US intervention in Venezuela revives debate over ‘gunboat diplomacy’

ANKARA

A US military operation in Venezuela that led to the capture of Venezuelan Head of State Nicolas Maduro has sparked renewed global debate over “gunboat diplomacy,” a term historically associated with the use of military force to achieve political objectives.

The Jan. 3 operation, conducted by the US Defense Department, began with an assault on Maduro’s residence in Caracas.

US Special Forces, supported by naval and air units, overpowered coastal defenses and detained Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

The couple was later taken to Manhattan, where they appeared before a federal court on charges of “narco-terrorism.”

While Washington insisted the operation was “not a military intervention” but a judicial arrest carried out under the authority of US courts, many countries describe it as a military intervention targeting a sovereign state as well as the forcible extradition of its head of state.

This incident has been cited as a contemporary example of “gunboat diplomacy,” the direct use of military power to produce diplomatic and political results, a method not new in US history.

Definition and evolution of gunboat diplomacy

Gunboat diplomacy refers to the use or threat of military force to achieve foreign policy goals instead of negotiation or compromise.

Although the practice is not unique to the US, its most prominent historical examples stem from major military powers since the 19th century.

The UK, as a dominant naval force in the 1800s, used its fleets to secure trade privileges in China and across the Asia-Pacific region.

France employed similar tactics in North and Sub-Saharan Africa to expand and maintain political influence during and after the colonial period.

The former Soviet Union exerted pressure on allied states during the Cold War through military bases and naval deployments, a practice continued by Russia today in the form of security assistance and military projection.

More recently, China has used its navy and coast guard to assert de facto control in the South China Sea, combining military presence with diplomatic maneuvering.

While these cases illustrate the broad application of gunboat diplomacy, the US has often stood out for direct military interventions and the apprehension of foreign leaders.

Historic examples in US foreign policy

This approach has roots in the Monroe Doctrine, which framed Latin America as a US sphere of influence. In 1903, the US deployed naval forces during Panama’s separation from Colombia to exert pressure on regional actors.

A widely cited precedent occurred in 1989 when the US launched “Operation Just Cause” in Panama.

Then-President Manuel Noriega, accused of drug trafficking and ties to organized crime, was captured by US forces after taking refuge in the Vatican Embassy. He was later tried and convicted in Florida.

Such operations illustrate how the US has historically used military power not only in warfare but also to achieve political and legal outcomes.

Risks of setting a precedent

Speaking to Anadolu, Professor Bruce E. Cain of Stanford University’s Department of Political Science called the Venezuela operation “impressive” in execution but “ethically controversial and precedent-setting.”

He noted that prior to the operation, US forces had attacked Venezuelan ships in the Caribbean on drug smuggling allegations.

Cain said public reaction to the cost of the Maduro operation was reflected in polling data and could negatively affect US President Donald Trump in upcoming midterm elections.

While Republicans view this as a return to the glory days of American hegemony, he emphasized that most Americans reject such a regression.

On the international law implications of forcibly removing a sitting head of state, Cain said the act could be justifiable if the leader initiates or plans an attack on the US.

He cited the US invasion of Afghanistan following the Sept. 11 attacks as precedent, but warned that framing Maduro as a threat to the US becomes a pretext for other actions, and it also legitimizes the aggressions of leaders such as Putin, China, and others against sovereign nations.

The resurgence of gunboat diplomacy through the Venezuela case raises concerns about its broader ramifications for international order and state sovereignty.