Concerns grow that US arrest of Maduro may be justified

The ancient Greek historian Thucydides once wrote, “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” Echoing this maxim, the United States launched an attack on Venezuela on January 3, arresting President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in a surprise raid.

The couple were sent to New York on drug and terrorism charges, and the legality of the attack drew harsh criticism from foreign governments. The operation also reignited debate about whether Washington is trying to restore a world where force brings justice.

Quantum Strategy’s David Roche told CNBC that the operation could weaken U.S. claims against similar actions by rivals.

“If Donald Trump can get in and take over that country, why is Putin wrong about Ukraine and why isn’t China entitled to take over Taiwan?” Roche said.

In its recently released National Security Strategy, the United States asserted the so-called “Trump Consequences” and revived the 1820s Monroe Doctrine, which gave the United States influence in the so-called “Western Hemisphere.”

A sphere of influence is an area in which a powerful power seeks to control political, military, and economic decisions without formally annexing territory.

This concept reflects Roosevelt’s conclusions that historically justified U.S. intervention in Latin America.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement that he was “deeply concerned that the rules of international law are not being respected” and called developments in Venezuela a “dangerous precedent”.

Roche warned that the measure could have unintended consequences. “On the one hand, you created a series of threats and, on the other hand, you gave a series of authorizations to any authoritarian, authoritarian regime that is currently attempting to take action to occupy territory outside of its scope.”

In Asia, attention is focused on whether China can increase pressure on Taiwan, which it considers part of its territory.

In December, China conducted live-fire drills around Taiwan as a warning against foreign interference.

In his New Year’s address, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that Taiwan’s unification was “unstoppable,” echoing U.S. intelligence assessments that Beijing could seek to take over the island by force within the next 10 years.

Ryan Hass, a former U.S. diplomat and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, cautioned against pointing out direct similarities.

“There will be an urge among foreign policy analysts to use the Taiwan analogy and warn about President Trump setting a precedent that Beijing could use against Taiwan. I would like to caution against that urge,” he wrote to X.

Hass said China has avoided direct military action against Taiwan not out of respect for international law or norms, but instead relies on non-violent coercion strategies.

“Rather than drawing inspiration from today’s events to change its approach to Taiwan, Beijing will focus on defending its interests, condemning the United States’ actions, and sharpening its contrast with the United States in the international system,” Hass wrote.

In a statement after the airstrike, China’s Foreign Ministry said it was “deeply shocked by the United States’ blatant use of force against a sovereign nation and its actions against its president, and we strongly condemn it.”

The Chinese government called the airstrike an “act of hegemony” and called on the United States to “stop violating the sovereignty and security of other countries.”

“The Trump administration is more comfortable with big powers like China and Russia having spheres of influence than any other U.S. administration in recent memory,” said Marko Papic, chief macro geopolitical strategist at BCA Research.

But that doesn’t mean the U.S. government will allow these countries to expand their orbits, he added.

Additionally, there appears to be no “abandonment” of Taiwan by the Trump administration, Papik told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia,” pointing to an $11 billion arms sale that Taiwan announced in December.

Although the United States does not have a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan, the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 requires the United States to provide Taiwan with the weapons it needs for self-defense.

Evan Feigenbaum of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argued that the United States is likely to pursue its own sphere of influence while denying it to China.

“The United States has no intention of ‘consenting’ to China’s sphere of influence in Asia,” Feigenbaum wrote in X magazine. “Instead, the United States may seek to assert its sphere of influence in its own hemisphere while denying China’s sphere of influence in Asia.”

“Let’s stop pretending that America is consistent and that there is no contradiction or hypocrisy in our foreign policy,” he added in another post.

Time is on China’s side, BCA Research’s Papic said, adding that China does not need to act immediately against Taiwan, but the US is likely to focus on the “Western Hemisphere”.

“Why risk the entire Western world uniting against[China]by effectively attempting military unification with Taiwan in January 2026? Why take the risk when the next decade is likely to take time on the Chinese side as the United States continues to focus on its near abroad rather than the entire world?”

—CNBC’s Chery Kang, Martin Soong and Amitoj Singh contributed to this report.