The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. Forces earlier this month, and his subsequent transfer to Florida to face narcoterrorism charges, has reopened a debate about the limits of American power and the enduring legacy of the Monroe Doctrine. While the legal basis for the operation has been intensely scrutinized domestically, the action itself represents a significant escalation in the application of force as an instrument of U.S. Foreign policy, raising concerns about precedent and the potential for further intervention in the region.
The operation, which took place on , drew a direct reference from President Donald Trump to the Monroe Doctrine, a principle formulated in 1823 that initially aimed to deter European powers from further colonization or interference in the Americas. However, as noted by observers, the doctrine has evolved significantly over time, and its invocation in this instance signals a more assertive, and potentially destabilizing, approach to regional affairs.
The historical trajectory of the Monroe Doctrine is crucial to understanding the current situation. Originally conceived as a defensive measure, it was later reinterpreted, particularly through the Roosevelt Corollary of 1904, to justify U.S. Intervention in Latin American countries deemed unstable or mismanaged. This shift, as highlighted by analysis of the doctrine’s history, transformed the principle from a shield against external interference into a justification for American dominance. Elihu Root, who helped construct the Roosevelt Corollary, later spent considerable effort attempting to “discipline” the doctrine, recognizing the inherent danger of unchecked power and the temptation to use force simply because it was available.
Root’s concern wasn’t with the outcome of specific interventions – in the case of a boundary dispute with Britain in 1895, London ultimately backed down – but with the precedent they set. A successful assertion of power, he argued, could easily become a template for future actions, leading to a cycle of interventionism. He advocated for international arbitration, multilateral institutions, and legal frameworks to constrain American power, even as the country’s influence grew. His efforts culminated in a narrower redefinition of the Monroe Doctrine in 1914, focusing on specific acts injurious to American peace and safety, a deliberate contrast to the broader claims of hemispheric sovereignty asserted earlier.
The Maduro case, however, represents a return to a more assertive application of power. While legally defensible under existing statutes, the seizure of a sitting head of state raises fundamental questions about international law and the norms governing relations between nations. The debate in Washington quickly centered on the legality of the action, but a more critical consideration, as some analysts point out, is whether such actions erode the foundations of a rules-based international order.
The administration’s focus has already shifted to Cuba, with Washington applying pressure through fuel interdiction, secondary sanctions, and emergency authorities. These measures, while legally grounded and presented as enforcement actions rather than intervention, represent a continuation of the same logic that justified the capture of Maduro. Each incremental step, This proves argued, creates a precedent that makes further escalation more likely.
This approach also carries implications for the broader international landscape. If the United States asserts a special prerogative to intervene in its own hemisphere, it becomes more difficult to reject similar claims by other powers. The parallels with Russia’s arguments regarding its “near abroad” – particularly in Ukraine and Georgia – are striking, even if the moral equivalence is not. While the nature of the interventions differs, the underlying logic of asserting influence within a defined sphere is similar enough to be exploited by adversaries and noticed by allies.
The situation is further complicated by the presence of a significant Venezuelan migrant population within the United States. Approximately 700,000 Venezuelans currently reside in the U.S., despite recent attempts to remove their temporary protected status, adding another layer of complexity to the geopolitical calculus. This demographic reality underscores the interconnectedness of U.S. Foreign policy and domestic concerns.
The challenge, as Root recognized, is to balance the exercise of power with the need for restraint. Sovereignty without discipline, he warned, invites decay. The question facing the United States is not simply whether it *can* act in a certain way, but whether doing so ultimately strengthens the international order it claims to lead, or erodes it through the accumulation of precedents. Power exercised without restraint, history suggests, rarely remains exceptional.
