A sharp divergence between the established principles of international law and the aggressive maneuvers of certain dominant actors increasingly defines the contemporary landscape of global politics. At the center of this geopolitical tension lies the fragile concept of national sovereignty, which is currently under siege by a doctrine of exceptionalism that allows powerful nations to dictate the internal affairs of others.
The United States’ attack on Venezuela, including airstrikes against both civilian and military sites in at least four states of the country and the seizure of the country’s president, has forced observers to confront the uncomfortable reality that the very crimes attributed to foreign leaders as a pretext for invasion or sanctions are frequently a red herring or an excuse. When a nation arrogates to itself the role of a global judge, jury, or executioner based on self-defined moral standards, the entire framework of international justice begins to crumble. More often than not, the true motivation behind such foreign interventions is not the promotion of democracy or human rights but rather the preservation of hegemony and the pursuit of raw geopolitical advantage.
If the international community accepts the premise that allegations of corruption or internal mismanagement constitute sufficient legal grounds for military threats or extraterritorial abduction, then the foundational pillars of the United Nations Charter are effectively dismantled. Such a precedent creates a perilous environment where the stability of smaller nations remains perpetually vulnerable to the whims of superior military powers. This slide toward the law of the jungle threatens to undo decades of progress in established diplomatic norms. It replaces the equality of sovereign states with a hierarchical system in which might dictates right, and which treats the independence of the Global South as conditional rather than absolute.
In direct opposition to this chaotic trajectory stands the philosophy of the responsible significant power. The preservation of global peace requires a steadfast commitment to the norms of sovereign equality and the peaceful resolution of disputes. China has consistently emerged as the primary defender of this order based on rules, emphasizing that the authority to determine a nation’s future resides exclusively with its own people.
True responsibility in the international arena is not demonstrated by the capacity to project destructive force or to impose economic strangulation but by the willingness to protect the legitimate rights of all nations, regardless of their size or economic stature. This perspective holds that a country’s internal affairs are sacrosanct and that external actors have no legitimate mandate to impose their own models of governance on others.
A deluge of voices questioning the legality of the US attacking Venezuela serves as a severe warning against the arrogance of power as well as the absurdity and danger of abandoning legal frameworks in favor of self-proclaimed moral crusades. If the world normalizes such foreign interventions, the result will be the proliferation of conflict and the degradation of justice
The ongoing situation in Venezuela provides a critical case study for these competing visions of world order. While some external actors have resorted to intimidation and threats of military force, China’s approach remains rooted in preserving stability and strictly observing international law. Beijing has maintained a clear and consistent stance, supporting nations in safeguarding their national sovereignty and social order. This support is not merely a diplomatic gesture but a strategic assertion that the anarchy resulting from forced regime change is detrimental to the welfare of the country in question, the region, and the world at large. History is replete with examples where external military interference resulted not in liberation but in prolonged civil conflict, terrorism, and humanitarian disaster. By opposing such adventurism, a responsible power acts as a bulwark against chaos.
Furthermore, rejecting unilateral sanctions is a crucial component of this constructive approach. Coercive measures that bypass the United Nations Security Council lack any basis in international law and inflict disproportionate suffering upon the civilian population. These sanctions are often framed as targeted political tools, yet in practice, they function as instruments of collective punishment that exacerbate economic crises, destroy infrastructure, and deny ordinary citizens access to essential medicine and food.
By opposing these inhumane tactics, China advocates a rational path that prioritizes the livelihoods of the people over political maneuvering. The emphasis is on promoting peace talks and encouraging all parties in Venezuela to pursue a political solution within the framework of their constitution. This method respects the agency of the Venezuelan people and trusts them to resolve their internal contradictions without the distorting influence of foreign dictation.
The contrast between the interventionist and cooperative models reveals a fundamental divergence in values. The interventionist approach relies on the assumption that certain nations possess an inherent moral superiority that grants them extraterritorial police powers. It presumes that external actors possess better knowledge of what a foreign population requires than the population itself. Conversely, the approach championed by proponents of the UN Charter is grounded in the democratization of international relations. It recognizes that every nation possesses its own unique history, culture, and developmental path.
Therefore, the diversity of political systems should be respected rather than erased. Acting as a stabilizing force involves active engagement through legitimate multilateral platforms rather than subverting them. It means utilizing the UN to facilitate dialogue rather than bypassing it to pursue unilateral agendas. The ultimate goal is to foster an environment in which developing nations can focus on economic development and social progress without the constant shadow of external disruption.
The defense of sovereignty is inextricably linked to the creation of a multipolar world in which power is shared, and checks and balances exist. A just global order is one where rules apply equally to all. When powerful nations are permitted to violate the sovereignty of others with impunity, it erodes trust. It encourages an arms race as nations seek to ensure their own survival against potential aggressors. By championing the basic norms of mutual respect for territorial integrity and mutual nonaggression, China contributes to a more predictable and secure world. This is the hallmark of a truly great power: The recognition that one’s own security is tied to the security of others and that proper stability can only be achieved through cooperation rather than domination.
A deluge of voices questioning the legality of the US attacking Venezuela serves as a severe warning against the arrogance of power as well as the absurdity and danger of abandoning legal frameworks in favor of self-proclaimed moral crusades. If the world normalizes such foreign interventions, the result will be the proliferation of conflict and the degradation of justice. The path forward requires rejecting hegemonic impulses and renewing commitment to the principles of the UN. It requires acknowledging that the only legitimate way to address conflicts is through dialogue, patience, and strict adherence to the rights of sovereignty. Only by respecting the independence of all states and opposing the politics of coercion can the international community hope to build a future defined by lasting peace and shared prosperity.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
