Is Gunboat Diplomacy Back ?

Exactly thirty-six years after the US invaded Panama and captured its de facto ruler, General Manuel Noriega, it abducted the leader of another Latin American nation, Venezuela, on January 3, 2026. But the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro, the sitting President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and his wife Cilia Adela Flores, has delivered global shocks, triggering condemnations from both adversaries and allies of the US. The act of military aggression against another sovereign nation has blatantly violated international law and the UN Charter. It has effectively ditched the Westphalian system, which stipulates that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territories and that no state should intervene in its internal affairs. 

Under President Donald Trump, the US has apparently returned to gunboat diplomacy, widely executed in the 19th century, an age of imperialism, when naked power, coercion and military invasion characterised the foreign policy. Even the US Constitution does not allow its government or president to invade other nations at will. By attacking Venezuela, Trump, dead-set on implementing the ‘Donroe doctrine’, has unleashed new geopolitical warfare as the world is gradually inching towards a multipolar order. However blunt, impulsive and unpredictable, Trump did not mince words while disclosing the motive of assaulting Venezuela. He said he would ‘run Venezuela’ and the US oil companies would go there to spend money to take back the oil. “… frankly, we should have taken it back a long time ago. A lot of money is coming out of the ground,” he said, adding that the companies will pay the cost of the military operation.

Mockery of democracy 

The United States of America claims to represent a liberal order, democracy, and human rights. Is it the same America whose president rejoices in the kidnapping of an elected president of an independent nation for the sole purpose of extracting its natural resources? This sounds bizarre. Trump’s move has sharply divided the US domestic politics, too. The democratic establishment was rocked by Trump’s military adventure that killed at least 100 people in Venezuela. There is a chorus of condemnation from former vice president Kamala Harris and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to Senator Bernie Sanders and New York's new Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Harris called the capture of Maduro and his wife ‘unlawful and unwise.’

Sanders, a voice of the American working class, has said that Trump has, once again, shown his contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. Schumer said, “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans." Mamdani has a stronger opposition to Trump’s hegemonic action. “Unilaterally attacking a sovereign nation is an act of war and a violation of federal and international law,” he said.

As Trump did not take the authorisation of Congress for the military blitz, the Senate has forwarded a bipartisan resolution to prevent him from carrying out further military action in Venezuela. Five Republican senators, including Rand Paul and Josh Hawley, have backed the measure. They became furious with Trump when the latter, in a recent interview with the New York Times, asserted that only his "own morality" could limit his military actions in the world and that he doesn't "need international law." As the Republicans control both the Senate and the House of Representatives, it is unlikely that the motion will see the day. But it signifies the currents of tumultuous US politics and can be a reference point for its military behaviours abroad in the coming years.

The US attack on Venezuela bears broader geopolitical implications. Political scientist John Mearsheimer terms it a ‘desperate act of an empire in decline’. A powerful hegemon has other tools – diplomatic persuasion and economic strength – to fulfil its interests. When its economic and soft powers weaken, military action becomes the final option for survival. Mearsheimer argues that Venezuela has become the first proxy battlefield for incumbent and rising superpowers in the multipolar setting. The US military action has set a ‘dangerous precedent’ in international relations but this has, at the same time, given diplomatic leverage to its adversaries, as its European allies – except for Spain, the Netherlands and Norway - have fudged their response to its egregious move. 

Russia, China and Iran swiftly coordinated to denounce and isolate the US at the UN Security Council meeting, presenting themselves as the defender of international law, the principle of equal sovereignty and multilateralism. China has been investing in the UN and non-UN organisations for decades. This is now paying off as the US under Trump is withdrawing its support from them.  Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs’s roaring speech delivered to the Security Council on January 5 via video offers insight into the motives of the US's scores of military interventions in foreign countries in the past.

Principles of sovereignty

Meanwhile, Nepal’s Foreign Ministry has called for fully respecting the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of states, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The statement is interpreted as an indirect rebuke to Trump’s reckless military adventurism in Venezuela. Nepal urged to solve disputes peacefully through dialogue, diplomacy, and mutual understanding.

The US has demonstrated its military excellence, cyber capability and intelligence gathering while striking Venezuela and capturing its leader in the dead of night. However, military superiority alone does not ensure the long-term success of an operation until it is backed by civilian support. Hours after Maduro was taken to the US, Delcy Eloína Rodríguez was sworn in as the acting president of the country. The daughter of a Marxist leader, Rodriguez has now become an icon of resistance, foiling the US attempt at regime change. Hundreds of thousands of people filled the streets of Caracas against a US military attack and Maduro’s abduction. This shows he still commands popular support at home, which challenges the US court to convict Maduro on narco-terrorism and other charges. 

(The author is the Deputy Executive Editor of this daily.)