The Global Impact of Transferring Venezuela’s President to the United States
The decision by the Trump administration to forcibly transfer Venezuela’s president to the United States has triggered strong criticism across the international community. Many democratic nations argue that the move threatens national sovereignty and violates fundamental principles of international law, including the United Nations Charter. China, too, has condemned the action, describing it as a dangerous example of “changing the status quo by force.” As diplomatic tensions rise, an important question emerges: How will this incident affect other major powers, particularly China and Russia?
There are two sharply contrasting ways to interpret the international consequences of this event.
The first view focuses on the precedent the United States has set by using coercive power to alter another country’s political reality. From this perspective, Washington’s action risks becoming a model for other powers. If a leading democracy claims the right to remove a foreign head of state and bring him before its own courts, China and Russia may feel emboldened to justify similar behavior in the future. In this reading, the incident does not restrain aggressive states—it encourages them. What was once widely condemned as unlawful intervention may gradually become normalized as “great power politics.”
The second view emphasizes not the precedent, but the power behind the action. Here, the focus is on the overwhelming military and political capability of the United States. Seen in this light, the transfer of Venezuela’s president sends a clear and forceful message: the United States is willing and able to act decisively when it believes its interests or values are at stake. Rather than inspiring imitation, this show of resolve may serve as a warning to China and Russia that any attempt to reshape the international order by force could invite a powerful response. From this standpoint, the incident functions not as encouragement for aggression, but as a deterrent.
Which interpretation is more convincing depends largely on the assumptions one brings to international politics.
Those who fear that this action will encourage further aggression tend to begin from a principled framework: that sovereign states are fundamentally equal, and that international order must rest on mutual respect, legal norms, and restraint. From this perspective, any instance of unilateral coercion—no matter how morally justified it may appear—undermines the fragile architecture of international law. Once such behavior is tolerated, the rules that protect smaller and weaker nations begin to erode.
By contrast, those who see the incident as a deterrent start from a more hard-edged realism. In their view, ideals such as sovereignty and legal equality matter, but only insofar as they are backed by credible power. History, they argue, shows that international politics is ultimately shaped not by principles alone, but by the balance of force. From this standpoint, America’s action, while legally controversial, demonstrates a reality that China and Russia already understand well: in moments of crisis, military and strategic strength often outweigh abstract norms.
Recent events lend weight to this realist interpretation. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s effective dismantling of the “one country, two systems” framework in Hong Kong reveal a shared belief that power, not principle, defines outcomes. Both governments have shown a willingness to accept international criticism when it conflicts with what they see as core national interests. It is from this same worldview that they are likely to interpret the U.S. action toward Venezuela—not as a legal debate, but as a strategic signal.
Moreover, some analysts argue that this episode cannot be understood solely through the lens of human rights or legal accountability. They point to the strategic context: China’s expanding influence in Latin America, particularly its investments in Venezuelan oil, has increasingly concerned Washington. If this is true, the forced transfer of Venezuela’s president may represent not just a moral stance, but a move in a broader contest for geopolitical influence.
Taking all of this into account, it seems likely that the incident will, in practice, function as a form of deterrence for both China and Russia. By demonstrating a willingness to act decisively and unilaterally, the United States has reminded rival powers that it retains unmatched global reach. This reality may lead them to calculate more carefully before undertaking similarly bold actions of their own.
Yet acknowledging this potential deterrent effect does not resolve the deeper problem. Even if the move yields short-term strategic advantages, it leaves unresolved—and perhaps worsens—the long-term crisis of international law. A world in which power consistently overrides legal norms may offer temporary stability through fear, but it does so at the cost of predictability, legitimacy, and trust. Over time, such a system becomes more volatile, not less.
The transfer of Venezuela’s president to the United States therefore stands as more than a single controversial decision. It is a test case for the kind of international order we are moving toward. Are we returning to a world where might makes right, or can we still sustain a system in which power is restrained by law? For Americans who value both security and justice, this question deserves serious reflection—not only for what it means today, but for the world it will shape tomorrow.
--------
Created with ChatGPT
日本語版はこちら
https://blog.kuma-farm-japan.jp/article/519648210.html?1767706828