US Strikes on Venezuela: The Return of the Monroe Doctrine and the New Grammar of Energy Geopolitics
Post Date: 04 January 2026
Mains Mapping:
GS-II – International Relations (US Foreign Policy, Latin America, International Law)
GS-III – Energy Security, Global Resources
Theme: US Power × Latin America × Oil Politics
🌍 Wisdom Essay (≈1200 words)
The recent United States strikes on Venezuela mark more than a tactical military action; they represent the resurfacing of an old geopolitical doctrine in a new global context. At the heart of this episode lies the Monroe Doctrine, a 19th-century declaration that once sought to shield the Americas from European colonialism but has, over time, evolved into a justification for unilateral intervention. In the 21st century, its revival raises fundamental questions about sovereignty, international law, and the geopolitics of energy.
Venezuela and the Paradox of Abundance
Venezuela occupies a paradoxical position in global politics. It holds the largest proven oil reserves in the world, accounting for nearly 18% of global reserves—more than Saudi Arabia, Russia, or the United States individually, and even exceeding the combined reserves of the US and Russia. Yet, despite this extraordinary resource endowment, Venezuela contributes barely 1% to global oil supply.
This disconnect between reserves and production is not accidental. Years of US-led sanctions, underinvestment, political instability, and the technical challenge of refining Venezuela’s heavy crude have effectively constrained its role in global markets. In energy geopolitics, control over reserves often matters more than actual supply, and Venezuela’s strategic value lies precisely in this latent potential.
Energy Geopolitics and the China Factor
One of the central drivers behind US action is the China–Venezuela energy relationship. China, the world’s largest crude oil importer, has emerged as the principal buyer of Venezuelan oil, integrating the country into its broader energy security strategy. For Washington, this represents a strategic vulnerability.
Weakening Venezuela constrains China’s access to diversified energy sources and signals US resistance to Beijing’s expanding footprint in Latin America. Thus, the strikes must be understood not merely as a regional intervention but as a node in the larger US–China strategic rivalry.
Trade Commitments and Structural Pressures
The United States has entered into multiple energy trade commitments with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. However, these commitments exceed current US crude production and refining capacity. This structural mismatch generates pressure to dominate or neutralise alternative energy sources globally.
In this context, Venezuela becomes both a competitor and a lever. By restricting Venezuelan oil, the US indirectly strengthens its bargaining position in global energy markets.
The Resurrection of the Monroe Doctrine
The explicit invocation of the Monroe Doctrine to justify the strikes is particularly revealing. Announced in 1823, the doctrine initially asserted non-colonisation and non-intervention by European powers in the Americas, coupled with US non-interference in Europe. Over time, however, it mutated.
The Roosevelt Corollary (1904) transformed the doctrine into a tool of intervention, granting the US a self-assigned right to police Latin America. Historical interventions in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic were justified under this logic.
Its modern resurrection signals a return to sphere-of-influence geopolitics, where power rather than law defines legitimacy. In an international system that formally upholds sovereignty and non-intervention, such actions expose the tension between normative principles and hegemonic practice.
International Law and the Credibility Gap
From the perspective of international law, unilateral military strikes without UN authorisation raise serious concerns. They erode the credibility of rules-based order narratives often championed by Western powers.
When doctrines outlive their century, they cease to protect order and begin to provoke disorder. The Venezuelan episode underscores how selective adherence to international norms weakens global governance and fuels accusations of imperial behaviour.
Venezuela’s Actual Oil Role: Myth vs Reality
Despite alarmist narratives, Venezuela’s current contribution to global oil markets remains limited. As a member of OPEC, it accounts for roughly 3.5% of the organisation’s exports. Heavy crude, infrastructure decay, and sanctions have ensured that its oil remains largely inaccessible to most markets.
This reality tempers the immediate economic impact of the strikes but does not diminish their symbolic and strategic significance.
India’s Perspective: Strategic Distance, Strategic Calm
For India, the Venezuelan crisis is geopolitically instructive but economically manageable. India imported approximately $255.3 million worth of Venezuelan oil in FY 2025—just 0.3% of its total oil imports. Since 2019, New Delhi has progressively reduced engagement due to US sanctions.
Bilateral trade has shrunk sharply, and India’s exports to Venezuela are modest, dominated by pharmaceuticals. Consequently, the immediate impact on India’s energy security or economy is minimal.
Strategic Autonomy in an Age of Resource Wars
Yet complacency would be misplaced. The Venezuelan episode illustrates a broader trend: wars of the future are increasingly wars over resources, supply chains, and energy corridors. As competition intensifies, sanctions, coercive diplomacy, and military pressure are likely to become more frequent tools.
For India, the lesson is clear. Energy diversification, strategic autonomy, and diplomatic flexibility are not luxuries but necessities. Engagements must avoid sovereignty-eroding dependencies while ensuring access to critical resources.
Conclusion
The US strikes on Venezuela reveal how old doctrines adapt to new realities, and how energy remains central to global power politics. While Venezuela’s oil may not shake markets today, the principles invoked to control it shape the world of tomorrow.
As the IAS Monk Whisper cautions:
“When doctrines outlive their century, they stop protecting order and begin provoking disorder.”
🧠 Mains Booster (High-Value Fodder)
- Monroe Doctrine & Roosevelt Corollary
- Energy security vs sovereignty
- US–China rivalry in Latin America
- Sanctions as instruments of power
- OPEC dynamics and heavy crude constraints
- Strategic autonomy in Indian foreign policy
✍️ Answer Writing Support
🔹 10-Mark Questions
Q1. Explain the relevance of the Monroe Doctrine in contemporary US foreign policy.
Suggested Answer (≈150 words):
The Monroe Doctrine, originally aimed at preventing European colonisation in the Americas, has evolved into a justification for US intervention. Its contemporary use reflects sphere-of-influence geopolitics, often clashing with modern principles of sovereignty and international law.
Q2. Why does Venezuela remain geopolitically significant despite low oil production?
Suggested Answer:
Venezuela’s significance lies in its massive proven reserves and strategic location. Control over future supply potential influences global energy politics and great-power competition.
🔹 15-Mark Questions
Q1. Analyse the geopolitical motivations behind US strikes on Venezuela.
Suggested Answer (≈250 words):
[Structured analysis covering energy geopolitics, China factor, Monroe Doctrine, and international law.]
Q2. Discuss the implications of unilateral interventions on the credibility of the rules-based international order.
Suggested Answer:
[Analytical answer linking sovereignty, selective norm enforcement, and global governance erosion.]
Leave a Reply