US Military Action in Venezuela Sparks Debate on Asia Strategy

In a significant geopolitical development, the United States’ military intervention in Venezuela has raised questions about its strategic focus in Asia. Analysts are concerned that as the US redirects its military resources, it may inadvertently create more opportunities for China to expand its influence in the Asia-Pacific region. This topic was at the forefront of discussions at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute’s Regional Outlook Forum 2026 held in Singapore on January 8, 2020.

US Military Engagement and Its Implications

Zack Cooper, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, highlighted the “obvious implication” of US military actions in Venezuela and elsewhere, asserting that they diminish the energy the US can devote to Asia. “The US only has so much bandwidth,” he remarked, emphasizing a long-standing argument that more resources are needed in Asia. Cooper’s comments came during a panel discussion moderated by Hoang Thi Ha, where the potential for the US and China to carve out spheres of influence was analyzed.

In contrast, Jia Qingguo, an analyst from Peking University, responded by stating that China does not adhere to the concept of spheres of influence. “China believes in global cooperation and multilateralism,” Jia explained. “The idea of spheres of influence is a 19th-century concept that does not apply to today’s world.” His remarks reflect China’s opposition to US operations in Venezuela and its stance against dictating terms to other nations.

The US intervention has been framed in the context of the Monroe Doctrine, a cornerstone of American foreign policy established in 1823, which warned European powers against interference in the Western Hemisphere. Following the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, President Donald Trump reiterated this doctrine, further complicating the dynamics with China.

Regional Stability: Diverging Perspectives

Debate continues over the consequences of a potential US retreat from Asia. Cooper argued that a strong US commitment is crucial for regional stability, particularly for its treaty allies. “A decrease in US engagement would likely increase instability,” he asserted. Conversely, Jia contended that a reduced US presence might open avenues for managing regional disputes, hinting at a possible alignment of interests among Southeast Asian countries.

The South China Sea remains a critical flashpoint, with overlapping territorial claims from four Southeast Asian nations and China’s assertion of rights over the majority of the waterway through its nine-dash line. Jia noted that China has been advocating for an early agreement on a Code of Conduct for the South China Sea. However, some provisions in earlier drafts raised concerns, as they appeared to give China “veto power” over military exercises involving external powers and foreign companies in energy exploration.

Hoang expressed skepticism regarding China’s intentions, questioning whether these moves signal a desire for a more exclusive zone free from major powers’ involvement. Jia defended China’s position, stating that it seeks to prevent interference that undermines regional security interests.

As tensions between the US and China persist over various issues, including tariffs, anticipation builds around reciprocal visits between Trump and Xi Jinping this year. The first of these visits is planned for April, which analysts believe will serve as a litmus test for the willingness of both leaders to stabilize their relationship.

Jia characterized US-China relations as “relatively stable but quite fragile,” acknowledging the ups and downs stemming from trade tensions. Despite ongoing negotiations, he expressed doubt that a comprehensive trade deal would materialize in the near future, attributing this to political calculations within the Trump administration.

Cooper, while recognizing the significance of a summit, expressed skepticism about substantive outcomes. “Beijing has been adept at trading short-term concessions for long-term gains,” he noted, suggesting that the core issues underlying US-China relations remain unaddressed.

The experts agreed on the profound distrust surrounding Taiwan, a self-governed island claimed by China. Jia emphasized that the US’s continued arms sales to Taiwan contribute to this mistrust and suggested that the US should publicly support peaceful unification to alleviate concerns.

Cooper pointed out that both nations approach Taiwan with differing strategies, highlighting a lack of clarity in US policy. He called for a clear stance against any coercive attempts by China while acknowledging the complexity of the ideological competition between the two powers.

Southeast Asia’s Role in the US-China Rivalry

Amid the ongoing rivalry, Jia advocated for Southeast Asian nations to leverage their position by shaping the US-China relationship in a manner beneficial to their interests. “Relative stability between China and the US is advantageous, as it allows these countries the freedom to navigate their own paths,” he stated.

Cooper echoed this sentiment, suggesting that Southeast Asia should embrace a broader array of partnerships, involving nations like India and European players. “While this may not be a perfect solution, it could foster stability better than relying solely on the US-China dynamic,” he concluded.

The forum, attended by approximately 650 participants, including academics, officials, and lawmakers, also addressed broader issues such as trade protectionism and political reforms across Southeast Asia. The event commenced with a dialogue led by Singapore’s Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who discussed the implications of US military actions in Venezuela and their impact on the global order.