Don't Speak News

By Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz from Global Research. Reposted with permission.

A new era has begun at sea: blockade without a declaration of war, control without a UN resolution, and the use of force without congressional authorization.

On December 16, 2025, the United States blockaded Venezuela from the sea without declaring war and without authorization from the United Nations Security Council. This action is not a military intervention in the classical sense. It is a sign of a far more radical and dangerous transformation. The legal and political definition of war has been altered. By its very nature, blockade is an act of war under both classical and contemporary international law of armed conflict, the law of naval warfare, and customary law. Despite this, the practice against Venezuela has been legitimized through the language of “fighting terrorism” and “inspecting sanctioned tankers.” There is no declared war, yet a new mechanism has emerged that produces all the consequences of war.

The model applied in Venezuela is linked to the Trump Corollary / Monroe Doctrine framework embedded in the U.S. National Security Strategy 2025 (NSS 2025). In antithesis to NSS 2025, published on December 4, 2025, China released its Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Policy Document on December 10, 2025. Through this document, China declares that it will not withdraw from what the United States considers its sphere of influence. The clash between these two documents over Venezuela will have irreversible effects on the global maritime security system.

Updating the Monroe Doctrine with NSS 2025

When the Monroe Doctrine was promulgated by President James Monroe in 1823, it was a defensive, limiting, and inward-looking principle. It rejected European colonial intervention in the Western Hemisphere, while emphasizing that the United States would not interfere in Europe’s wars and political conflicts. This approach was based on political warning rather than the use of military force and reflected the young United States’ instinct to protect its vulnerability.

Under Theodore Roosevelt, the doctrine was radically transformed. With the Roosevelt Corollary of 1904, the United States claimed the right to intervene in Latin American countries to prevent European involvement, turning the Monroe Doctrine into a regional “policing” mandate—an openly interventionist and imperial instrument. Franklin D. Roosevelt later softened this interpretation formally. Instead of direct military invasions, the United States maintained its hegemony through economic, diplomatic, and institutional means, incorporating the Monroe principle into a global order-building framework after World War II.

During the Donald Trump era, the Monroe Doctrine re-emerged with a narrower yet sharper sovereignty-focused language. While the Western Hemisphere was defined as the natural sphere of influence of the United States, international law, multilateralism, and institutional mechanisms were pushed into the background. Economic sanctions, maritime controls, and unilateral uses of force were legitimized. Thus, the doctrine passed through four distinct phases: a defensive warning under Monroe, coercive regional imperialism under Theodore Roosevelt, institutionalized hegemony under Franklin Roosevelt, and finally, under Trump, a hard, unilateral sphere-of-influence doctrine rejecting the multilateral order.

In short, the NSS 2025 document reflects a fundamental paradigm shift in the global role of the United States. The U.S. no longer defines itself as the “guardian of the world order,” but instead prioritizes its own spheres of influence, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. The core assumption is that the Western Hemisphereconstitutes a special security zone and exclusive sphere of influence for the United States, and that the presence of non-hemispheric powers—such as China, Russia, or Iran—even through non-military means, constitutes a national security threat.

Crucially, NSS 2025 does not confine the use of force to overt military conflict. Economic sanctions, maritime controls conducted under the guise of law enforcement, anti-terrorism discourse, and unilateral enforcement mechanisms are defined as tools “below the threshold of war” that nonetheless produce the results of war. The Venezuelan case is the first concrete implementation of this doctrine.

Venezuela and the Law of Blockade

Under international law, blockade is, as a rule, a wartime naval warfare method. A state’s prevention of entry to or exit from the ports and coasts of another state through the use of armed force is considered to create a de facto state of war, even in the absence of a formal declaration. For legal legitimacy, a blockade must be declared, effectively enforced, and conducted in accordance with the law of war, including obligations toward neutral states.

For this reason, blockade is qualitatively different from sanctions, inspections, or maritime security operations conducted in peacetime. When imposed without a UN Security Council resolution or an acknowledged state of armed conflict, it violates the prohibition on the use of force under international law. Normalizing “blockade-like” practices without a declaration of war blurs the legal boundary between war and peace, creating a dangerous precedent that directly threatens freedom of navigation, global trade, and the rights of neutral states. The blockade imposed by the United States on Venezuela exemplifies precisely this situation.

Declaration of Venezuela as a Terrorist State

With the declaration of the Maduro administration as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” on November 24, 2025, Venezuela was legally criminalized. On December 16, 2025, a naval blockade was ordered by elements of the U.S. Fourth Fleet under the command of U.S. Southern Command, justified on the grounds of “sanctioned tankers linked to terrorism.” Although naval blockade is a wartime activity, it was reframed as a form of law enforcement.

At this point, the transformation was complete. A sovereign state was first labeled a criminal network, followed by military buildup and the execution of coercive measures framed as law enforcement operations. Congressional approval, a UN resolution, and a declaration of war were rendered unnecessary.

Through this mechanism, which effectively suspends the principle of sovereignty, the United States has created a precedent that can economically strangle not only Venezuela, but any state subjected to similar designation.

The most dangerous aspect of this model is its lack of legal limits. Any government labeled by Washington as a “terrorist threat” can be stripped of the protections afforded by statehood. There is no obligation of notification, no accountability, and no international oversight. This constitutes the true collapse of the international order.

China’s LAC Policy Paper

At first glance, China’s Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Policy Paper does not appear to directly contradict the U.S. Monroe/Trump Corollary approach. The text is carefully drafted, emphasizing multilateralism, an UN-centered order, non-targeting of third parties, and peaceful development. However, its substance reveals China’s de facto aim to establish a deep and permanent sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Energy and natural resources, infrastructure and ports, maritime and blue-economy cooperation, trade in local currencies, RMB usage mechanisms, and security dialogue form the core pillars of this strategy. The export of approximately one million barrels of Venezuelan oil per day to China is the clearest indicator of this relationship. Thus, while there is no contradiction at the textual level, there is a serious conflict at the level of strategic implementation. As China deepens its presence in the Western Hemisphere without forming military alliances or directly provoking the Monroe Doctrine, the United States has initiated a de facto challenge to this expansion through Venezuela.

Is the Venezuela Blockade a Message to China?

For the reasons outlined above, Caracas is not the primary target of the blockade imposed on Venezuela. The real message is directed at Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and all states in the Caribbean basin. The United States is signaling that deepening ties with China in energy, finance, ports, and maritime trade can strip states of the protective armor of sovereignty.

This move also constitutes an indirect strike against China’s energy security. Since most Venezuelan oil exports go to China, the blockade is not merely a regional issue but a global one. The NSS 2025 objective of “excluding non-hemisphere competitors” is thus being implemented at sea. In response, on December 18, 2025, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced its support for the Caracas administration’s request to convene the UN Security Council, affirmed the right of states to defend their sovereignty and national dignity, opposed unilateral coercion, and reiterated Venezuela’s right to cooperate with other countries on the basis of mutual benefit.

Risk of Fragmentation of the Global Maritime System

The most destabilizing consequence of this model is its precedent-setting nature. The mechanism applied by the United States in Venezuela could be replicated by China, the European Union, or other regional powers. “National security inspections” in the Taiwan Strait, “sanctions enforcement” in the Baltic Sea, “security controls” in the Strait of Hormuz, or EU-led interruptions of maritime traffic in the Mediterranean under the pretext of combating illegal migration could all become normalized templates.

In such a scenario, the United States would lack any legal basis for objection. More importantly, the U.S. Navy does not possess the capacity to guarantee global maritime security order simultaneously in the Caribbean, Western Pacific, Mediterranean, Baltics, and Hormuz. The sea lanes and chokepoints it has claimed to safeguard for the past 80 years would become increasingly insecure as a direct consequence of the unlawful model it has introduced. By eroding the principle of freedom of the seas, the United States is dismantling the very global maritime order it constructed.

Venezuela as a Proving Ground

Venezuela is the first testing ground of this new era. This is not an intervention, it is a template for all future interventions. Blockade without a declaration of war, maritime control without a UN resolution, and the use of force without congressional authorization are now feasible. If this model becomes normalized, the world’s oceans will be divided into fragmented spheres of influence, and global trade, energy security, and maritime law will suffer irreversible damage. December 16, 2025, marks the date on which the international order effectively collapsed. Most actors are not yet aware of this reality, but the seas have already begun to feel the change.

The model applied in Venezuela represents the transformation of a sovereign state into a criminal entity. By defining a government as a terrorist threat, the United States suspended the war–peace distinction in international law and conducted a naval blockade under the guise of “law enforcement” rather than open military action. Blockade, historically associated with war, has been redefined as a policing activity. This transformation establishes a precedent with implications far beyond Venezuela, affecting the entire global system.

Implications for China

The legal and strategic breach opened by the United States in Venezuela will generate serious distortions in global maritime balances and is likely to be exploited by continental and regional powers, particularly China. While the United States justified its actions against Venezuela using arguments such as the “war on terrorism,” “drug trafficking,” and “sanctions violations,” China can invoke the widely accepted One China principle, grounding its actions in claims of sovereignty and non-interference.

UN Resolution 2758 recognizes China as the sole legitimate representative of China, the Chinese constitution defines Taiwan as an integral part of the state, and even the United States adheres to the One China Policy. In this context, Beijing could claim that “maritime and air traffic has been placed under temporary security control due to separatist armed structures and foreign-backed security threats,” without invoking the terms “war” or “occupation.” Alternatively, China could impose an undeclared blockade by declaring permanent forbidden or danger zones to protect the nine-dash-line EEZ claims in the South China Sea.

When the United States cut maritime traffic off Venezuela, it avoided the term “blockade,” instead using the language of “maritime security supervision,” “sanctions enforcement,” and “counterterrorism.” Similarly, China could regulate maritime traffic in the Taiwan Strait under headings such as “customs inspections,” “anti-smuggling operations,” “navigation safety,” or “counter-separatism.” Changing legal terminology does not alter the material outcome: the disruption of maritime transport lines.

Nevertheless, critical differences exist between Venezuela and the Taiwan or China Sea scenarios. While the blockade of Venezuela has produced regional consequences, the Taiwan Strait lies at the core of global trade. It is a central node for global semiconductor production, East Asian maritime commerce, and Pacific–Indian Ocean connectivity. Any Chinese maritime control here would represent a scaled-up version of the Venezuelan precedent with global repercussions. If the model initiated by the United States in Venezuela were applied to Taiwan, the fuses of the global system would blow.

At the same time, Taiwan and its surrounding region are protected by a military umbrella involving the United States, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and AUKUS. Any such move by China would entail direct confrontation with the U.S. Navy, unlike Venezuela, which is largely isolated, whose oil is substitutable, and where the United States enjoys maritime dominance in the Caribbean. For China, therefore, a similar step in Taiwan carries the risk of a great-power conflict.

Conclusion

For the past 80 years, the United States has claimed to be the guarantor of freedom of the seas. Yet it lacks the capacity to manage multiple simultaneous crises. Venezuela in the Caribbean, Taiwan in the Western Pacific, Russia in the Baltics, and Iran in Hormuz together stretch U.S. power beyond its limits. The model introduced in Venezuela erodes the maritime security architecture built by the United States itself and provides an extremely effective tool for its competitors.

The Venezuelan case is thus a precedent. Taiwan, however, holds the potential to become the true breaking point where this precedent is tested on a global scale. Once the practice of “blockade without war,” initiated in the Caribbean, is replicated in the Pacific, the international order will collapse not only de facto but openly. We are entering an era of wars waged without declarations. The seas are becoming the primary arena for blockade-like “security inspections,” counterterrorism pretexts, and economic strangulation through the insurance–port–bank nexus. Maritime geopolitics is now advancing faster than the law itself.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on Mavi Vatan.

Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, Writer, Geopolitical Expert, Theorist and creator of the Turkish Bluehomeland (Mavi Vatan) doctrine. He served as the Chief of Strategy Department and then the head of Plans and Policy Division in Turkish Naval Forces Headquarters. As his combat duties, he has served as the commander of Amphibious Ships Group and Mine Fleet between 2007 and 2009. He retired in 2012. He established Hamit Naci Blue Homeland Foundation in 2021. He has published numerous books on geopolitics, maritime strategy, maritime history and maritime culture. He is also a honorary member of ATASAM. 

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below.  Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options.  The buy me a coffee link is below.

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212