Why India Is Reluctant to Criticize the US on Venezuela

India’s Response to the Venezuela Crisis & the Role of International Institutions

Key Concepts:

• Strategic Autonomy: India’s policy of maintaining independence in its foreign policy and not aligning exclusively with any major power.
• Hedging: A cautious approach to international issues, avoiding strong commitments and maintaining flexibility.
• Global South: Developing and less developed countries, often sharing similar geopolitical interests.
• Norms-Based Order: An international system based on established rules, laws, and principles of international relations.
• Exceptionalism: The belief that a nation is exempt from the normal rules and expectations of international conduct.
• Veto Power: The power of permanent members of the UN Security Council to block any resolution.

India’s Muted Reaction to the Venezuela Situation

The discussion centers on India’s relatively restrained response to the unfolding events in Venezuela, contrasting it with China’s more vocal criticism of U.S. actions. Syed Akbaruddin, former Indian Representative to the United Nations, explains this caution stems from the inherent uncertainty surrounding the U.S.’s rationale for its involvement. The U.S. has presented multiple justifications – ranging from concerns about narco-terrorism and criminality to potential interests in oil and regime change – making it difficult for India to formulate a definitive stance.

Akbaruddin categorizes global responses into three types: those prioritizing norms, those hedging norms, and those supporting U.S. exceptionalism. He positions India firmly within the “hedging” category, expressing “deep concern” without taking a more assertive position. This approach is driven by India’s dual interests – a stake in Venezuela and a crucial relationship with the United States. India is observing the situation closely, awaiting clarity on the U.S.’s ultimate objectives.

Strategic Autonomy and the Global South

Haslinda questions how India can position itself as a leader of the Global South while simultaneously adopting a cautious approach that appears to compromise on principles of national sovereignty. Akbaruddin counters that many countries within the Global South share a similar nuanced position. He cites examples of Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand, all of whom have adopted a hedging strategy. He emphasizes that expressing “deep concern” is itself a statement of India’s values, and that a granular observation will follow as the situation unfolds.

He draws parallels to India’s initial response to the Russian intervention in Ukraine, highlighting a consistent pattern of cautious engagement in complex geopolitical situations. India recognizes the importance of international norms but acknowledges the historical reality that powerful nations often operate outside of them. He notes that even nations critical of the violation of international law haven’t entirely abandoned engagement with the Maduro government, demonstrating a gradation of responses based on national interests.

Limits of India’s Foreign Policy Independence & US Relations

The conversation addresses the potential limitations of India’s foreign policy independence, particularly in the context of ongoing trade negotiations with the U.S. Akbaruddin acknowledges that India’s interests are always factored into its decisions, noting that India has “stood up and is paying the price” in terms of reciprocal tariffs. However, he argues that this cautious approach is not unique to India and is consistent with its historical approach to international interventions. He reiterates the parallel with the Ukraine situation, where initial criticism of India’s lack of vocal opposition eventually gave way to recognition of its role in advocating for peace.

The Relevance and Limitations of the United Nations

The discussion shifts to the relevance of the United Nations, with Haslinda questioning its credibility given its perceived ineffectiveness. Akbaruddin concedes that the U.N. is “damaged” due to its structure being rooted in the world of 1945, a vastly different geopolitical landscape. He acknowledges the need for structural reform but believes it is unlikely due to the reluctance of powerful nations to relinquish authority.

Despite its flaws, he argues the U.N. remains essential as a forum for dialogue and grievance airing, stating, “If we have a U.N. perhaps we would have to invent it.” He uses the analogy that the U.N. “keeps you from descending into hell,” acknowledging its limitations while emphasizing its continued value. He clarifies that the U.N. was originally designed to prevent conflict between major powers, not to intervene in their actions against smaller nations. The veto power held by permanent Security Council members effectively prevents intervention in such cases.

What Can Smaller Powers Do?

Haslinda asks what smaller nations can do to advocate for a multilateral global order in the face of unilateral actions by powerful states. Akbaruddin emphasizes the importance of a “norms-based global order” and highlights the willingness of countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Colombia, and Chile to prioritize norms and condemn infringements of international law. He acknowledges the historical reality that “the strong do what they can and the weak live with what they must,” but believes that upholding norms can confer legitimacy and potentially constrain the actions of powerful nations. He concludes by reiterating the limitations of international law, stating it “hasn’t countered” this dynamic.

Notable Quotes:

• “The U.N. keeps you from descending into hell.” – Syed Akbaruddin, on the continued relevance of the United Nations.
• “For 2000 years we have known that the strong do what they can and the weak live with what they must.” – Syed Akbaruddin, on the fundamental power dynamics of international relations.

Logical Connections:

The conversation flows logically from India’s specific response to the Venezuela crisis to broader questions about its foreign policy principles, the role of the Global South, and the effectiveness of international institutions. The discussion consistently links India’s cautious approach to its strategic interests and historical precedents, providing a coherent explanation for its actions. The shift to the U.N. discussion is natural, as it represents a key forum for addressing international crises and upholding norms.

Data/Research Findings:

While no specific data or research findings are presented, the discussion references the varying responses of several nations (Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine) to illustrate the diversity of approaches within the Global South.

Conclusion:

The discussion reveals India’s pragmatic and cautious approach to international crises, prioritizing its national interests and maintaining flexibility in a complex geopolitical landscape. India’s “hedging” strategy, while potentially appearing to compromise on principles of sovereignty, is presented as a consistent and rational response rooted in its historical experience and its dual interests in both Venezuela and the United States. The conversation also highlights the inherent limitations of international institutions like the U.N., particularly in preventing interventions by powerful nations, while still acknowledging their continued importance as forums for dialogue and maintaining a degree of global order.