The U. S. and Venezuela: A Lesson in Power and Legitimacy

The U. S. has a history of using force to influence other countries, and Venezuela is just the latest example. In early January, images of Venezuela's president, Nicolás Maduro, being arrested and taken to a U. S. naval vessel circulated in the media. This was followed by President Donald Trump's announcement that the U. S. would take control of Venezuela until a "safe, proper and judicious transition" could be arranged. But using force to remove a leader doesn't necessarily lead to a stable political order. In fact, it often does the opposite. When the U. S. uses military force to topple a regime, it can create a power vacuum that leads to instability and resistance. This has been seen in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, where U. S. interventions have failed to create lasting peace and stability.The problem is that force doesn't equal legitimacy. Just because the U. S. has the power to remove a leader doesn't mean it has the right to govern. In fact, when the U. S. assumes responsibility for governance, it often becomes the target of resistance and blame for any failures. Taking on governance in Venezuela would also have broader strategic costs. It would undermine the principles of sovereignty and nonintervention that the U. S. claims to support. It would also complicate alliance diplomacy, as partners would have to reconcile U. S. actions with the rules they are trying to defend elsewhere. The U. S. has historically been strongest when it has worked with allies and built an open sphere based on shared rules and voluntary alignment. Using force to establish authority is a costly and unsustainable model of power. In the end, force may be fast, but legitimacy is slow. And legitimacy is the only currency that buys durable peace and stability. If the U. S. wants to advance its interests and capabilities, it needs to focus on building legitimacy, not just using force.