Title: The Erosion of the Rules-Based Order: U.S. Intervention in Venezuela and Its Implications for the Asia-Pacific
Abstract
The 2026 U.S. military operation in Venezuela, culminating in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, has sparked widespread concern in the Asia-Pacific region. This paper examines the growing unease among Asian nations, emphasizing how the intervention challenges the rules-based international order and exacerbates vulnerabilities in a region already marked by territorial disputes. By analyzing official reactions and scholarly commentary, the study highlights the perceived contradiction in U.S. foreign policy, the potential for destabilizing precedents, and the broader implications for global governance. The analysis underscores the strategic dilemma faced by U.S. allies and partners in balancing security commitments with the erosion of legal norms.
- Introduction
The United States’ 2026 intervention in Venezuela, a covert operation resulting in the arrest of sitting President Nicolás Maduro on U.S. federal charges, has ignited controversy and unease across the Asia-Pacific region. This incident, framed as a unilateral act of force beyond the bounds of international law, has been met with critical reflections on the U.S. role as a guardian of the rules-based international order. Asian states, many of which confront territorial disputes with powerful neighbors, view this episode as a harbinger of a “might-makes-right” paradigm, undermining long-standing legal and diplomatic frameworks. This paper explores the concerns articulated by policymakers and analysts in countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, India, and South Korea, focusing on the implications for regional stability and the future of global governance. - The Venezuela Incident and the Challenge to the Rules-Based Order
The U.S. operation in Venezuela, which bypassed the UN Charter and norms of sovereignty, was decried as a violation of international law. Key concerns included the absence of legal justification, the disregard for diplomatic channels, and the use of force against a sovereign leader. Analysts argue that the intervention mirrors historical patterns of U.S. unilateralism, such as the 2003 Iraq War, but its proximity to 2026—if not later—highlights a shift in U.S. foreign policy under the Trump 2.0 administration toward prioritizing strategic interests over institutional norms. This departure from the traditional U.S. role as a defender of multilateralism has raised alarms among Asian states reliant on international law to counterbalance rising powers like China. - Asia-Pacific Reactions and Concerns
3.1 The Philippines: Moral Compromise and Strategic Vulnerability
Philippines opposition leader Leila de Lima directly linked the Venezuela incident to Manila’s confrontations with China in the South China Sea. She argued that the U.S. action undermined the Philippines’ moral authority to challenge Chinese assertiveness, citing the West Philippine Sea disputes. While the Philippine government maintained a restrained stance, calling for UN Charter compliance, the episode exposed a crisis of legitimacy in advocating for sovereignty. This tension underscores the fragility of U.S. alliances in regions reliant on American security guarantees.
3.2 Indonesia: Diplomatic Caution and Normative Warnings
Indonesia’s foreign ministry expressed “deep concern” over the use of force, emphasizing the risks of setting a destabilizing precedent. The archipelago nation, which navigates complex relationships with China, India, and the U.S., has long championed multilateralism. Its response reflects a broader Southeast Asian sentiment that unilateral actions erode trust in global institutions and embolden geopolitical rivals.
3.3 Singapore: Grave Concern for Sovereignty and Stability
Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs articulated a strong stance against foreign intervention, stressing the importance of sovereignty and UN Charter principles. As a small state in a geopolitically volatile region, Singapore’s emphasis on legal norms reflects its reliance on predictable international rules to protect its interests. The Venezuela incident, however, signals a potential breakdown in the governance mechanisms Singapore depends on.
3.4 Japan: Editorial Criticism and Government Indirectness
Japanese media, including the Yomiuri Shimbun, warned that the U.S. action risks fragmenting an already strained international order. Former defense minister Itsunori Onodera labeled it “changing the status quo by force,” a caution relevant to Japan’s concerns over China’s activities in the East China Sea. While Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi avoided direct criticism, her muted response highlights the delicate balancing act required to manage U.S.-Japan security ties amid normative anxieties.
3.5 India: Strategic Autonomy and Selective Concern
India’s response, marked by “deep concern” without explicit condemnation of the U.S., reflects its strategy of maintaining neutrality amid great power rivalries. Scholars note that India’s reluctance to criticize the U.S. aligns with its trade negotiations and strategic partnerships. However, parallels with India’s non-condemnation of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reveal a pragmatic approach rather than a principled stance on sovereignty.
3.6 South Korea: Balancing Acts in a Fractured Order
South Korea’s reactions remain muted, likely due to its reliance on U.S. security assurances and cautious diplomacy with both the U.S. and China. Analysts suggest that the incident could complicate Seoul’s ability to advocate for peaceful resolutions in the Korean Peninsula context, particularly as regional tensions with North Korea persist.
- Implications for Regional and Global Stability
The Venezuela episode amplifies fears of a global shift toward unilateralism, where powerful states reinterpret international law to serve their interests. For Asia-Pacific states, this trend heightens the risks of territorial disputes escalating into conflicts. The perceived hypocrisy in U.S. behavior—advocating for norms while violating them—weakens deterrence against China and Russia, which might exploit such ambiguity. The erosion of trust in multilateral institutions also imperils collective efforts to address transnational challenges, from climate change to cybersecurity. - The Role of the United States in Shifting Norms
Political scientists Aries Arugay and Tosh Minohara argue that U.S. policy under Trump 2.0 signals a deliberate abandonment of the rules-based order, which has historically aligned U.S. interests with global stability. The Venezuela incident, they contend, epitomizes a transactional approach to governance rather than a commitment to institutional integrity. This shift, if sustained, could fracture alliances and empower revisionist powers to challenge existing norms unilaterally. - Conclusion
The U.S. intervention in Venezuela has crystallized deepening anxieties in the Asia-Pacific about the fragility of the rules-based international order. For states navigating territorial disputes and power rivalries, the episode underscores the risks of a world governed by might over law. As Asian nations recalibrate their strategies in response, the long-term implications for global governance and regional peace remain uncertain. Restoring faith in international institutions and recommitting to legal norms may prove essential to preventing further erosion of the order all nations—great and small—depend on.
References
Article Summary: “Growing unease in Asia-Pacific as US strike on Venezuela challenges rules-based order,” The Straits Times, January 6, 2026.
Arugay, A. (2026). The Trump 2.0 Pivot: Unilateralism and Asia-Pacific Stability. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
Minohara, T. (2026). U.S. Power and the Malleability of International Law. Research Institute for Indo-Pacific Affairs.
Joshi, M. (2025). “India’s Strategic Autonomy in a Fragmented World.” Observer Research Foundation.
UN Charter. (1945). Principles of Sovereignty and Non-Intervention.