezuela's borders. The US action reinforces a renewed Monroe Doctrine-style posture: explicit focus on dominance in the Western Hemisphere while signaling a reduced role in traditional theaters such as Europe and Asia. This doctrine arguably invites not just hemispheric realignment but a competitive reconfiguration of global power relations. Authoritarian and/or regional powers - notably China, Russia, and Israel - may interpret America's focus on its "backyard" as both a retreat from distant commitments and a carte blanche to pursue their own spheres of influence more assertively elsewhere. Such dynamics already appear at play in Europe (Russia) and the Middle East (Israel's regional posture), as well as in parts of Africa and the Indo-Pacific (China's Belt and Road expansion).
In sum, while proponents of the US operation praise it as liberation or justice, the larger pattern suggests continuity with a long history of US strategic interventions that privilege geopolitical and commercial interests over international law and self-determination. Whether this sets a precedent for other powers to act unilaterally is not speculative - the fragmentation of post-World War II norms in favor of raw power politics is already underway. The world may be entering an era where might increasingly defines legitimacy, and the rules-based order that once constrained great-power behavior is weakening. And that's not a good path to go down on.
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/world/971543/trump-says-venezuela-s-maduro-deposed-captured-after-us-strikes/story/
To understand these developments, it is useful to recall John Perkins's Economic Hit Man framework, which posits that US foreign policy often disguises economic and geopolitical objectives - access to resources, debt leverage, and strategic realignment - as benevolent interventions. Perkins describes a range of methods: economic pressure via loans and conditional aid, covert manipulation of political elites, engineered crises to justify external influence, and, in extreme cases, overt regime change. Whether or not one accepts every detail in Perkins narrative, its core thesis - that the US systematically prioritizes its corporate and strategic interests, often at the expense of local sovereignty - provides a lens through which to view the US behavior across decades.
Linking that framework to Venezuela, the Maduro removal fits a historical pattern of US conduct: sustained economic sanctions, rhetorical delegitimization of elected authorities, and ultimately kinetic intervention to install a government more aligned with US priorities. In this case, Venezuela's vast proven oil reserves and its strategic location in the Western Hemisphere are unmistakable factors. This intervention did not occur in a vacuum - it followed months of escalating economic pressure, naval buildup, sanctions, and public vilification of Maduro. It echoes prior US interventions against governments that resisted US economic influence, from Chile in 1973 to Iraq in 2003, and reflects a bipartisan continuity of US power projection irrespective of the party in the White House.
There's more to this story, of course. There is persistent online speculation that China has "turned its back" on Maduro. In reality, Beijing has not abandoned Maduro by formal declaration, but neither has it offered substantive military assistance in the face of US action. China's Foreign Ministry strongly condemned the US use of force and described it as a violation of sovereignty and international law, consistent with its broader diplomatic posture. China historically supported Maduro diplomatically and economically, and it opposed foreign interference. However, analysts note Beijing's reluctance to escalate beyond rhetoric or to commit military support, prioritizing its own economic interests and geopolitical calculations. There is no credible evidence that China has formally withdrawn recognition or support; rather, its response has been one of condemnation without material engagement. Which by itself tells a whole story:
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/world-reacts-us-strikes-venezuela-2026-01-03/
Looking forward, the implications extend far beyond Venezuela's borders. The US action reinforces a renewed Monroe Doctrine-style posture: explicit focus on dominance in the Western Hemisphere while signaling a reduced role in traditional theaters such as Europe and Asia. This doctrine arguably invites not just hemispheric realignment but a competitive reconfiguration of global power relations. Authoritarian and/or regional powers - notably China, Russia, and Israel - may interpret America's focus on its "backyard" as both a retreat from distant commitments and a carte blanche to pursue their own spheres of influence more assertively elsewhere. Such dynamics already appear at play in Europe (Russia) and the Middle East (Israel's regional posture), as well as in parts of Africa and the Indo-Pacific (China's Belt and Road expansion).
In sum, while proponents of the US operation praise it as liberation or justice, the larger pattern suggests continuity with a long history of US strategic interventions that privilege geopolitical and commercial interests over international law and self-determination. Whether this sets a precedent for other powers to act unilaterally is not speculative - the fragmentation of post-World War II norms in favor of raw power politics is already underway. The world may be entering an era where might increasingly defines legitimacy, and the rules-based order that once constrained great-power behavior is weakening. And that's not a good path to go down on.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/26 18:15 (UTC)I'm not sure how Trump can now claim he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize if he's giving excuses to other big guys to start military adventures wherever they please, China -> Taiwan being the obvious next story on the horizon.
(no subject)
Date: 3/1/26 18:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/26 13:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/1/26 17:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/1/26 16:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/1/26 17:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/1/26 19:37 (UTC)Calling this a “Monroe Doctrine revival” implies it ever went away. It didn’t. The Western Hemisphere has always been treated differently by the U.S. So, this is maintenance, not a shift.
And the idea that this encourages other powers is a great talking point but not real: Russia, China, and Israel were already acting unilaterally. That trend didn’t start here.
This event doesn’t open a new era. It just confirms we’re still in the same one.
(no subject)
Date: 6/1/26 19:00 (UTC)If a practice persists for decades without consequence, is openly acknowledged, and is invoked as justification for new action, that is not "just continuity" - it is institutionalized precedent. Precedent does not require novelty, it requires repetition, acceptance, and normalization. By your own list (Panama, Iraq, Libya, etc), the rule you describe *is* the precedent.
Two clarifications make this unavoidable:
Continuity is precisely how precedent is created. Saying "this keeps happening and nothing stops it" is not a rebuttal - it's a definition. The fact that international law violations no longer trigger enforcement is itself the precedent being reinforced.
Then there's the matter of scope and signaling matter, not just action. A US leader explicitly deprioritizing Europe and Asia while asserting hemispheric dominance is not business as usual, it's a narrowing and sharpening of doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine never went away, but it was not openly foregrounded in an era of proclaimed rules-based order. The rhetorical shift is the signal.
As for other powers: no one claims this starts unilateralism. The point is that it legitimizes it further. When the dominant power demonstrates that force has no cost, it lowers the marginal cost for everyone else. That is how norms erode. Not with shocks, but with confirmations.
So yes, we are "in the same era". The argument is that this event hardens it, advertises it, and removes any remaining pretense that restraint or law meaningfully applies. Dismissing that as trivial is not realism, it's complacency.
(no subject)
Date: 6/1/26 19:51 (UTC)Yes, repetition creates precedent. However, precedent already exists. It is fully institutionalized, and has been for decades. If something was settled by Panama, Iraq, and Libya, then 2026 doesn’t “harden” it further, it just operates inside a framework everyone already understood. It isn’t being strengthened. It’s being reiterated.
On signaling: U.S. leaders have periodically de-prioritized regions and refocused elsewhere for many years: Europe, Asia, Middle East. None of those speeches altered the actual structure of power or commitments. Declaring hemispheric focus doesn’t remove constraints that already weren’t enforced.
And on legitimizing others: Russia didn’t invade Ukraine because of Panama, Libya, or Venezuela. It did so because it calculated enforcement wouldn’t happen. That calculation was made long before this event.
So yes, norms erode through repetition. But once enforcement is gone, repeating the violation doesn’t degrade the norm further. It just confirms the status quo. Calling that complacency confuses realism with dramatization. Not every confirmation is an inflection point.
(no subject)
Date: 7/1/26 15:53 (UTC)If a norm exists only on paper, lacks enforcement, and is violated openly, then each reiteration is not neutral - it is a reaffirmation of impunity. Precedent is not binary (“exists / doesn’t exist”); it has strength and reach. Repetition by the dominant power does not merely restate the rule - it conditions expectations, narrows the space for resistance, and further lowers the perceived cost of imitation.
Two points you are sidestepping:
1. Confirmation by the hegemon matters more than origin. The fact that Russia or others previously calculated non-enforcement does not mean additional confirmations are irrelevant. Strategic calculations are Bayesian, not historical footnotes. Each unpunished act updates the model.
2. Public doctrinal narrowing is itself a material signal. Saying “this was always true” ignores that US power was long wrapped in universalist language. Explicitly abandoning that pretense is not theatrics - it clarifies intent and limits ambiguity. In geopolitics, clarity is power.
You are right that this is not a new era.
You are wrong that it does nothing to the existing one.
A norm does not need to “die again” to be weakened further - it only needs to be shown, once more, to be irrelevant.
(no subject)
Date: 5/1/26 17:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/1/26 18:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/1/26 01:32 (UTC)Stephen Colbert has answered that. He said, roughly:
The NATO charter clearly says that any attack on a NATO member shall be treated, by all members, as an attack against all.
So that means that, if we attack Greenland, we'll be obligated to go to war against ... ourselves!
Gee, that's scary. You really don't want to go to war with the United States. They're insane!
kidnapping
Date: 5/1/26 21:14 (UTC)The message I asked her to pass on to her boss:
"The recent kidnapping of the President of Venezuela was not authorized in advance by Congress,
and was therefore illegal."
I was referring to US law. I made no comment about international law or basic morality.
Re: kidnapping
Date: 6/1/26 19:55 (UTC)https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/maduro-case-will-revive-legal-debate-over-foreign-leader-immunity-tested-in-noriega-trial
(no subject)
Date: 6/1/26 20:40 (UTC)Putin has proven an unreliable ally to Maduro, but the humiliation runs deeper: Trump's real global reach will surely make him envious.