Congress expresses ‘grave concern’ over ‘unilateral U.S. actions’ in Venezuela

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