Maduro’s capture not unprecedented, reflects US enforcement of Western Hemisphere doctrine, says commentator

New Delhi, January 5. A new commentary has argued that the US operation leading to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro should not be viewed as unprecedented, but rather as a continuation of Washington’s long-standing policy of enforcing its sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Responding to expressions of shock from parts of the media, Calvin Cheng, Honorary Consul of Serbia in Singapore, in a Facebook post, drew parallels with the 1989 US invasion of Panama, when American forces captured the country’s de facto ruler Manuel Noriega and took him to the US to stand trial. That episode, the author noted, demonstrated that Washington has previously used direct military force to remove and detain leaders in the Americas.

The analysis placed the latest US action in the context of the Monroe Doctrine, first articulated by President James Monroe in 1823, which holds that any external interference in the affairs of the Americas is to be regarded by the US as a hostile act. Over time, the doctrine has come to be interpreted as asserting the region as Washington’s exclusive sphere of influence.

According to the commentary, this approach was reaffirmed and expanded in the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy released in November 2025, which declared the entire Western Hemisphere to be within the US sphere of influence – a position described as a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine.

The capture of Maduro was also linked to growing Chinese and Russian involvement in Venezuela. China, described as Venezuela’s largest customer of crude oil, has supported the Maduro government and supplied military equipment, including fighter jets and radar systems. Chinese naval vessels were reportedly deployed to the Gulf of Paria in August 2025 to monitor US activity, and Chinese presidential envoys had just concluded talks with Maduro when the US strike was launched.

All of Venezuela’s air and radar defences were said to have been dismantled within hours of the US operation, underscoring what Cheng described as the overwhelming effectiveness of American military power in the region.

The commentary further argued that the US is not unique in enforcing spheres of influence. China, it said, treats its surrounding regions as its strategic domain, pointing to its security relationship with North Korea and its 1979 war with Vietnam. Russia, likewise, has repeatedly used force to protect its interests in the Caucasus and, more recently, in Ukraine.

Against this backdrop, the author maintained that international politics is driven more by power and interests than by moral principles or legal ideals. While international law is a desirable goal, it should not be mistaken as the primary driver of state behaviour, the piece argued.

The analysis concluded by asserting that the US remains the world’s pre-eminent superpower and that hopes of groupings such as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), or even China, acting as an effective counterweight are misplaced. For smaller states such as Singapore, Cheng said, foreign policy should therefore be guided by pragmatic self-interest rather than moralistic or ideological positions.