Opinion After Venezuela, strategic autonomy can’t be just words
The US’s intervention is in many ways a replay of what happened in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. The response to such attacks cannot be cosmetic
At the global level, institutions must be restructured to reflect contemporary realities. The new year has begun on an ominous note. US forces attacked Venezuela and captured the country’s President Nicolás Maduro. This was not a covert operation against a non-state actor, nor a multilateral action sanctioned by global institutions. That such an act could be defended by Washington, even as it drew sharp criticism inside the UN Security Council, speaks volumes about the erosion of norms that once governed the international conduct of nations.
Almost simultaneously, US President Donald Trump claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was keen to keep him happy and followed this with threats of new tariffs against India for continuing to import Russian oil. The use of tariffs as instruments of intimidation reinforces a broader pattern of coercion. Economic pressure, diplomatic arm-twisting, and open violations of sovereignty are being normalised. In such a context, the silence or evasions of emerging powers, including India, is worrying. It signals the failure of the global order to uphold equality among nations.
The post-war international system emerged in the aftermath of the defeat of Nazism. The enormous sacrifices, particularly by the Soviet Red Army, created an opening to build a world order that would prevent regimes such as that of Hitler from reemerging. The UN system emerged from this resolve. Despite its structural flaws and power asymmetries, it rested on principles of sovereign equality, non-aggression, and respect for self-determination, especially for people emerging from colonial rule.
The Soviet Union acted as a check on expansion by the US and its allies. The Non-Aligned Movement, led by India, Indonesia, Egypt and Yugoslavia, asserted the political agency of the formerly colonised world. The combination of ideological competition and multilateral engagement kept imperial forces in check. Even at moments of extreme tension, diplomacy and balance prevailed.
The roots of the current crisis lie in the abrupt end of that balance. The Soviet Union’s dissolution and the emergence of a unipolar world order were harnessed to impose a neoliberal economic orthodoxy across the globe. Under pressure from the World Bank and the IMF, several countries were compelled to dismantle public sectors, weaken labour protections and open their economies to speculative capital. The promise was growth and prosperity, but the reality has been persistent unemployment, widening inequality, chronic debt, and ecological devastation. Yet, several major economies, including India, continue to follow the neo-liberal path. When development is tied to foreign capital flows and foreign markets, foreign policy autonomy gets compromised. Silence in the face of coercion becomes a survival tactic. This dependency helps explain the muted response of several countries to the US actions in Venezuela. This is not merely a moral failure. A global order dominated by neoliberal economics produces insecurity and fear and discourages nations from taking independent positions.
The US’s intervention is in many ways a replay of what happened in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. The response to such attacks cannot be cosmetic. At the global level, institutions must be restructured to reflect contemporary realities. The UN Security Council does not represent the contemporary world’s realities. Its permanent membership must be expanded to include emerging nations – meaningful representation from India, Africa, and Latin America is an utmost imperative.
Equally vital is the strengthening of South-South cooperation. Developing cooperation in trade, technology, energy and finance can provide alternatives to coercive arrangements. A genuine commitment to a rules-based order requires collective action to defend international law, not rhetoric. Countries such as India need to rethink economic and foreign policy choices. Strategic autonomy cannot coexist with economic subservience. A nation struggling with unemployment and inequality at home cannot project confidence abroad.
The choice before humanity is stark. Either the world reclaims the principles of sovereignty, self-determination, and collective security, or it submits to a lawless order where power and might decide what is right and wrong. For nations that once led the struggle against colonialism, breaking that silence is not optional — it is a moral responsibility.
The writer is General Secretary, Communist Party of India
Share
