U.S. Removal of Maduro Sparks Debate Over Global Spheres of Influence and Taiwan

U.S. military forces seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his spouse, Cilia Flores, on 3 January and transported the pair to New York to face drug-trafficking and terrorism charges. The operation, carried out without prior public warning, has drawn sharp criticism from several foreign governments and has intensified discussion about how Washington’s action might reverberate in other geopolitical flashpoints, notably the Taiwan Strait.

The White House has framed the mission as consistent with its recently published National Security Strategy, which revives elements of the Monroe Doctrine and describes a “Trump Corollary” that reasserts U.S. predominance in the Western Hemisphere. Supporters of President Donald Trump hailed the removal as a decisive step against alleged criminality at the highest level of the Venezuelan state. Detractors, however, contend that physically detaining a sitting head of state sets a precedent that could embolden other major powers to pursue similar unilateral measures.

Among those raising alarms is David Roche of Quantum Strategy, who warned that Washington’s willingness to oust a foreign leader by force could encourage nations such as Russia or China to claim comparable latitude in their own neighborhoods. He argued that the move simultaneously expands the scope of threats and grants “permissions” for authoritarian regimes to pursue territorial ambitions.

Other analysts question whether Beijing will frame the U.S. action as justification for a military push against Taiwan. Carlos Gutierrez, a former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, described China’s partnership with Venezuela as largely transactional and doubted that the episode would prompt an immediate policy shift in East Asia. He predicted forceful rhetoric from Chinese officials but no near-term escalation beyond statements of condemnation.

China’s Foreign Ministry expressed strong opposition, labeling the U.S. strike a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and calling it a “hegemonic act.” Beijing demanded that Washington refrain from interventions it views as infringing on the independence and security of other nations. The United Nations Secretary-General also voiced concern, saying the operation appeared to contravene international legal norms and could set a “dangerous precedent.”

Pressure on Taiwan Already Building

Well before the detention of Maduro, Beijing had intensified military activities around Taiwan. In late December, the People’s Liberation Army conducted live-fire drills encircling the island, a maneuver Chinese authorities characterized as a warning against what they term foreign interference. During his New Year’s address, President Xi Jinping reiterated that unification with Taiwan is inevitable.

Ryan Hass, a former U.S. diplomat now at the Brookings Institution, cautioned against drawing a straight line from events in Venezuela to Chinese calculations on Taiwan. Writing on social media, he noted that Beijing has traditionally relied on coercive tactics short of outright invasion and is likely to focus on contrasting its own position with that of the United States rather than altering its approach abruptly.

Strategists point out that Washington continues to signal support for Taipei. In December, the U.S. approved an $11 billion arms package for Taiwan, consistent with the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which obliges the United States to furnish the island with defensive weaponry. Although Washington maintains no mutual defense treaty with Taipei, the arms sales underline a long-standing commitment to Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities.

Imagem: Internet

Debate Over Spheres of Influence

The concept of spheres of influence—regions where great powers seek predominant sway without formal annexation—has re-emerged at the center of the debate. Marko Papic of BCA Research observed that the current U.S. administration appears more comfortable than its recent predecessors with other major powers having distinct zones of influence, yet remains opposed to any expansion of those zones. He added that China may see advantage in delaying decisive action on Taiwan while Washington’s attention remains fixed on the Western Hemisphere.

Evan Feigenbaum of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace predicted that the United States would resist any Chinese bid to formalize an Asian sphere of influence even as it defends its own in the Americas. He argued that inconsistencies in U.S. policy are likely to persist, with Washington attempting to maintain strategic primacy close to home while denying similar privileges to competitors elsewhere.

Against this backdrop, experts remain divided on whether the forcible removal of a foreign leader will ultimately embolden or restrain other great powers. Some contend that the operation undermines long-standing norms and may lower the threshold for intervention; others believe global reactions will be mostly rhetorical and will not materially affect the balance of power in contested regions such as the Taiwan Strait.

While immediate consequences are still unfolding, the episode has spotlighted enduring questions about unilateral action, international law, and the future of geopolitical competition. With both Washington and Beijing monitoring each other’s moves, analysts expect heightened scrutiny of any developments that could shift calculations over Taiwan in the coming years.

For background on U.S.–Taiwan relations, the Council on Foreign Relations provides a detailed timeline of key events (cfr.org).

Crédito da imagem: Getty Images