Relevant for Exams
Congress expresses 'grave concern' over 'unilateral U.S. actions' in Venezuela, citing UN sanction necessity.
Summary
The Indian National Congress has expressed 'grave concern' over 'unilateral U.S. actions' in Venezuela, highlighting the importance of UN sanction for any kinetic action. The party warned that bypassing the UN could lead to a resurgence in 'primordial rules of statecraft'. This stance reflects India's traditional foreign policy emphasis on multilateralism and non-interference, relevant for understanding India's position on international affairs.
Key Points
- 1The Indian National Congress expressed 'grave concern' regarding international developments.
- 2The concern was specifically directed at 'unilateral U.S. actions'.
- 3These actions pertained to the South American nation of 'Venezuela'.
- 4Congress stated that 'any kinetic action without UN sanction' is problematic.
- 5The party warned that such actions could result in a 'resurgence in 'primordial rules of statecraft''.
In-Depth Analysis
The statement by the Indian National Congress, expressing ‘grave concern’ over ‘unilateral U.S. actions’ in Venezuela and warning against ‘kinetic action without UN sanction,’ provides a crucial lens through which to understand India’s enduring foreign policy principles. This isn't merely a political party's comment; it reflects a deep-seated philosophical approach to international relations that has guided India's stance since independence.
**Background Context: The Venezuelan Crisis**
Venezuela, a nation rich in oil reserves, has been embroiled in a severe political and economic crisis for several years. The roots of this crisis lie in a combination of factors, including hyperinflation, widespread shortages of basic goods, political polarization, and allegations of authoritarianism under President Nicolás Maduro. In January 2019, the opposition-controlled National Assembly, led by Juan Guaidó, declared Maduro's re-election illegitimate and Guaidó proclaimed himself interim president. This move garnered immediate recognition from the United States and several Latin American and European countries, while Russia, China, Cuba, and many others, including India, continued to recognize Maduro. The U.S. subsequently imposed extensive sanctions on Venezuela, targeting its oil industry and individuals associated with the Maduro government, aiming to pressure a change in leadership. The threat of 'kinetic action' refers to military intervention, a possibility that has been floated by some U.S. officials at various points.
**What Happened: India's Traditional Stance Reaffirmed**
The Indian National Congress's statement underscored that 'any kinetic action without UN sanction' would be problematic, warning of a 'resurgence in ‘primordial rules of statecraft’.' This phrase signifies a return to a pre-UN era where powerful nations dictated terms through force, bypassing international law and multilateral institutions. It implies a world where 'might makes right,' rather than one governed by shared rules and norms. India, irrespective of the ruling party, has consistently advocated for a rules-based international order and multilateralism, making such unilateral actions a point of concern.
**Key Stakeholders Involved**
* **Venezuela (Nicolás Maduro and Juan Guaidó):** Maduro, as the incumbent president, maintains control over state institutions and the military, supported by a bloc of nations. Guaidó, recognized by the U.S. and its allies, represents the opposition’s push for democratic change and new elections.
* **United States:** Under successive administrations, the U.S. has pursued a policy of regime change in Venezuela, using economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, and at times, hinting at military options, viewing Maduro as an illegitimate leader and a threat to regional stability.
* **United Nations:** As the premier international body for maintaining peace and security, the UN Security Council is the only legitimate authority for authorizing the use of force in international relations, except in cases of self-defense. Bypassing the UN undermines its authority and the collective security framework.
* **India (and the Indian National Congress):** As a significant global player and an aspiring permanent member of the UN Security Council, India consistently advocates for adherence to international law, non-interference in internal affairs, and the centrality of the UN in resolving international disputes. The Congress party's statement aligns perfectly with these long-standing principles.
**Why This Matters for India**
This issue holds profound significance for India across several dimensions:
* **Foreign Policy Principles:** India's foreign policy is constitutionally anchored in **Article 51**, which directs the state to
Exam Tips
**GS Paper-II (International Relations/Foreign Policy):** This topic falls squarely under India's foreign policy principles, multilateralism, and its stance on international disputes. Focus on India's consistent advocacy for a rules-based international order, non-interference, and the role of the UN. Questions can be analytical, asking about the relevance of NAM principles in contemporary geopolitics or India's position on unilateral actions.
**Related Topics to Study:** Delve into the history and evolution of India's foreign policy, including the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Panchsheel principles, and India's aspirations for UN Security Council reform. Understand the structure and functions of the UN, especially the Security Council, and the concept of international law and sovereignty.
**Common Question Patterns:** Expect questions that ask you to analyze India's foreign policy choices in specific global events, compare and contrast India's approach with other major powers, or evaluate the challenges to multilateralism in the 21st century. Be prepared to cite constitutional articles like Article 51.
Related Topics to Study
Full Article
Any kinetic action without UN sanction can result in resurgence in ‘primordial rules of statecraft’, the party says

