When Power Replaces Principle: America’s Undemocratic Reach in Venezuela

Reports and allegations surrounding the forced detention or covert removal of Venezuela’s sitting president by the United States have once again pushed Washington’s foreign policy into uncomfortable global scrutiny. Whether officially acknowledged or denied, the episode fits a long and troubling pattern: the US acting as judge, jury, and enforcer far beyond its borders, especially in countries it labels as adversaries. For Indian readers, unfamiliar with the details of Latin American geopolitics, this moment deserves attention not merely as a distant controversy but as a warning about how global power is exercised and abused.

To understand the gravity of the issue, one must first recognise Venezuela’s position in the global order. Rich in oil reserves and strategically located, Venezuela has for over two decades pursued a political path that challenges American economic and geopolitical dominance. Its leadership, whatever one’s opinion of its domestic record, has been elected within its own constitutional framework. Yet the US has consistently refused to recognise Venezuelan governments that do not align with its interests, imposing sanctions, backing opposition figures, and openly calling for regime change.

The alleged kidnapping or forced arrest of a sitting president even if carried out under the pretext of law enforcement or national security represents a dangerous escalation. It signals a shift from diplomatic pressure and economic coercion to direct intervention against sovereign leadership. Such actions stand in stark contrast to the democratic values that the US claims to champion. Democracy cannot be promoted by dismantling it elsewhere through force.

For decades, American foreign policy has followed a familiar script in regions like Latin America, West Asia, and parts of Africa: label a government as “authoritarian,” impose crippling sanctions that devastate ordinary citizens, and justify intervention as a moral necessity. Venezuela has been a textbook example. US sanctions have crippled its economy, worsened shortages, and pushed millions into poverty outcomes that are then cynically cited as proof of government failure.

From an Indian perspective, this raises uncomfortable questions. India, a nation shaped by anti-colonial struggle, understands the cost of external interference. The principle of sovereignty and non-intervention has long guided India’s foreign policy. If powerful nations normalise the practice of forcibly removing or detaining foreign leaders, what prevents similar actions elsewhere under different pretexts?

The United States’ approach to Venezuela also exposes the selective nature of its commitment to democracy. Washington maintains close relations with several regimes that are openly authoritarian, provided they align with its strategic interests. Democratic credentials, it appears, matter only when they serve geopolitical convenience. This double standard weakens international institutions and erodes trust in global norms.

Moreover, such aggressive actions risk destabilising entire regions. Latin America has a painful history of US-backed coups, military dictatorships, and covert operations. Each intervention has left behind fractured societies and long-term instability. The Venezuelan situation threatens to reopen those historical wounds, reinforcing anti-American sentiment and encouraging resistance rather than reform.

For India, the lesson is clear. A multipolar world cannot be built on the unilateral actions of one power. Global stability requires respect for international law, dialogue over coercion, and reform through engagement rather than force. The idea that one nation can decide who governs another is not only undemocratic, it is fundamentally colonial in spirit.

Criticising America’s actions is not an endorsement of Venezuela’s internal policies or leadership. It is a defence of a larger principle: that democracy loses its meaning when imposed at gunpoint or enforced through abduction. If global powers wish to be seen as defenders of freedom, they must first respect the sovereignty of nations they disagree with.

In an interconnected world, might does not make right. And when power forgets principle, it is not democracy that triumphs but fear, resentment, and instability. India, as a rising voice of the Global South, must speak clearly: democracy cannot be kidnapped, and sovereignty cannot be negotiated away.