The United States' recent military intervention in Venezuela, culminating in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, has drawn sharp international condemnation and reignited debates about Washington’s historical influence in Latin America. Analysts argue the operation reflects a resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine, a 19th-century policy asserting U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere, now framed through modern military and political tactics.
Chinese Foreign Ministry officials condemned the strikes as a “blatant violation of international law,” emphasizing that unilateral actions undermine regional stability. “Such hegemonic acts threaten peace and sovereignty across Latin America,” a spokesperson stated, aligning with broader global concerns over the precedent set by forcible regime change.
Critics highlight the contradiction in U.S. rhetoric advocating democracy while deploying military force to remove elected leaders. The operation, justified by labeling Maduro a “narco-terrorist,” has sparked protests across Latin America, where many view it as a return to Cold War-era interventionism. “Elections matter only until they conflict with U.S. interests,” noted one Caracas-based political analyst.
The Monroe Doctrine, initially framed as a shield against European colonialism, has long been criticized for enabling U.S. hegemony. Today’s strikes, critics argue, mirror past interventions that prioritized strategic control over self-determination, often exacerbating instability. Experts warn that such actions risk fueling anti-American sentiment and fragmenting regional partnerships on climate, migration, and economic integration.
As Venezuela grapples with the aftermath, the international community faces urgent questions about the erosion of sovereignty norms and the future of hemispheric relations in an era of shifting global power dynamics.
