Q REPORTS — To justify its capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and its threats to acquire Greenland, the United States has declared authority over its hemisphere.
Meanwhile, Russia pursues its war in Ukraine, and China claims Taiwan as part of its territory. Experts in international relations are worried about a return to spheres of influence.
An explainer.
On January 3, after the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas, US President Donald Trump claimed that “American dominance in the Western hemisphere will never be questioned again”. His administration’s new National Security Strategy, published in late 2025, explicitly revives the idea of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, which places Latin America within a US sphere of influence.
According to many legal experts, Maduro’s arrest violated international law. The US followed it almost immediately with threats to take over Greenland, a territory Trump considers critical for American security.
To some, Trump’s rationale for these actions echoes Russian President Vladimir Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine. Putin does not disguise his wish to re-establish Russian influence over former Soviet republics.
Given that China similarly considers “reunification” with Taiwan a strategic and historical necessity, more and more international-relations experts see a world returning to spheres of influence dominated by empires and rule of force.
What exactly are spheres of influence?
“When we talk about spheres of influence, we’re referring to what existed before the current world order, that is, before the Second World War, going back to the 19th century when the planet was divided into empires,” says Cédric Dupont, professor of international relations at the Geneva Graduate Institute.
“It’s a system that’s the opposite of the current world order based on international law, [it’s one] in which the [major] powers don’t respect state sovereignty. If one of them believes – for reasons of economic, military, or human security – that it needs to intervene in its region, it does so without consulting anyone. And it’s understood that each [power] does so within its sphere of influence.”
Are spheres of influence returning?
Dupont believes “Donald Trump’s wish to control Venezuela is very much in line with the logic of spheres of influence”. But he adds that “it remains to be seen if the other powers – China and Russia – really agree that each can do as it wishes within its sphere”.
Beijing and Moscow both condemned the illegality of the US intervention in Venezuela. But neither China, which has invested billions of dollars in Venezuela, nor Russia, a close ally of the Maduro regime, intervened militarily. It’s not clear whether this suggests they are giving the US carte blanche in the Americas.
Dupont says that “Russia, weakened by four years of war in Ukraine, didn’t have the means to help Venezuela”. He does not think that Moscow’s timid response should be interpreted as a gesture of goodwill towards the US but rather as an “admission that [Russia] will focus on its own region”.
As for China, Dupont says, “Beijing is pragmatic. Its primary interests in Latin America aren’t in Venezuela, so there was no real cost in not intervening”.
Why the return to rule of force?
“The return of spheres of influence comes from a zero-sum-games outlook shared by Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin,” says Dupont. In zero-sum logic, gains for one power are losses for another. Dupont believes this vision of the world is not entirely shared by Xi Jinping, who prioritises trade with as many countries as possible.
The return to a zero-sum approach can be explained in part, according to Dupont, by a growing awareness that planetary resources – fossil fuels, rare-earth minerals, other critical minerals – are limited. This pushes powerful states into a “predatory” stance, he says.
Does this adequately describe today’s world?
The media often evoke a return to spheres of influence, but experts note that this analysis does not fully explain the current situation.
It is unclear, for example, that the US will be content to limit its influence to the Americas.
“Washington will never disengage from the Middle East,” says Dupont, pointing out the superior quality of oil from the region and the presence of allies like Israel. Dupont adds that “the United States also has an interest in ensuring that Taiwan, the main producer of semiconductors, doesn’t fall into China’s hands”.
In addition, Laurence Nardon, a US expert at the French Institute of International Relations, emphasises the need to “differentiate political spheres of influence from economic spheres of influence, which don’t overlap on a map”. She explains that “when you look at economic relations, you see that in the countries Washington thinks it dominates, Beijing is in reality gaining the upper hand”.
China has become the main economic partner of several countries in Latin America, including Brazil, Chili and Peru. Its Belt and Road Initiative, which finances infrastructure development through bilateral loans, is also well established there.
Do spheres of influence offer stability?
“A world of spheres of influence is not stable at all,” says Nardon. “We’re shifting into a constant power struggle. The [major] powers will want to dominate in their sphere and there will always be resistance. And the spheres will clash with each other. In the 19th century, when this term was first used, it described colonial powers. Each one created its own laws, and the colonised countries had no real room for manoeuvre. Today, we can clearly see that Ukraine is resisting, as is Taiwan, and the Latin American countries will resist as well.
Does the UN still have a role?
The United Nations, already weakened by a budget and liquidity crisis, is largely powerless against imperialist ambitions of the major powers. Its Security Council, paralysed by the veto power of China, the US, France, the UK, and Russia, was unable to prevent or react to the invasion of Ukraine or the capture of Maduro.
“Does this mean the end of the organisation or does it mean that it will have to abandon security matters to focus solely on economic and social issues?” asks Dupont. “It’s an open question.”
The US recently announced its withdrawal from dozens of UN bodies – having already left the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council earlier in the second Trump administration. The US, historically the biggest funder of the UN, has also reduced its contributions in several areas, including humanitarian aid.
“The UN is in bad shape” across its multilateral institutions and its specialised agencies, Nardon says. “Today, only liberal Europe is committed to maintaining the global system as it has existed for the last eight decades, with respect for international law, state sovereignty, equality among countries, and equal representation for all at the UN.”
At the World Economic Forum’s meeting in Davos in January, Trump announced the creation of his own “Board of Peace”, which many fear could further undermine the UN. To secure a permanent seat on the board, any interested country will have to contribute a billion dollars.
Reprinted from https://www.swissinfo.ch