Capture of Maduro Sparks Debate Over “Gunboat Diplomacy”

(MENAFN) A recent U.S. military mission in Venezuela that resulted in the removal and capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro has reignited international discussion about the practice of “gunboat diplomacy.” This phrase traditionally describes the application of military strength to secure political outcomes.

The operation, carried out on January 3 and ordered by the U.S. Defense Department, began with an attack on Maduro’s official residence in the Venezuelan capital. U.S. Special Forces, with support from naval and aerial assets, defeated the country’s coastal defenses and took Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, into custody. They were subsequently transported to Manhattan, where they faced federal charges of “narco-terrorism.”

Although U.S. officials have maintained the mission was “not a military intervention” and framed it as a law enforcement arrest under judicial authority, numerous nations have labeled it a direct military intrusion against a sovereign nation and the coerced removal of its top leader.

Observers have pointed to this episode as a modern instance of “gunboat diplomacy,” where force is used or threatened to produce diplomatic or political results—a tactic with deep roots in world history.

In essence, gunboat diplomacy involves leveraging military power or its threat instead of relying on negotiation or compromise to fulfill foreign policy aims. While not exclusive to any one country, some of its most well-known historical applications come from powerful military nations dating back to the 1800s.

For example, during the 19th century, Britain deployed its dominant naval forces to secure advantageous trade positions in China and throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Similarly, France pursued comparable strategies in parts of North and Sub-Saharan Africa to consolidate political control during and after its colonial expansion.

MENAFN29012026000045017640ID1110666378