US strike on Venezuela has ‘big implications’ for NZ - professor

Tuesday, 6 January 2026

United States’ actions in Venezuela have “big implications” for New Zealand’s foreign policy, says international relations professor.

New Zealand must rethink its foreign policy, and unashamedly stand up for international rules-based order, Professor Robert Patman said.

US actions in Venezuela were inconsistent with international law, and could weaken global security, he said.

There are “big implications” for New Zealand from the United States’ early morning missile strikes on Venezuela, a professor of international relations says.

In the early hours of Saturday, Caracas residents woke to the sound of explosions and low-flying helicopters, as a US attack unfolded in the capital city.

The strike, which included the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, was “momentous” and had repercussions for New Zealand’s foreign policy, Professor Robert Patman of the University of Otago told Stuff.

“First of all, we've always believed in a rules-based international order, whereas Mr Trump seems to have little time for that, and the Venezuela intervention is only the latest example.”

For the past 12 months, New Zealand has persisted in a “softly softly” approach with the Trump administration in a bid to moderate Trump’s intentions, Patman said.

However, “what has happened in Venezuela confirms that policy has failed”.

US action could embolden China

“The problem with what Mr Trump has done, from New Zealand's perspective, is that it could embolden China to step up its efforts to forcibly reunify, or unify, Taiwan with China.

“All New Zealand governments since 1945, have basically believed in what is called an international rules-based order. Mr Trump clearly doesn’t believe in that, and he doesn’t believe the small and middle powers should have a fair go.

“My view is that New Zealand must rethink its foreign policy,” Patman said.

“I’m not saying New Zealand should pick a fight with the US, but we should unashamedly stand up for what we believe is right.”

Patman said the US action was unsurprising after the “pretty extensive military build-up” within striking distance of the South American country since September.

What was surprising was the extraction exercise, during which those protecting President Nicolas Maduro were reportedly killed, with Maduro and his wife captured and taken to the US, he said.

It was “quite a big deal for New Zealand, because the actions that Mr Trump took were hardly consistent with either US domestic law or international law”, he said.

“You could argue that these actions will probably weaken international security rather than strengthen it.”

Implications for small- and medium-sized countries

Patman said Trump made it clear in December that he wanted the world to be run by five powers, led by the United States, which he wanted to dominate Latin America.

That was “bad news” for middle and small powers, Patman said.

“My argument is that New Zealand needs to be very clear on how it wants to see the world develop. We’re a relatively small country, and that doesn’t mean we are powerless.”

New Zealand’s reputation of being fair-minded was largely intact, and “they notice when we do good things, and they notice when we drop the ball, and don’t speak up”, he said.

“Most of the countries in the world agree with New Zealand.

“It’s no coincidence that the biggest rules breakers are all permanent members of the security council.”

Ramifications for Pacific region

Dr Anna Powles, associate professor of security studies at Massey University, said the US’ actions in Venezuela, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and China's stated intention to take over Taiwan were reminders to New Zealand and Pacific Island nations that the international rules-based system is fractured, with ramifications within the Pacific region.

“Increasingly, Pacific Island states are aligning themselves with external powers on issues from Gaza, to the South China Sea, to Ukraine,” Powles said.

While New Zealand and Australia were the only members of the Pacific Islands Forum to make statements on the US actions in Venezuela so far, discussions were taking place online about the ramifications for regional relationships with the US, she said.

Powles said the Luxon Government appears to be practising a foreign policy approach of “strategic accommodation which prioritises pragmatism over principles”.

“This is the kind of partner the Trump Administration wants but not necessarily the kind of partner the US needs. The danger is that small states like New Zealand are acutely dependent on an international rules-based system and the UN Charter, and when our most powerful strategic partner disregards both, New Zealand needs to be able to leverage its relationships to advance its interests and influence.”

That included making sure New Zealand had a “robust and realistic understanding of US strategic culture and can reach into the US system and be a partner of conscience,” she said.

Government supports Venezuelan people, doesn’t explicitly mention US

While Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has so far not commented on the situation, on Sunday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters said, in a statement on social media, that “New Zealand is concerned by and actively monitoring developments in Venezuela and expects all parties to act in accordance with international law”.

“New Zealand stands with the Venezuelan people in their pursuit of a fair, democratic and prosperous future,” Peters said, with his office confirming on Monday that he had nothing more to add.

Meanwhile, former prime minister Helen Clark told ThreeNews, the US action was illegal, and the International Criminal Court was the appropriate place for Maduro to be tried for crimes against humanity.

Clark also highlighted that small countries depend on international law being upheld “because we really don’t have the might to compete with a major power”.

“If you’re moving towards a might-is-right world, this is a very uncertain, unpredictable environment for all small countries, and there are, of course, many in very different strategic circumstances to our own who may have a dominant great power, or a dominant regional power, close to them which wants to interfere in their affairs.

“So international law is what we rely on to try to keep some kind of rule of law globally,” Clark said.