What If the Rules No Longer Apply?
A HarbouchaNews Investigation into Power, Precedent, and Global Stability
The reported capture of Venezuela’s president by a United States special forces operation has reignited a fundamental debate about the limits of power in the modern world. Beyond the political shockwaves in Latin America, the incident raises a far more consequential question—one that strikes at the heart of the international system.
What happens when powerful states decide that global rules no longer constrain their actions?
A Question That Transcends One Country
Rather than focusing solely on Venezuela, HarbouchaNews believes the real issue lies in the precedent such an action creates. If a major power can justify the capture of a foreign head of state by force—whether in the name of national security, legitimacy, or democracy—then the foundations of international order are placed under unprecedented strain.
This leads to a broader, unsettling line of questioning:
- What if China were to capture the president of Taiwan?
- What if Russia were to seize Ukraine’s president amid escalating conflict?
- What if North Korea launched a full-scale invasion of South Korea under the banner of self-defense?
These are not hypothetical fantasies. They mirror real geopolitical flashpoints where military power, ideology, and unresolved disputes already collide.
The Precedent Problem in Global Politics
In international relations, precedent is often more powerful than rhetoric. When one state breaks a norm, others rarely see restraint as an obligation.
The justifications tend to follow a familiar pattern:
- “It is an internal matter.”
- “We acted to protect our national security.”
- “The leadership was illegitimate.”
- “Extraordinary threats require extraordinary measures.”
Once such arguments are normalized, the line between law enforcement and outright aggression becomes dangerously blurred.
International Law Under Pressure
The modern international system rests on several core principles: respect for sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and the prohibition of unilateral use of force.
When these principles are applied selectively—especially by the most powerful states—the credibility of international law erodes. Institutions such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice depend not on military strength, but on consistency and mutual restraint.
Without these foundations, diplomacy weakens, and coercion fills the vacuum.
Does Power Create Stability—or Chaos?
Supporters of unilateral action often argue that decisive force enhances global security. Historical evidence suggests otherwise.
Such actions tend to accelerate arms races, normalize preemptive strikes, harden global alliances, and reduce the space for negotiation. Instead of deterrence, the result is a world locked in permanent crisis mode.
In this environment, miscalculation becomes more likely—and the cost of error far more devastating.
The Crisis of Moral Credibility
Beyond military and legal consequences lies a deeper issue: credibility.
When states present themselves as defenders of international law while bypassing it when convenient, their moral authority weakens. Accusations against rivals lose force, and appeals to global norms ring hollow.
This is the contradiction HarbouchaNews seeks to highlight: rules that apply only to some ultimately apply to none.
Conclusion: A Line the World Cannot Afford to Erase
This investigation is not a defense of any particular leader or government. It is a defense of the fragile framework that has, despite its flaws, helped prevent direct confrontation between major powers for decades.
If capturing foreign presidents by force becomes an accepted practice, the world risks sliding back into an era ruled by raw power rather than shared rules.
An international order cannot survive if its strongest members treat the law as optional.
Once the rules no longer apply universally, they cease to apply at all.
For more in-depth geopolitical investigations and global analysis, follow HarbouchaNews and stay informed.