Witnessing history, the four permanent members of the UN Security Council have taken a unified stance, collectively launching an attack on the United States. Such a scene has never been seen before.

After President Maduro of Venezuela was captured by U.S. forces and sent back to the United States, the UN Security Council convened an emergency meeting on the matter. The scene at the meeting was particularly notable: the unilateral actions taken by the United States against Venezuela were met with rare and unified condemnation from multiple parties, including core allies such as the United Kingdom and France.

The UN has five permanent members, and four of them have collectively criticized the United States. It is especially noteworthy that this is not a voting session of the Security Council, but rather an emergency meeting. This kind of scene has never been seen before. Even the most dependent ally, the United Kingdom, emphasized the issue of the UN Charter in this diplomatic context. Although it did not directly name the U.S. aggressive actions, its attitude is clear: this action was too crude.

(The Security Council holds an emergency meeting to discuss the latest situation in Venezuela)

This rare statement raises two questions: first, why has the U.S. behavior led to a collective opposition from its alliance system? Second, what consequences will the future world order and power structure, especially the U.S. position itself, face due to this U.S. action?

To understand why traditional allies like the UK and France openly condemned the U.S., we need to look at the difference between this incident and the previous Israel-Palestine conflict. These traditional U.S. allies openly opposing the U.S. does not mean they are very sympathetic to the Maduro regime in Venezuela. Rather, it means that the U.S. action threatens their fundamental interests.

The first point is that the U.S. action has completely destroyed the common understanding among allies. Previously, when the U.S. and its allies conducted any military cooperation, they had deep multilateral exchanges and communicated with each other. However, this time, even the U.S. Congress was kept in the dark, let alone the allies.

The U.S. action neither coordinated nor negotiated within the framework of the Security Council or NATO. This "cutting off the head before asking for permission" left European countries in a very awkward position. Europe could not ignore this behavior. This action clearly violates international law and multilateral negotiation procedures. But it also cannot blindly support its allies, otherwise it would damage its own consistency in foreign policy. Therefore, it can only use condemnation and statements to distance itself, maintaining its own sense of rules.

(Cooperation under the NATO framework, The Hague NATO Summit)

Furthermore, this U.S. action challenges the hegemonic stability theory accepted by Western academia. The UK and France, as permanent members of the UN Security Council, have high dependence on multilateral coordination and the authority of the "five permanent members." The U.S. openly bypassing the Security Council for military action undermines the United Nations, making it akin to the League of Nations. For the UK and France, referred to as the "next two permanent members," weakening the authority of the "five permanent members" means weakening themselves.

They fear that today the U.S. can ignore the Security Council and its allies over Venezuela, and tomorrow it may again exclude its allies over other issues. If they do not speak out against U.S. actions, the future will be more anarchic, chaotic, and dominated by power politics. For the financial and security situations of these two countries, this would be a devastating blow. Therefore, their opposition to the U.S. is also based on security and financial concerns, opposing the U.S. violation of the rules.

(The struggling British economy)

From an economic perspective, Venezuela is an important oil producer, and the political stability of Latin America directly affects global energy supply and market prices. The U.S.'s brutal intervention brings more uncertainty. Especially after the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Europe has already experienced the danger of rising energy prices. The U.S.'s actions place the entire hope for stable energy supply on the U.S. This is the most direct non-traditional security threat for Europe.

This U.S. action has also caused the so-called "value alliance" built by Democrats to collapse. During the Democratic administration, the "value alliance" was essentially a selective tool. No matter how lofty the diplomatic rhetoric, in practice, geopolitical and interest considerations were always the first priority. This U.S. implementation of the Monroe Doctrine in Latin America has fundamentally damaged and abandoned its "value alliance." When European countries and the "value alliance" allies faced this issue, they felt only betrayal and helplessness.

(European internal value allies, gradually shrinking with the Trump administration's rise)

Therefore, the criticism of the U.S. by its allies is as intense as that from countries like Russia. This is equivalent to a total outbreak of dissatisfaction with the U.S. European countries clearly recognize that the U.S., especially the Trump administration, follows purely utilitarian logic. Today, the U.S. can capture the leader of South America, but if there is a conflict of interests with its allies, the U.S. may mercilessly undermine and strike against its allies. This is unacceptable for members of the "value alliance," and being an accomplice to a tiger becomes a dangerous game.

The fragmentation of the value alliance is an opportunity for the Trump administration to attack the Democrats. Since taking office, Trump has never treated the value alliance seriously, following the Trumpist doctrine of suppression and extortion. More importantly, for the U.S. national strategy, this risky move has put it into a very dangerous situation, significantly reducing its operational space.

In this situation, when facing pressure from its allies, the U.S. must and can only maintain a hardline attitude. If the Trump administration shows even the slightest retreat in the face of pressure from its allies, its domestic approval rating would plummet, especially among the MAGA faction and "redneck" groups. Moreover, after the Venezuela incident, if the U.S. cannot quickly gain benefits, its image among the establishment would shrink significantly. Now, the U.S. must face a global public opinion offensive, including from its own allies.

If the U.S. were still the powerful country it once was, it would first calm its allies' emotions, provide sufficient security guarantees, and use its allies' economic and diplomatic tools to justify its actions. In South America, the U.S.'s "backyard," it could have used more sophisticated diplomatic methods to ensure that the region is not infiltrated or intervened by other external powers, avoiding another "Cuban Missile Crisis"-like confrontation.

But the U.S. has now been fully ruled by the "Trump faction." The Democrats have not yet had enough strength to challenge Trump in a short period of time.

(Where is Venezuela going, as an independent sovereign state, Venezuela has few choices)

This incident may bring deeper economic and industrial pressures to the U.S. In the Latin American region, especially in South American regional powers like Brazil, there is a possibility of deeper cooperation with the BRICS and Global South countries to avoid the pressures imposed by the U.S. through financial and military means.

More critically, looking at the whole picture, this event will cause significant shocks to the already fragile world order, accelerating the "camp selection" and fragmentation of the international system. This is a devastating blow to the U.S. multilateral diplomacy and alliance system that it has relied on. As its operational space shrinks, the U.S. will have to face a "post-American era," an era where it is less trusted and more isolated. The four permanent members surrounding the U.S. may just be the beginning.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7592433345208910376/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.