30余年前，巴拿马领导人诺列加因主张收回运河主权、不服从美国干预而遭到美军入侵，在抵抗10余天 后于1990年1月3日投降，随后被送往美国并被罗列毒品走私等罪名判刑。 2026年1月3日，美国再次派部队入侵拉美国家，强行控制委内瑞拉总统马杜罗及其夫人并转移至美国囚 禁，同样编造出"毒品恐怖主义阴谋罪"等罪名对其进行起诉。 以缉毒之名行干涉之实，美国的行径不仅严重破坏国际法和国际关系基本准则，违反《联合国宪章》宗 旨和原则，也对地区乃至国际秩序造成深远影响。 30余年间，美国"门罗主义"政策在拉美反反复复重演，但毕竟有所收敛。此次行动则标志着美国干涉主 义的升级，本质是妄图在美洲重走"新殖民主义"老路，掠夺委内瑞拉丰富的油气资源，并重塑对西半球 的全面控制。 自特朗普开启第二任期后，美国全面加大对西半球干预力度和利益声索，并在新近发布的《国家安全战 略》文件中抛出"门罗主义的特朗普推论"，将西半球主导权视为核心利益，其霸权主义本质展现得淋漓 尽致。 对于美国而言，此时向委内瑞拉动手可实现"一石三鸟"的目标： 一是委内瑞拉油气储量丰厚，通过控制该国，可攫取大量资源以获取高额利润。 事实上，美国的此次行动不仅将重塑 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent policy shifts of the Trump administration regarding China and India reveal a stark contrast in international relations, highlighting the principle that power dictates treatment in global politics [5][12][20]. Group 1: Policy Changes - The Trump administration initially threatened to impose a 100% tariff on China for purchasing Russian oil, but quickly reversed this stance, with Secretary of State Rubio defending China and Trump stating that tariffs would not be considered for now [5][8]. - In contrast, India faced a 50% tariff for similar actions, indicating a selective enforcement of U.S. policies based on the perceived power dynamics between the countries [5][12]. Group 2: Economic Implications - China's position as the world's largest crude oil importer and a key buyer of Russian oil gives it significant leverage, making the U.S. wary of the economic repercussions of imposing tariffs [8][10]. - The potential rise in global oil prices due to U.S. sanctions could adversely affect American allies in Europe, who are already struggling with inflation [8][10]. Group 3: Power Dynamics - The differential treatment of China and India underscores a broader reality in international relations: powerful nations can negotiate from a position of strength, while weaker nations may be subject to harsher penalties [6][12][15]. - The U.S. views China as a serious competitor, while India is seen more as a tool to counterbalance China's influence, leading to disparate treatment in policy enforcement [14][15]. Group 4: Global Order Shift - The rapid policy reversal reflects a significant shift in the global order, moving from a unipolar to a multipolar world where the U.S. can no longer act unilaterally without considering the consequences [20][23]. - The emergence of a multipolar world necessitates that the U.S. adapt its strategies, as the previous approach of imposing sanctions without regard for repercussions is becoming increasingly untenable [20][23].