Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

Delcy Rodriguez Sworn In As Venezuela's Acting President; Oil Prices Rise After Arrest Of Venezuela's Maduro; Trump: United States Companies To Rebuild Venezuela Oil Infrastructure; A Look At The United States Operation To Capture Venezuela's Maduro; Trump Touts "Donroe Doctrine" After Capturing Maduro; Columbian President Gustavo Petro Claims He Would "Take Up Arms Again" In The Face OF Trump's Threats. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired January 05, 2026 - 16:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[16:00:21]

RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Closing markets are ringing on Wall Street and what a day it has been. There is absolutely so much that we are

going to get to. We are closing in on 50,000. We are not going to make it today. We are off the top just slightly, but there you are. Well, a tepid

gavel. I am going to call it a tepid gavel for our trading as it ends today.

The markets seem to be on one story. Everything else is another. The main events: The ousted Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro has declared his

innocence in his first court appearance and said he was kidnaped.

Venezuela has a new president. The Parliament has sworn in Delcy Rodriguez as the country's interim leader.

And shares in U.S. oil companies soar. Investors are speculating about next for Venezuela's vast oil reserves.

We are in New York. We are live and it is Monday, January the 5th. I am Richard Quest and one thing remains constant, I remain in business.

We will try and make sense of it all. Good evening.

Tonight, Nicolas Maduro's Vice President, the second in command, has now been sworn in as the Acting President of Venezuela. Delcy Rodriguez took

the Oath of Office a few hours ago in Caracas. The ceremony was administered by her brother, Jorge Rodriguez, who is the leader of the

National Assembly.

It follows an appearance by Maduro and his wife in a U.S. courthouse here in New York, a few miles from where I am, where they pled not guilty to

drugs and weapons charges.

Maduro briefly asserted that he is the president of his country. Mary Triny Mena is in Caracas. Paula Newton has been following developments from

Ottawa.

Mary, we will go to you first. Just give me the events, please, that have happened that have taken the Vice President to swear in as President of the

country.

MARY TRINY MENA, JOURNALIST: Yes. Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in. She received the honor from the military -- from members of the military, and

also she was accompanied with members of the Maduro government, because most of the faces that are formed right now, the new government of

Venezuela belongs to the Maduro administration.

So what they are saying is that this is a continuation in the administration of Maduro, that they received this to preserve the peace of

Venezuela, the sovereignty of Venezuela.

Delcy Rodriguez is a 56-year-old lawyer.

QUEST: Right. So how is she going to balance her first comments when she said Maduro is still the President with her comments overnight, which is we

want dialogue with the United States and then add in a Secretary of State Rubio's comments that it is going to be about coercion to get this

government of Rodriguez to do what the U.S. wants.

MENA: Well, she is sending two messages at once. She is at first saying that they are loyal to Nicolas Maduro, that they want him to be released.

But on the other hand, she is also sending a message of cooperation with the Trump administration, saying she is open to talks, she is open to share

an agenda of cooperation between the two countries.

So this is the new leadership of the country that is taking the reins of Venezuela after this shocking events.

QUEST: Mary, stay with me, because I want to get how things seem on the streets. But I want to go to Paula first of all up in Ottawa following the

days' events. Pull together, please, Paula, what we know and what we've seen today.

PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST AND CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is certainly not a transformative day for the Venezuelan people when you saw

the scenes there from the National Assembly, this was not what they would have been expected to happen if their President now was at that very

moment, standing charges in a New York courtroom.

This was the Old Guard up to its old tricks. It was very performative and the Vice President, now Acting President Delcy Rodriguez saying very

clearly in an unorthodox fashion, Richard, as she was being sworn in, that she was upholding the values of the heroes of the country, namely Nicolas

Maduro and his First Lady.

[16:05:13]

I will say, Richard, that this is disquieting, not just for the people of Venezuela right now, trying to figure out what is going on, but I am here

in Ottawa, where Mark Carney, the Prime Minister has just landed in Paris. They are going to have this meeting tomorrow on the Coalition of the

Willing. He continues, along with European allies, to stress the rule of law, and they themselves also wondering where this goes next.

QUEST: Stay with me, Paula. Back to you, Mary in Caracas.

How would you gauge the mood on the street? In a sense, obviously there are still those who supported Maduro. There are those who are opposed. Would

you say -- I mean, Venezuela, let's not forget, is a very large country. it is not like it is around the block. So there is all the sort of the rural,

the other cities and all of those. What's the mood?

MENA: Well, we've been talking to people in the streets, and of course, there is concern about what is coming for the coming days, especially after

the words of Donald Trump saying that Delcy Rodriguez should behave or should follow the instructions from the Trump administration, if not, she

will be punished.

But so far she is portraying herself as a negotiator figure in Venezuela, some sort of negotiator figure open to discussions.

In Venezuela, the streets remain pretty much empty. It is a country that is trying to re resume daily activities today. Most commercial establishments

were open and people are trying to buy food and medicines, but that is the reality for them. The reality is that Venezuelans are used to live hard

economic conditions and sometimes they forget about the politics and concentrate in the day-to-day.

QUEST: I am so glad you're there. Thank you very much. Mary, we will talk more in the days ahead, in Caracas.

Paula, coming back to you, you rightly point out, and we are going to talk later in the program the difficulties. You're up in Canada, we've got

Venezuela, you've got Mexico, we will be talking about the Don-roe Doctrine later and this whole idea of the U.S. flexing its muscles.

Now we know -- Let me go -- let me go off-piste, as they might say. We know in the past, Donald Trump has said Canada, 51st state. Is there anybody up

in Canada now sort of saying, hang on, is this about to be revisited?

NEWTON: Listen, I would be lying if I said that there weren't people at this point that the entire work of the United States right now in this

hemisphere would be making them a little bit nervous, but I think I return to the slogan that Mark Carney used when he ran for Prime Minister saying

that the United States tends to, in his words, break us, meaning Canada economically so that they can control us. And again, Canada will be in

direct competition for Venezuelan oil, not this year, next year, but possibly in five to seven years.

And you wonder what is at work with this new Don-roe Doctrine as you're talking about, it is certainly known within the Trump administration that

they do not understand why Canada is not a state of the United States, and that kind of rhetoric will continue, if not publicly, certainly in private.

NEWTON: Okay. So we've had -- I mean, judging from what Mary was saying in Caracas, things are quiet on the street, but they must be wondering what on

earth is going on. And indeed, I think that's the mood everywhere. Nobody really knows.

NEWTON: Listen, I've spent so much time on the streets of Caracas before. I haven't been there since the pandemic. But, you know, year after year,

month after month, people are struggling, as Maria just said, struggling to find medicine, just regular painkillers you know, fever reducers, flour,

pasta, water.

It is -- the survival rate in Venezuela right now, the things you have to do just to survive, and yet what do they see on state television this

morning? They see the same old regime stalwarts being installed yet again. They cannot in any way, shape or form expect that anything is going to be

transformative and change.

Richard, I do want to point out one thing. I know that a lot of the discussion here is always about Venezuelan oil. There are a lot more

resources in Venezuela other than oil, and we know that right now, multinationals are eyeing all of them.

QUEST: We will talk more about that in the days, weeks and months ahead. I am grateful. Thank you.

Let's stick with the day's events in court, the -- excuse me, in court -- the ousted Venezuelan President told the judge, I am a decent man. Nicolas

Maduro and his wife, they arrived in court after, of course, the events of the weekend, dramatic events.

[16:10:10]

Here, you see him getting off the helicopter on his way to the courthouse because he is at the Metropolitan Detention Center over in Brooklyn. They

had to be brought over to the courthouse.

Neither Mr. Maduro nor his wife were seeking bail or to be released. Within minutes of the appearance. He stood and told the judge, I was captured at

my home in Caracas, Venezuela. The judge responded, there will be a time and a place to go into all of this and then set the next date in March.

Laura Coates is in New York.

Laura, this is fascinating because at one level they treat this exactly as you would any other court case. Maduro is a defendant who has been

arraigned, who has now been indicted et cetera, et cetera. The procedure is clear. And then, of course, there is reality, it is anything but. What was

it like?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You are so right. The extraordinary nature of this was the ordinary nature of the actual

arraignment. When you go before a court, they tell you the charges and you are to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, but who entered that

courtroom? The self-proclaimed President of Venezuela and the self- proclaimed First Lady of Venezuela.

He is a tall man, a gigantic stature. He was self-assured. He had on headphones, having a translator interpret the court proceedings for him. He

held in his hand the indictment for the very first time, he said. He took copious notes.

Within minutes he had filled up multiple pages. He listened intently. He was leaning over, talking to his attorney as well. And at the very first

opportunity he had to speak to the court, he identified himself as somebody who is the President of the Republic of Venezuela, that he was a prisoner

of war, that he was a decent man.

He was interrupted by the judge to say, listen, we will have time to talk about the legality of your capture and international law and immunity. For

now, I just want to confirm that you are indeed Nicolas Maduro, to which he said he was.

He then talked about how he had not known the rights about having counsel that could be appointed to him. However, he did have counsel. It is Julian

Assange's attorney as well.

Now, counter that split screen with his wife, just one lawyer away from him, much more reserved, much more demure. Her demeanor almost withdrawn at

times, soft spoken, but would turn and look at him occasionally as they exchanged a glance as he listened intently to what her answers would be.

Her lawyer talked about health care and of course, that she had been injured, she said. He had that -- she had some bandages on her face near

her temple, on her forehead. They described bruised ribs as well, and both attorneys wanted to have a health care or a medical form filled out to

address both of their concerns.

They did not ask for bail, which is their right to be released. They can request it, I should say pending their trial. The judge unlikely to grant

that unless he can be assured that they will return to this very courtroom. But we have not known the defenses. We do not know whether and when they

will raise the head of state immunity claims.

As you know, Richard, in the United States back in 1989, with respect to Noriega, obviously a very different factual circumstance, not a precedent.

In this instance, there was an opinion by the lawyers for The White House to suggest that there is deference given to The White House to determine

who gets that head of state immunity, and given the state of affairs, it is unlikely they will agree to that.

QUEST: I am so delighted that you went straight into that, Laura Coates. Thank you very much, because that takes us to our next talking point on

exactly that issue.

The arrest of foreign leaders is extremely rare, specifically because of this known as head of state immunity. The U.N. Charter says all members

shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

It also goes back, of course, to where the Westphalia Agreements back in the 17th Century, where the sovereignty of states and thereby later the

extrapolation of the head of state.

Now, the Trump administration suggests the capture of Maduro was more about law enforcement. The Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was asked about the

legal justification for the arrest. He answered oil.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, first of all, what is going to happen here is that we have a quarantine on their oil. That means their

economy will not be able to move forward until the conditions that are in the national interest of the United States and the interest of the

Venezuelan people are met, and that's what we intend to do.

So that leverage remains, that leverage is ongoing, and we expect that it is going to lead to results here. We are also hopeful that it does positive

results for the people of Venezuela, but ultimately, most importantly for us in the national interest of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[16:15:07]

QUEST: And now with me, Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, prosecutor for the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, now visiting

professor of law at Goldsmiths University in London, and a veritable expert on this whole question.

Now we know the Noriega case, Sir Geoffrey. In that case, basically the U.S. said, well, we didn't recognize him. He wasn't the head of state. He

wasn't the elected president, therefore, we were able to get him and lock him up, et cetera, et cetera.

Here, slightly more difficult. But are they going to find that -- I mean, it will be difficult for Maduro to prove or to get accepted he has

sovereign immunity.

SIR GEOFFREY NICE KC, VISITING PROFESSOR OF LAW AT GRESHAM COLLEGE OF LAW: I don't know about whether he is going to be able to claim sovereign

immunity, but there are many other ways in which if international humanitarian law was recognized properly, this would probably be regarded

as unlawful. If it is simply to do with crime, what right do you have to invade another country to lift somebody who you say is a criminal in your

country or who commits crimes that are subject to jurisdiction in your country.

And there are many other violations, alleged violations, I should say, of the charter about peaceful resolution, about aggression, about sovereignty

and so on. However, with the Noriega precedent within America and with the current state of America's recognition of the validity of international

humanitarian law, I would think it is highly likely that insofar as these issues can be dealt with by lawyers and judges, they will ultimately favor

what Trump has done; insofar as matters are left to the jury, it is harder to tell.

But of course, the jurors are citizens who have tolerated the changing regime in America brought about by Mr. Trump. As a matter of detail, it is

just probably meant to refer to Gresham College of Law, I am professor at both places, or have been, but that's -- don't worry, that's fine.

QUEST: I apologize, sir, we will get that right.

I am interested on this idea, though, that this idea that what is really reading your briefing notes to us, what is really at issue here is the

disregard for our previously held -- for want of a phrase -- rule of law when it comes to relations between states, how nations treat each other,

the sovereignty question and the ability of the Trump administration to ignore them, to trample all over them, and it leaves us where when it is

over, all is said and done?

NICE KC: It leaves us, many would argue, and I think I would agree in a very dangerous place. Let's assume that just for the purposes of this

discussion, Maduro is quite as bad as many people say and as America has said, doing what's done, if it is in violation of international law, as

many are arguing, starting with Colombia in the Security Council, if it is in violation of international humanitarian law, you can reasonably foresee

further such violations if America, in the vernacular gets away with it, and so that's why we have been hearing about China, Taiwan, and we of

course, have seen for years now Russia against Ukraine, which is all part of the same pattern of saying we couldn't care less about international

humanitarian law.

Overall in the long term, would it be better to respect international law and move as you can through its slow processes in the Security Council, in

the General Assembly, and so on? Is it better to respect that even with the short term, not short term, but the serious problems that follow assuming

Maduro is as bad as people say, or is it better to allow the world to operate on might is right basis?

QUEST: You just -- can I just jump in there? You just took the words I was going to say. What we've got is might is right and there does not seem to

be an easy or obvious way to put this genie back in the bottle. If the courts in the U.S. say, for example, are prepared to go along with this

indictment.

NICE KC: I fear, Mr. Quest, you are probably right and it is a very worrying proposition if you are right and I think what we should have

regard to is that the development of international humanitarian law mechanisms, so that's the International Court of Justice. Before that, the

post-World War I courts, the ad hoc courts for Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court actually occupy quite a small period of time.

[16:20:31]

They may see be seen as the exception, whereas the general rule coming from Westphalia Treaty and so on is that states can do what they like.

Therefore, powerful states will do what they like. However, the law remains because the law is there and they can't deny the law even if they are able

to get away with the use of force.

The law can then be implemented in other ways and since Mr. Trump is very interested in money, it is quite possible, I think, that in the midterm

well find many more commercial or civil court actions brought concerning crimes committed within or by countries.

So where a country allows unlawful actions to happen, as was said about Israel and building the wall, you can attack or a country can attack or a

civilian can attack or an NGO can attack those who provide the building materials for the wall. And by that way, you usurp the law.

And so amongst the many ways in which -- you can also do it by clever lawyering within the existing courts, as we saw with, for example,

intelligent and clever lawyering brought in respect of Myanmar, which is not susceptible to the International Criminal Court, but Bangladesh is and

so on.

So there are clever ways in which the existing structures can still be used, and lawyers will be doing their best on our behalf to make sure that

they apply in this case. I think it is going to be very difficult for much to be done in the courts about America in this case. So we will be looking

at other ways in which the law which continues exists.

QUEST: We will talk to you more about this. I am grateful, Sir Geoffrey, thank you very much for joining us, putting that and putting it neatly to

us.

NICE KC: My pleasure, Richard.

QUEST: Thank you.

On that point that Sir Geoffrey was talking about, the commercial way in which this will all fall out. Well, President Trump says Venezuela stole

U.S. oil. Experts say even if Trump gets it back, getting the vast crude reserves to U.S. market will not be easy, which is possibly why you haven't

seen much of a tick up in prices except for the oil companies involved.

QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:25:36]

QUEST: Oil prices were higher after the arrest. Brent was up while both the major benchmarks were up around one percent, and it brings the prices to

where they were last week. A muted response, despite the amount of oil that Venezuela has over 300 billion barrels. But of course, it may be the number

one in terms of proven reserves, around a fifth of the world's total. Look at that, more than Saudi Arabia, et cetera.

But Anna Cooban is with me and tells us exactly why the reaction is not as great as it might have been.

ANNA COOBAN, CNN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS REPORTER: Well, Richard, I think well, firstly, I think there is a bit of uncertainty around the extent to

which these U.S. oil companies can really tap these reserves. These reserves are, as you said, they are plentiful. They are also particularly

useful to the U.S., not just the amount, but the actual type of crude. So Venezuela has got a lot of this heavy oil, this sticky gelatinous oil which

is used to make diesel and things for factories, basically the stuff that the U.S. doesn't really have and needs to import.

But since many of these U.S. oil companies have been in the country about two decades ago and then were basically had their assets nationalized,

ExxonMobil, for example, ConocoPhillips, since then, the infrastructure has really crumbled to the point where even Venezuela's own state run oil

company has said that many of its pipelines haven't been updated in around 50 years.

And so, Richard, that really gives you a sense of the kind of work that's needed to be done in order to get infrastructure back up to par to start

pumping out that really valuable, sticky, gelatinous, heavy crude oil.

QUEST: Anna, I am grateful. Anna Cooban setting the stage on why prices have remained somewhat steady. But if we look now, thank you, Anna, if we

look at the shares in several energy companies, they did rise.

Chevron is up five percent. It is the only company still operating in Venezuela by license. Other companies are likely to go there. They saw a

rise.

As President Trump alluded to on Sunday, it is going to take investment and sizable amounts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Remember, they stole our property. It was the greatest theft in the history of America.

Nobody has ever stolen our property like they have.

They took our oil away from us. They took the infrastructure away and all that infrastructure is rotted and decayed and the oil companies are going

to go in and rebuild it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Helima Croft is with me, Global Head of Commodities at RBC Capital Markets. It is worth pointing out when he says they stole the oil, the oil

was always Venezuela's. It is under Venezuela's ground. It is about the companies, the oil companies that they've expropriated and that they dealt

with, but the oil still remains Venezuela's, well, now, arguably the United States, it is not clear.

You were telling me a moment or three ago, it is going to be a very long time.

HELIMA CROFT, GLOBAL HEAD OF COMMODITY STRATEGY, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS: I mean, look, the turnaround costs for the Venezuelan oil sector are enormous

and we talked to companies that operate currently in Venezuela. They say it is going to cost about $10 billion annually to try to turn this story

around. There is no quick recovery story for Venezuela.

The infrastructure has deteriorated over decades. I think back to 2003 with the Venezuelan oil strike. That's when Hugo Chavez fired 20,000 PDVSA

employees and turned PDVSA into an organ of the military, essentially, the piggybank for the Bolivarian Revolution.

So the question is, are the companies prepared to go in into an unstable security environment? One of your last guests, she was brilliant talking

about like just the amount of like human capital, how much it has deteriorated there, the health indicators there. It is very insecure when

it comes to crime.

Who is going to turn this country around? Is it going to be oil companies?

QUEST: All right, and you have to put in place a legal framework. I mean, you know, a legal framework that any investment in there, any company is

either going to want sovereign guarantees from the United States that they are not going to lose their shirts, and they are going to want to make sure

that they are protected.

CROFT: Richard, we have companies already operating there. So what happens to the Chinese stakes in Venezuela? What happens to the Russian stakes

there? We have European companies operating there.

[16:30:01]

Yes, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, they received billions of dollars in arbitration settlements that they have not been able to collect on. I think

there is some discussion, will they go back into Venezuela? But we hear a lot of reticence from energy companies about how challenging this is going

to be, and they say, at a minimum, we need a stable operating environment.

QUEST: Oh, but hang on a second. There is a -- there is a million barrels a day currently being pumped, so, roughly 900 and something thousand. Now,

that oil, essentially, the U.S. now has in its back pocket, I suppose, in some perverted sense of might is right?

You know, you don't have to improve things much more to get that up, arguably, to 1.2-1.3 million. So, the U.S. --

(CROSSTALK)

CROFT: Well, the question --

QUEST: Go ahead.

CROFT: Is that the high watermark near term? I mean, we have essentially, you know, elevated expectations of a massive turnaround for the Venezuelan

oil sector. Currently, we have declines, Richard because of the ongoing embargo of Venezuela, which has not been lifted at this point. The

sanctions regime remains in place. We don't know the timetable for sanctions being removed.

That is key. But you also, again, need a stable operating environment, even to talk about a couple of hundred thousand barrels.

QUEST: So, Helima, play along with me for this next one.

President Trump has already basically cleansed MBS out of Saudi Arabia the visit to the United States. He's made good there, both on A.I. on securing

energy. So, he's got that.

Now, he is basically saying, President Trump, look, if we look 30 years down the road when energy costs are elsewhere, Venezuela is my answer.

Venezuela is America first in 30 years-time, when we are still going to need, and that country, and I've secured those oil assets. Do you buy that?

(CROSSTALK)

CROFT: Well, the question -- well, the question is, can you compel us, oil companies to make the billions of dollars of investment in Venezuela right

now? Again, you brought up the legal, regulatory issues. I bring up the security issues. Can you get the Venezuelan military to go back to the

barracks? They are essentially running PDVSA right now.

So, are U.S. companies going to partner with the military in running these assets? Like, we just don't know the path for the current regime to

essentially allow the transformation of the Venezuelan oil sector. So, there is so many uncertainties we can talk about this sort of El Dorado

outcome, but a lot has to break right.

And Richard, our track record when it comes to regime change and nation building, and oil producing states is not one of unambiguous success.

QUEST: Oh, I do like your understatement. Thank you very much. I tell you one thing I do know. Over the months ahead, you and I are going to talk a

lot about exactly how this is playing out. And I think that the -- I think, the oil production is going to come on quicker than most people think.

CROFT: Well, I'll take -- I will happily come back, and we'll see who is right on this one. Richard.

QUEST: Dinner in a good restaurant. Thank you very much. Thank you.

CROFT: Thank you.

QUEST: Now, so, the president, U.S. president has asserted, or at least the newspaper has called it the Donroe Doctrine. It's since the capture of

Maduro. Now, it's the idea, it resembles a Monroe-era from the 19th century.

What is the Donroe Doctrine -- the Donroe Doctrine? If you will, the Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. Yes, we are going down that road after

the break. QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:36:57]

QUEST: Hello, I'm Richard Quest. We have more quest means business, a lot more indeed. When we'll be discussing the so-called Donroe Doctrine,

President Trump's vision of a new world order, spheres of hemisphere, spheres of influence.

We'll be live in Colombia, where Mr. Trump's putting the country's president on notice, only days after the Venezuela capture.

Only after the headlines. This is CNN, and here, the news comes first.

The ousted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has pleaded not guilty in a federal court in New York. He was defined and he told the judge, I'm

innocent, as he was arraigned on drugs, weapons, and narco-terrorism charges. His wife, Cilia Flores also entered a not guilty plea. The next

hearing in the case is scheduled for March of the 17th.

The prime minister of Denmark, says U.S. president talks of taking over Greenland must be taken seriously. Mette Frederiksen, says Greenland's

population has made it clear they have no interest in becoming part of the U.S.

It says the autonomous territory is covered by Denmark's membership in NATO.

The governor of the U.S. state of Minnesota is dropping his bid for re- election. Tim Walz announced his decision today not to seek a third term in office. It comes amid intensifying federal probes into a welfare fraud

scandal in the state. Republicans have sought to blame Walz and Democrats for the abuse of tax payers' dollars.

Several countries are condemning the U.S. capture of Maduro and calling for his release. Russia's U.N. envoy said the move turns back to an era of

lawlessness and U.S. domination by force. China's foreign ministry says the seizures clearly violates international laws.

The protesters in the streets from Sri Lanka to New York, outside the courthouse where Maduro made his appearance.

CNN's Nick Paton Walsh reporting on the U.S. operation to capture Nicolas Maduro.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NICOLAS MADURO, PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA (text): Come get me.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice over): With Nicolas Maduro, unbowed, President Trump gave the order at

10:46 p.m. Eastern Time.

Later, U.S. forces flew into Venezuela from the sea, 150 aircraft, drones, jets, the helicopters visible over Caracas, where blackouts from U.S.,

electronic warfare and blasts eased their path.

GEN. DAN CAINE, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: As the night began, the helicopters took off with the extraction force, which included law

enforcement officers and began their flight into Venezuela at a hundred feet above the water.

As they approach Venezuelan shores, the United States began layering different effects provided by Spacecom, CYBERCOM, and other members of the

interagency to create a pathway.

WALSH (voice over): Multiple locations were hit, in and around the capital, including what appeared to be an air defense missile system east of Caracas

in Higuerote.

[16:40:09]

And La Carlota Air Base in the capital, and the Port of La Guaira. Fire was otherwise concentrated on the Fuerte Tiuna military stronghold. And at 1:01

a.m., U.S. forces landed at Maduro's location.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It was a force against a heavily fortified military fortress in the heart of Caracas.

WALSH (voice over): Images from outside Fortress Tiuna, show troops and people fleeing in the dead of night. It lasted 30 minutes, said General Dan

Caine and tore apart Venezuela's defenses and the regional order, leaving a gap of two hours and many clashes, he said, until they were over the sea.

CAINE: And the force was over the water at 3:29 a.m., Eastern Standard Time.

WALSH (voice over): The multi-million-dollar alleged narco-terrorist on the USS Iwo Jima in $120 jogging suit.

Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUEST: President Trump implies military action could come next to Colombia. Country's leaders warned he would take up arms if the U.S. attacks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

QUEST: A few hours ago, the U.S. state department posted this on X. Doesn't get more blunt than that. "This is our hemisphere".

It's President Trump asserting what's now being called the Donroe Doctrine with the capture of Maduro. It's his version of the Monroe Doctrine,

established in 1823, by the president at the time, James Monroe. In a speech, where he declared the Americas and Europe as separate spheres of

influence. The U.S. would have sole domain over the western hemisphere, and he vowed the U.S. would stay out of European affairs and quid pro quo,

Europe must stay out of America.

So, now, you have what many people believe are new spheres of set.

First of all, let's talk about the U.S. sphere of influence. You are really talking about all of this. Look at it all. This is what the United States

is thinking under, arguably, under the Trump. Doctrine, spheres of influence.

[16:45:02]

But you've also got Russia with its spheres of influence. Look at that. That takes in Ukraine, Belarus, many of the countries all around that sort

of area, forgive me, if I'm not terribly precise, but that's just because of my poor drawing.

And then, you have China and its spheres of influence, which, of course, goes right the way down through until the South China Sea, and all the

arguably difficult areas there.

Now, how far can we say this is about spheres of influence. Fareed Zakaria is with me in New York, and joins me.

Fareed, as you look at this, let's -- it's about oil, yes, at one level, but it is also, as we take Greenland and we take Colombia, it's about what

this Donroe Doctrine. What do you understand it to mean?

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST, CNN: Well, it's a puzzling doctrine, Richard, because the United States, for the last 80 years, has been the primary superpower

in the world. Our sphere of influence has been the entire globe. We have a series of alliances, 59 treaty allies, as I think by my counting, that are

shaping the stability and influencing parts of the world as far away as Japan and South Korea, obviously, the heart of Europe, and also, of course,

the Western Hemisphere. This is a strange return to a period when the United States was a small country.

You point out the history. When James Monroe was president, the United States was not in the top 15 economies in the world. It was a small

agricultural nation, mostly, you know, 13 colonies nestled east of the Allegheny Mountains. For us to retreat to this hemisphere, and in the hope

that, I don't know we're going to get some oil by doing it, or some land in Greenland. And first of all, doesn't understand how modern economics works.

QUEST: Right.

ZAKARIA: It's not about resource extraction. And secondly, it withdraws the United States from its principal trading partners, which are Asia and

Europe. We are getting stuck with the least economically important sphere in that division that you described.

QUEST: Can the U.S. -- Oh, that's fascinating point. So, can the U.S. have its cake and eat it? If we go back to my chart, to my illustrating, can it

have Greenland, arguably, Venezuela, Colombia, and all these areas? And at the same time, still play through Asia, through the South Pacific, onto,

for example, the South China Seas, and all those areas where it's still hoping to project, or are they going to be met with a Xi, saying, get your

hands off. This is our area. Get out.

ZAKARIA: Well, as you say, that is the, you know, the fundamental challenge, which is, if the United States articulates a doctrine that says,

the reason we get to be primary, you know, we get to boss everybody around, is this is geographically closer to us, Xi Jinping is going to make exactly

the same argument. And Vladimir Putin has already made exactly the same argument.

The U.S. has for eight decades, said that is not the way countries should organize themselves. We are all going to try and play by the same rules. We

are all going to try and play by the same norms, and the fact that you are big and strong and close to your neighbor, doesn't mean you can invade it.

Doesn't mean you can occupy it.

And so, hard for -- hard for me to see what they are -- what argument the U.S. could make to a Xi Jinping in Taiwan or to Putin in Ukraine, when they

say we are just doing what you are doing in our neighborhoods.

QUEST: So, how much of what we have seen in the last four or five days is opportunistic, do you think? John Bolton on this network sort of basically

said it was opportunistic, and there is no real policy point behind it, other than steal some oil, arguably, for the future.

But others say, no, actually, this is President Trump ensuring strong U.S. oil reserves for decades into the future, when others may may dwindle.

ZAKARIA: I think it's a bit of both, in the sense that Trump acts impulsively, opportunistically. He senses weakness. He sees where he has

leverage, and he uses it. But it does come out of a worldview that believes, you know, what the United States should do is pursue its naked

self-interest.

But it's a very narrow kind of self-interest. I mean, really what we have done over the last, again, eight decades is construct a world economy where

take energy.

[16:50:04]

We have a very large liquid market-driven world of energy anchored in the dollar. The United States is, by the way, the largest producer of liquid

hydrocarbons in the world. We don't particularly need more. Putting your hands on -- if ownership of resources was the key to global wealth and

power --

(CROSSTALK)

QUEST: Right.

ZAKARIA: How come the countries in Africa are so poor? They are sitting on top of gold mines and mineral mines of all kinds. That it fundamentally

misunderstands modern economics.

QUEST: I'm grateful, Fareed. Thank you for joining us tonight, putting it beautifully into perspective. Thank you, sir.

President Trump is threatening to use his Donroe Doctrine and put it into practice in Colombia.

Clarissa Ward is there, and hopefully you'll hear this from Bogota after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

QUEST: Donald Trump says Colombia could be next. The Colombian president says he would take up arms personally if the United States attacks.

Clarissa Ward is with me. She is in Bogota. I mean, I would -- Clarissa, let me be -- let me be blunt here. Prior to this weekend, I would have said

anybody expecting an attack or an extraction would be smoking something strange. But after the weekend, I guess anybody who says it could happen

has to be taken seriously.

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think any kind of threat or bluster certainly has to be taken seriously. And you can see from

the response that we saw earlier today from Colombia's President Gustavo Petro that he certainly takes it seriously.

He wrote a lengthy and fiery post on X, in which he explicitly warned President Trump against any kind of U.S. military intervention in Colombia,

saying though even that his guerrilla days were long past him, and he hadn't -- and he had vowed not to touch a weapon and hadn't touched one in

many years, that he would be willing to take up arms to defend the homeland.

And he also warned President Trump that if he tried to ouster him, that there would be a massive popular uprising. To quote him directly, he said,

"If you arrest a president whom a good part of my people want and respect, you will unleash a popular jaguar."

Now, I do want to say, Richard, and it's important that we have also been having conversations with a number of people in the presidency.

[16:55:04]

CNN has spoken with the Defense Minister Pedro Sanchez, and they are really trying to tamped down the rhetoric here.

They are trying to focus on shared cooperation between the U.S. and Colombia, which has been a steadfast ally in the U.S.'s counter narcotic

strategy now for four decades.

And all of that cooperation that continues at multiple layers on a law enforcement level are continuing. So, despite this sort of up -- amped up

rhetoric that we are hearing, the sense here from people, more behind the scenes and from the defense minister is that they want to focus on the

common enemies that the U.S. and Colombia share and not be kind of pointing barbs or guns at each other.

Trump did not limit himself to threatening Colombia, by the way, Richard, as you know, there were threats and warnings to Mexico, to Cuba, also to

Iran, and to Greenland.

So, a number of different warnings and threats coming from him in all directions. But for people in this region, given the U.S.'s history here

and given the stunning events of the last few days, obviously, to a certain extent, these threats do need to be taken seriously and seen on some level

at face value, Richard.

QUEST: Clarissa, I'm grateful, and we will talk more in the days ahead, as you find out more about the possibilities and the difficulties there. Thank

you, Clarissa Ward, in Bogota. We will have a "PROFITABLE MOMENT" of one sort or another after the break.

QUEST MEANS BUSINESS, live in New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

QUEST: Tonight's "PROFITABLE MOMENT". Might is right. You can say it any one of a million ways. Where does the 500-pound gorilla sit? Wherever it

wants. You know all the old jokes.

But what we have seen over the last few days is, indeed, might is right. International law is what the U.S. says it is, at least that's the way it

is at the moment, and that's very much the warning that we heard tonight from Sir Geoffrey Nice K.C. in London.

This idea of international humanitarian law, if it's broken, who is going to enforce it?

If the U.S. says they have an indictment that allows them to go and get somebody they don't recognize as president, by force, who is going to say

that that's wrong when their domestic courts will let it happen?

[17:00:08]

We saw this with Noriega, where, of course, it was allowed. A more nuanced with Pinochet in the U.K., but might is right.

END