In early January 2026, the United States executed a bold military intervention in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and precipitated an extraordinary wave of global responses. What makes this moment geopolitical, not just tactical, is how it has exposed the fault lines of modern international order — where great powers are both reacting to and trying to profit from U.S. unilateralism.
At the centre of this debate — and central to Canada’s own diplomatic positioning — is the assessment attributed to Bob Rae, Canada’s retired envoy to the United Nations: that Ottawa has “absolutely no room for complacency” in how it manages its reaction to the U.S. intervention.
He warned that Russia and China may privately be celebrating the U.S.’s strategic distraction, believing it weakens Washington’s leverage to contest Russian and Chinese actions elsewhere. He also derided the notion of U.S. claims of dominant influence in its hemisphere as an outdated imperial conceit — “an emperor with no clothes.”
A Divided Global Response
At a United Nations Security Council session on the crisis, world powers lined up in predictable and unpredictable ways. Several key themes emerged:
-
Russia and China both sharply criticized the U.S. operation, framing it as a violation of sovereignty and international norms — even while they themselves face accusations of breaching international law elsewhere. Their denunciations served to highlight what they see as a double standard in great-power behaviour.
-
Western powers and U.S. allies offered a mix of uneasy support and cautious critique. Some underscored the need to respect sovereignty and multilateral processes, even if they acknowledged Venezuela’s democratic deficit and the legitimacy issues surrounding Maduro.
-
Latin American governments are deeply split: some viewed the U.S. action as a justified blow against authoritarianism and narcotrafficking, while others condemned it as a dangerous precedent that undermines regional stability and violates the UN Charter.
This fractured response reflects broader tensions between sovereignty, law, and geopolitical competition — and it frames the backdrop for Rae’s warning that complacency in Canada’s approach could come at strategic cost.
Why Rae’s Warning Matters
Bob Rae is not only a seasoned diplomat; he represents a tradition of Canadian foreign policy grounded in rules-based multilateralism — an approach that emphasises international law, collective security, and institutional cooperation. Canada historically championed these values at the UN and beyond, seeing itself both as a mediator and as a normative power in global affairs.
Against that tradition, the U.S. intervention sets up a dilemma:
-
Practical risk: If Canada underplays or passively accepts unilateral military action by a close ally, it risks eroding the normative foundations it has championed, and loses moral authority when contesting authoritarian aggression by Russia or China.
-
Strategic risk: Russia and China may see U.S. entanglement in the Western Hemisphere — justified as a defensive or law-enforcement action — as an opportunity to consolidate influence in their regions of priority (e.g., Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific). This is the strategic logic behind Rae’s claim that they are “rubbing their hands.”
-
Reputational risk: Canada’s global credibility is tied to consistency. Ottawa’s response — whether strongly critical, neutral, or cautiously supportive — signals to partners around the world whether it is prepared to stand for norms even at the expense of tension with the U.S.
In rejecting complacency, Rae is urging a recalibration of Canadian foreign policy — one that avoids reflexive alignment but also avoids paralyzing moral posturing. It suggests a more proactive diplomatic posture: shaping coalitions to reinforce international law, supporting regional engagement mechanisms, and ensuring that humanitarian considerations, democratic transitions, and institutional norms remain central to Western Hemisphere security debates.
Implications for the International Order
The event and Rae’s reflection together underscore two overlapping shifts:
-
The erosion of the old post-Cold War consensus, where U.S. leadership, Western alliances, and multilateral institutions shaped global security outcomes.
-
The rise of a multipolar reality, where great powers openly contest not just influence but the rules that govern international relations.
What was once seen as a universal commitment to sovereignty and law is now a landscape of competing visions — one where unilateral actions, sphere-of-influence thinking, and great-power bargaining are increasingly evident. Analysts have even coined terms like the “Donroe Doctrine” to describe the U.S.’s emerging strategic posture in the hemisphere, echoing past doctrines of dominance — a shift that could resonate globally if unaddressed.
For Canada, this moment demands not only careful diplomacy with Washington but also nuanced engagement with emerging global dynamics, balancing alliance interests with principled leadership in upholding international norms.
