Venezuela, Taiwan, and Ukraine: When the Monroe Doctrine is monopolized and legitimacy is measured by power duality

In international relations, principles do not become a source of crises because of their content as much as they turn into one due to the monopoly over their interpretation and implementation. The principle that is presented as a defense of national security or sovereignty loses its legitimacy when it is used exclusively by one power, and is refused acknowledgment when other powers try to employ the same logic. The cases of Venezuela, Taiwan, and Ukraine represent three different geographical arenas, but they are identical in the essence of the issue: one principle and selective legitimacy.

The Monroe Doctrine, announced in 1823, was fundamentally an expression of America's ambitions as a rising power to protect its sphere of influence from competing powers. This rationale was not exceptional in the history of international relations, but rather formed an unwritten rule adopted by multiple major powers at various stages. However, the problem began when this principle turned into a permanent entitlement for the United States, exercised outside any international contractual framework, and used to justify intervention in the affairs of other countries without recognizing the right of these countries or others to adopt the same security considerations.

In the Venezuelan case, this monopoly is clearly manifested. The relationships that Caracas has woven with China, Russia, and Iran were portrayed in Western discourse as an unacceptable threat, not because of their nature, but because they fall outside the traditional sphere of influence of a single power. Here, the principle of sovereignty is not discussed in terms of being a legal right, but is redefined according to a political criterion: sovereignty is acceptable as long as it does not disturb the existing balance of influence. Recent developments starkly reflect this reality, as Venezuela witnessed a large military operation within its territory, followed by the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and their transfer outside the country. The United States described this as targeting a leader accused of legal issues, and this move sparked widespread international condemnation, with world leaders deeming it a blatant violation of the sovereignty of an independent state and of international law. This clarifies how principles can turn into tools of political influence rather than equal and binding frameworks for all states.

The Taiwan issue shows a similar paradox in international discourse. The United States, which has historically defended its right to prevent competing powers from approaching its vital sphere, rejects any similar logic when China expresses it in its immediate geographic vicinity. Despite official American and global recognition of the "One China" principle, any Chinese attempt to translate this principle into security terms is portrayed as a threat to global stability, which clearly highlights that the principle is not rejected for its own sake but because the party trying to utilize it is not the one that has historically monopolized it.

In the Ukrainian case, the same issue is reproduced in a different format, as Russia's objection to NATO's eastward expansion towards its borders encounters absolute rejection, even though the logic of military alliances and proximity to borders is a sensitive element in any national security doctrine. Once again, the principle is not discussed in terms of its theoretical legitimacy, but rather in terms of the identity of the party demanding its application, illustrating how a double standard is used in the interpretation of principles.

The most dangerous aspect of the monopoly over principles is not just what it generates in terms of conflicts, but also what it creates in terms of a gradual erosion of the legitimacy of the international system itself. A rules-based and principled system cannot continue if these rules and principles are applied selectively and interpreted according to power balances rather than fixed criteria. When one power, like the U.S., is granted the right to define security and threats while others, like Russia and China, are denied this right, then principles become tools of political control rather than foundations of stability. The real challenge facing the international system today is not in formulating new principles but in justly generalizing existing principles. Either the right of all states to protect their vital spheres within the limits of international law is recognized, or this logic is rejected for everyone without exception. Continuing the monopoly will only deepen divisions and accelerate the transition towards a world governed by power balances instead of rules.

Venezuela, Taiwan, and Ukraine show that the essential issue in contemporary international politics does not lie in the absence of principles but in the transformation of these principles into an exclusive American privilege. A principle that cannot be generalized cannot claim universality nor serve as a foundation for a stable international system. In a world steadily moving towards multipolarity, the monopoly over principles becomes not only unjust but unsustainable.

The question now is:

"Will the major powers apply the principles they defend to the disputes that concern them? And what are the implications for international stability, especially concerning tensions in Taiwan and Ukraine?"