Letters | What US military action in Venezuela looks like to Southeast Asia

From Southeast Asia, the US military operation in Venezuela may appear geographically remote, yet politically and historically it feels strikingly familiar. Many in this region have a long memory of external interventions justified in the language of democracy, security or humanitarian necessity – often with outcomes that proved far more destabilising than promised.

Southeast Asia’s own colonial experience has fostered a deep scepticism about interventionist solutions. From Indochina to Indonesia, external involvement has rarely produced stability or democratic consolidation. Instead, it has often entrenched division, weakened institutions and prolonged conflict.

This historical memory shapes how the region views events in Venezuela. There is also a strong concern about sovereignty. Members of Asean or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, despite their political diversity, share a foundational commitment to non-interference. While this principle is often criticised as morally cautious, it reflects a hard-earned understanding: once the threshold of military intervention is crossed, outcomes are rarely controllable and civilian costs are frequently underestimated. For countries still managing their own democratic transitions and development challenges, the erosion of sovereignty norms is unsettling.

Economically, it is clear that military escalation in Venezuela risks wider repercussions. Venezuela remains an important energy producer and instability there adds volatility to global oil markets at a time when many developing economies are struggling with inflation, debt burdens and slowing growth. The costs of geopolitical confrontation, even as far away as Latin America, are rarely confined to the battlefield.