About the Author: Dr. Yashwant Singh
An Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at GITAM (Deemed to be) University’s Bengaluru Campus, he holds an M.Phil. in Sociology from the University of Delhi and a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Hyderabad, with research interests centred on urban sociology and the sociology of development.
A Dramatic Turning Point
Over the last week, the United States dramatically escalated its involvement in Venezuela in a manner that should unsettle defenders of international law and democratic norms. On January 03, 2026, U.S. forces conducted large-scale military strikes on strategic Venezuelan targets and detained President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Within hours, President Donald Trump publicly announced that the United States would assume a transitional governance role in Venezuela until a safe and orderly transfer of power could be ensured, even suggesting American companies would play a role in revitalising the country’s oil sector.
He said during a news conference on Saturday, Jan. 3, that the United States will “run” Venezuela until “we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”
President Trump offered no immediate clarification on how the United States would govern the sovereign nation, nor did he specify when the takeover would begin or how long U.S. control would last.
“I'd like to do it quickly, but it takes a period of time,” Trump said during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida. “We’re rebuilding. We have to rebuild their whole infrastructure.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday, Jan. 04, that the United States would not be involved in the day-to-day governance of Venezuela, aside from enforcing an existing “oil quarantine.” His remarks marked a shift in tone after President Donald Trump announced the previous day that the U.S. would assume control of Venezuela following the removal of Nicolás Maduro.
Rubio’s comments on television talk shows appeared aimed at easing fears that the aggressive push for regime change could lead to a prolonged U.S. intervention or another unsuccessful nation-building effort.
These developments represent one of the most direct interventions by Washington in recent memory, comparable in scale only to past invasions such as Panama in 1989, and signal a sharp departure from the norms the U.S. claims to champion.
Reviving a Colonial Logic
“When I began this business of annexation, both sides (Liberals and Conservatives) were most timid. They would ask one to stop at Kimberley, then they asked one to stop at Khama’s country[ … ]. Now, sir, they won’t stop anywhere; they have found out that the world is not quite big enough for British trade and the British flag; and that the operation of even conquering the planets is only something which has yet to be known.”
These speeches by Cecil Rhodes, delivered in a white-only parliament of a South African province and rooted in the justification of imperial domination, echo the same colonial logic that resurfaces in Trump’s actions in Venezuela last week: the assumption that powerful states can manage, control, or “run” other sovereign nations without their consent. By reviving language and practices that normalise external rule and disregard self-determination, Trump’s approach mirrors the imperial mindset that once underpinned formal colonialism, repackaged for a modern political context.
Such conduct revives a logic of coercion and regime manipulation that the contemporary international order asserts it has long rejected. Sovereignty, non-interference, and international law are not optional norms to be invoked selectively; they are the very foundation of the post-World War II order. Yet in Caracas last week, those principles were cast aside with striking swiftness.
The operation was framed in Washington’s public statements not merely as a necessary intervention, but as a model for active American governance and economic stewardship in foreign capitals, an approach strikingly reminiscent of late nineteenth-century colonial impulse.
The Legal Breach: Sovereignty, Force, and Precedent
From a legal standpoint, the actions taken by the United States over the last weekend in Venezuela, and the president’s own characterisation of them, raise profound concerns under international law. The UN Charter is explicit: the use of force against another state is prohibited except in cases of self-defence against an armed attack or when authorised by the UN Security Council. Neither condition appears to have been met, nor has any serious effort been made to anchor U.S. conduct within a multilateral legal framework.
Equally troubling is the apparent conflation of law enforcement, regime change, and interim governance. International law does not recognise a unilateral right to detain foreign leaders, compel political transition, or administer another state’s economic assets absent occupation law triggered by a recognised armed conflict, and even then, such authority is sharply constrained. By publicly framing U.S. actions as both punitive and administrative, Washington risks normalising a category of intervention that sits outside established legal doctrine.
The danger lies not only in the immediate violation, but in the precedent it sets. If powerful states reserve for themselves the right to reinterpret sovereignty on the fly, the prohibition on the use of force, arguably the cornerstone of the post-1945 international system, becomes conditional rather than categorical.
Undermining Global Norms
The immediate and global reaction has underscored the severity of the breach. International bodies and governments across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe expressed strong concern or outright condemnation, characterising the action as a violation of sovereign rights and international law that threatens regional peace and stability.
In comments unusually blunt for a head of state, and seemingly alluding to the removal of Maduro, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier has warned international leaders against allowing the global order to collapse into a “den of robbers” in which the unscrupulous take what they want. The former foreign minister took aim at U.S. foreign policy during Donald Trump’s presidency and argued that global democracy is under assault to an unprecedented degree.
This is not merely a clash of interests; it is a clash of principles. If the United States embraces direct intervention and governance as acceptable tools of foreign policy when convenient, the normative constraints designed to protect all states, large and small alike, are hollowed out.
Damage Beyond the Western Hemisphere
The ramifications extend far beyond Venezuela’s borders. For years, the United States has rallied democratic partners around the idea of a rules-based global order, especially in the Indo-Pacific. Central to this vision are respect for sovereignty, non-coercion, and multilateral legitimacy - principles articulated most explicitly in the concept of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP).
The credibility of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) concept, explicitly framed as an alternative to coercive power politics, rests less on military balance than on normative consistency. Yet when Washington acts unilaterally in the Western Hemisphere while demanding restraint elsewhere, it weakens its own strategic narrative. Rivals need not distort the facts; they need only quote U.S. presidential statements verbatim to argue that sovereignty is respected only when it aligns with American interests. That argument will resonate not because adversaries make it, but because U.S. behaviour makes it plausible.
This is especially damaging for the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, also referred to as the QUAD. As an informal grouping with no treaty obligations, its effectiveness depends almost entirely on shared principles and trust. When the United States appears willing to bypass international law, it places partners in an awkward position, forced either to defend the indefensible or to remain conspicuously silent.
Japan, for example, finds itself in a diplomatic bind because the US action directly affects Tokyo’s long-standing strategic messaging about a rules-based order. Tokyo strongly emphasises adherence to international law and democratic principles, key pillars of its Indo-Pacific policy, yet has been reluctant to openly criticise its closest security partner, the United States, even as other Asian voices have raised concerns about the precedent set by the U.S. operation.
At the UN Security Council meeting on Monday, Jan. 05, China criticised the US’s unilateral actions. Its charge d’affaires at the Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Sun Lei said: “The lessons of history offer a stark warning. Military means are not the solution to problems, and the indiscriminate use of force will only lead to greater crises.”.
The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, during the debates, too criticised the US actions, warning it could set “a dangerous precedent”.
Allied Reactions: Quiet Discomfort, Loud Absences
Notably, the immediate response from U.S. allies has been marked less by endorsement than by caution. While some governments have issued carefully worded statements emphasising stability or democratic outcomes, few, if any, have explicitly supported the methods employed or the president’s rhetoric in their aftermath.
This silence is telling. In diplomatic terms, it often signals discomfort rather than agreement. Allies in Europe and the Indo-Pacific are acutely aware that any erosion of sovereignty norms today may be invoked against them tomorrow. For smaller states in particular, the strength of international law lies in its universality; once exceptions are carved out by the powerful, protection evaporates.
The absence of a coordinated allied response also undermines the very idea of collective leadership. A rules-based order cannot be upheld by one state acting alone, nor can it survive when partners are reduced to spectators of unilateral action they neither shaped nor endorsed.
Eroding Trust in the Rules-Based Order
For many countries in Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, and beyond, consistency is the currency of trust. These states have long memories of foreign intervention cloaked in moral rhetoric. The sudden shift in U.S. policy toward Venezuela will be read, and judged, through that prism.
Strategic rivals will seize upon this moment to argue that the rules-based order is not universal, but selective, enforced where convenient and ignored when expedient. Smaller states, watching closely, may conclude that aligning with such an inconsistent framework offers little security when sovereignty can be overridden at a moment’s notice.
Exceptionalism or “A Dangerous Precedent”?
Renowned economist, Jeffrey D. Sachs, president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, during an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on Monday, January 5, 2026 in New York City, warned against the unilateral use of force against a sovereign nation to determine its political future or to exercise control over its affairs, in the following words:
“This question goes directly to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The Council must decide whether that prohibition is to be upheld or abandoned. Abandoning it would carry consequences of the gravest kind.”.
Supporters of the US administration may contend this is an exceptional case, justified by purported humanitarian concerns or the threat of criminal networks within Venezuela’s leadership. But exceptions that escalate into direct military seizure and governance risk becoming the norm. Precedents matter in international politics: a rule that applies only some of the time quickly becomes no rule at all.
If the rules-based order is to be more than a slogan, it must apply even when inconvenient. Sovereignty cannot be conditional, and international law cannot be wielded as a strategic tool of convenience. Otherwise, the very framework meant to restrain power dissolves into the arbitrary exercise of it.
Trump, US Military Intervention, and Implications for India
Before entering Venezuela, President Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy marked a departure from decades of American engagement abroad. While his Democratic and Republican predecessors often endorsed interventions in foreign lands, whether in Iraq, Libya, or Syria, Trump positioned himself rhetorically as opposed to such wars, framing them as costly, unnecessary, and a distraction from “America First” priorities. This posture won domestic applause for rejecting prolonged military engagements, yet it also revealed the contradictions and unpredictabilities inherent in American power projection. Despite his public opposition to foreign wars, instances like the US intervention in Venezuela highlight a “discretionary militarism”. When US interests with respect to the geopolitical influence, countering adversaries, or global energy leverage are perceived to be at stake, military action remains a tool that Trump is willing to aggressively endorse, bypassing both domestic and international conventions.
Consequently, the ongoing geopolitical debates are increasingly being reshaped by the newly coined term “the Don-roe Doctrine” —Trump’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine— which repurposes a nineteenth-century framework of U.S. power projection to justify a more assertive and interventionist American posture across the Western Hemisphere.
India, observing these developments, faces a complex set of challenges. India traditionally supports peaceful dialogue and adherence to international law.
Since the Russian military interventions in Ukraine, Prime Minister Narendra Modi echoed the rhetoric of restraint, emphasising that “this is not an era of war.” India’s statement was consistent with its long-standing foreign policy principle of strategic autonomy and non-intervention, and projected an image of a responsible middle power committed to diplomacy and international law.
However, in the case of Venezuela, the Indian government publicly called the situation a “matter of deep concern” and urged dialogue, without making clear reference to the US actions and the violations of the international laws.
India’s hedging or muted criticism of US interventions in Venezuela reflects a tacit accommodation to the realities of great power politics. This apparent U-turn, while pragmatically understandable, carries multiple implications for India’s credibility, strategic posture, and international influence.
First, repeated rhetorical reversals risk eroding India’s moral authority. By alternating between principled statements and diplomatic accommodation, India creates a perception that its foreign policy is situational rather than grounded in consistent norms. This perception undermines India’s ability to position itself as a leading voice of the Global South and diminishes its soft power in multilateral forums like BRICS, G20 and ASEAN-related forums.
Second, the episode highlights the limits and evolving nature of India’s strategic autonomy. While India seeks to maintain independence in its foreign policy, the realities of economic interdependence, defence partnerships, and technological reliance on the United States constrain the practical expression of autonomy. Selective alignment with US positions may provide short-term advantages, yet it risks transforming strategic autonomy from a principle of judgment into a transactional calculus, reactive to the preferences of more powerful actors.
Third, India’s approach to US interventions has long-term implications for its own security environment. When unilateral military action by powerful states becomes normalized, it undermines the international legal frameworks that smaller or middle powers rely upon. India benefits from norms that restrain stronger powers, whether in border disputes (e.g. with China), maritime claims, or multilateral negotiations. By appearing to condone or downplay such interventions, India weakens the very rules that protect its own sovereignty.
Finally, for young Indians, these developments are consequential. The world shaped by selective interventionism and weakening international norms is one of higher instability, economic unpredictability, and contested power hierarchies. India aspires to be a global leader, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and a shaper of multilateral norms. Achieving this vision requires consistent principled engagement, not merely short-term accommodation. Ambiguity may buy time in the present, but it incurs a credibility cost that could constrain India’s influence in the decades to come.
A Moment for Reflection
What is unfolding in Venezuela is more than a geopolitical flashpoint. It may well be an inflection point for the international system itself, one that demands urgent reflection on America’s role as a normative leader. The United States may believe it can compartmentalise its actions, asserting force in Venezuela while championing restraint elsewhere, but international politics does not work that way. Norms are global, and credibility is indivisible.
If Washington wishes to lead a coalition in defence of international law, it must first demonstrate that those rules bind its own conduct, even when doing so is inconvenient, slow, or politically costly. Otherwise, the rules-based order risks becoming precisely what its critics have long claimed: an instrument of power, not a restraint upon it.
Can Young India Afford to be a Bystander?
In conclusion, Trump’s selective opposition to foreign wars exposes a broader challenge for India: navigating a world in which great powers act unilaterally while preserving principles of strategic autonomy, international law, and restraint. India’s initial rhetorical stance of “not an era of war” reflects normative commitment, but its subsequent hedging reveals the tension between principle and realpolitik. How India resolves this tension will shape not only its international standing but also the global environment that the next generation of Indians will inherit. In this context, it is the moral duty of young Indians and the Indian diaspora to actively shape global discourse against the normalisation of anarchy and unilateral use of force in international relations, as such engagement is consistent with India’s civilizational and anticolonial ethos, democratic values, and long-standing aspiration to be a stabilising, rule-abiding power rather than a passive bystander.