The prevalent belief about the stability of the rules based world order has been badly shaken in the aftermath of recent US actions.
This tradition dates back to the days of Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German philosopher. It is based on his theory of ‘perpetual peace’. Since then, this school has evolved markedly. One of the most important contributions of this school of thought is the notion of a rules-based world order; this denotes the idea that international law and norms impose costs on nation-states that pursue an aggressive foreign policy, particularly actions that threaten the existence of other states, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and stability.
The idea, however, has been severely weakened in the wake of recent U.S. actions on Venezuela.
On January 3, American armed forces raided Caracas, the capital of Venezuela and abducted the president Nicolas Maduro and his spouse and flew back to the U.S. shores. This ‘extraordinary military operation,’ termed Operation Absolute Resolve, has shocked the adherents of the rules based world order.
In this context, it becomes essential to understand the implications of the U.S. action.
Law of the Jungle is back
In On the Origin of Species, the British biologist Charles Darwin propounded the theory of evolution. As a part of that theory, he pointed out the idea that in order to survive, species, whether flora or fauna, have to develop special anatomical features that enable them to survive in the harsh natural landscape. This idea came to be called the ‘law of the jungle,’ i.e., only the fittest among different species will survive. This mode of survival is, however, dependent on competition and species outcompeting each other for dominance.
This idea can, therefore, be extrapolated to the context of the U.S. actions in Venezuela. Contrary to the moral high ground the American leadership, institutions, and armed forces take in regard to upholding global law, the American action clearly involved regime change.
Such action, unfortunately, is a part of a broader American trend in regard to its actions in the Western hemisphere. Since the 20th century, successive American governments have intervened more than forty times in the internal affairs of Latin American states, either to orchestrate a regime change or to ensure the presence of a regime that can toe the US line.
Resource Politics at the Cost of Internal Stability
Mineral resources have always played a critical role in human history. Coal, oil, natural gas were the flashpoints of global power contestation in the past and now rare earth minerals dominate the discourse. However, oil politics is back, this time with a vengeance.
The US administration has made it absolutely clear that its intervention in Venezuela is aimed at dominating the global oil market. At 300 billion tonnes, Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, accounting for a fifth of global oil reserves. In announcing its intention to run Venezuela, the Trump administration has made it explicitly clear that it will tap Venezuela’s oil reserves, appropriate it and sell it globally.
But the bigger issue at stake is this—what about the internal stability of such countries? History is replete with incidents where, under the garb of democracy promotion under liberal interventionism, America ended up extinguishing the future of entire populations, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, to name a few. Today, these countries are either in the midst of civil wars or are grappling with terrorism and sectarianism.
Ironically, this intervention was not available when it came to addressing genuine humanitarian crises, like in Sudan and Yemen, primarily because these countries are not only not important in terms of what they can bring to the global resource table but also because of the racialized nature of humanitarian concerns.
Hence, internal stability and legitimate concerns of the ordinary masses is an afterthought for America and its allies in the West when it comes to exploiting other countries.
Lessons for the Global South
Henry Kissinger, the late career diplomat and academic, said, “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” Extremely pertinent in today’s day and age, the American actions hold important lessons for the Global South:
First, spheres of influence are back. The 2025 U.S National Security Strategy has revived the Monroe Doctrine, underlining how the U.S. prioritizes its primacy in the western hemisphere and will do whatever it takes to maintain it. Accordingly, powers like China and India, among others, must emphasize on the need to create an alternative global compact concerning the sovereign stability of the Global South.
Second, the largely muted reactions within European circles against the American action are reflective of the fact that Europe, through its silence, is granting tacit approval to the audacious American action. This sends a clear message to the Global South that they cannot expect any support from the European public opinion in the event of such an incident against their country. Hence, self-help for the sake of survival becomes the de facto necessity.
Therefore, it is clear that the brazen American intervention in Venezuela will have largely negative repercussions, which the world may witness in the coming period of time.
Pranay Kumar Shome, a research analyst who is a PhD candidate at Mahatma Gandhi Central University, Bihar, India
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
