On the second day of January, as the Western world was about to welcome the English New Year, a special team of US military forces 'arrested' Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife from their bedroom, brought them from the capital Caracas to New York, USA, and imprisoned them.

 According to US officials, Maduro was involved in drug trafficking, arms and security gadgets, and while the system was being institutionalized and institutionalized, Maduro's wife Cilia Flores was assisting/witnessing in various positions, which has had a profound impact on the peace and security of the United States and the world.

According to the news, even when their president was 'captured in a kidnapping-style manner' from within the country by another country's army, most of the president's supporters seem happy. It is said that President Maduro, who has a trade union background, has been an established figure in the state structure since the time of his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, who has a military background, and has been attacking voices of opposition.

He had made it extremely difficult for those who opposed his rule or participated in the elections to leave the country or choose death at home. That is why the public is not expressing their grief over the US action against Maduro.

Similarly, there are videos of Venezuelan immigrants in the US welcoming and celebrating the US action against Maduro. This article will focus on what countries like ours can learn or understand from this action taken by a world power on a sovereign neighbor and the internal situation in Venezuela.

Sovereignty and Statehood

In modern society, four aspects – a certain territory, sovereignty, government and people – are considered essential elements of a state. Sovereignty is broad and its main source is considered to be the people. Territory or political boundaries and government are also for the needs, security and use of the people. In other words, the people are at the center of the state. Therefore, leadership without popular support cannot be considered the standard of government.

Such a government cannot sustain the existence of a nation, state and country. Therefore, the concept of periodic general elections has been recognized as the best practice so far for achieving, testing and re-testing popular support in a democracy. As a result, the power and leadership that adopts a totalitarian and authoritarian nature of governance and tendencies are also forced to appear to go to the elections or not.

Not only democratic ones who have adopted various political systems in the world, but also totalitarian, extremist, autocratic, and military leaderships create and propagate their actions as democratic and for the people. If we look at the recent experience, it is found that they have gradually carried out 'coups', opened parties or held elections, announced election results in their favor, and ruled themselves by overthrowing those who are against their interests and in the name of establishing good governance. The history of such political upheavals is also abundant in South Asia.

A similar practice was practiced by the military leadership Hugo Chavez (1999 to 2013). Totalitarianism had been established in Venezuela during his rule, and after his death, his follower Maduro continued such a style of governance in an even more subtle way. Maduro had even attacked the leadership by attacking the results of the recent elections, and the opposition has accused him of 'electoral fraud' (voting theft).

His reign was successful in centralizing power by calling himself a Marxist, abusing state power to exploit national property, suppressing the people and killing thousands of those who resisted, imprisoning them and subjecting them to painful torture, depriving them of basic necessities and human rights, and making it impossible for citizens to live in their own country. As a result, more than 7 million people have left the country to escape the internal terror of the Chavez-Maduro regime, and 5 million of them are said to be in the United States.

On the other hand, the people were becoming agitated and aggressive due to the use of the country's resources to please world powers and to polarize them with groups other than their neighbors, and the benefits of this were being spent on strengthening and continuing their power politics. Due to the excessive repression, terror, fear, persecution, and brutal killings that they had witnessed for a long time, it is seen that the citizens within the country have not been able to organize in the fight for sovereignty. Similarly, most Venezuelans who have been forced to flee due to the Maduro regime are understood to have felt relief from the current US move. 

What is worth thinking about here is how important the sovereignty of the state and the sense of nationality are in the eyes of the people? When faced with a choice between sovereignty or the fulfillment of basic needs and freedom, the second option is the forced choice of the people. This can be understood from the psychology of refugees and immigrants. Even those who retired under Nicolas considered him a 'fool with no destination', he was not a true representative of the people of Venezuela, he had usurped leadership by stealing election results.

This incident is also sending a message about how weak the legitimate power of an executive without public support is, how he has to stand alone in difficult situations, and how helpless and helpless the state machinery under his own control is when the people become amused. It can be said that the issue of how hollow and weak the sense of nationality becomes in the face of poverty, hunger, illiteracy and other opportunities for freedom, and how they are forced to become supporters of wrong steps and weapons without knowing it can be said to be an important lesson for a country like Nepal.

World order and national interest

At present, as in the state system before the world, is there a society, structure and mechanism in the international system to investigate, convict and take action against any member for injustice, crime and attack on another? Or, is it permissible for a powerful country to attack the weak based on the fact that it has made a mistake? There are questions like this.

The ‘League of Nations’ was disbanded after it was no longer seen as justified due to the lack of real power during World War II, the absence of participation of all influential countries, the lack of unanimity in decision-making and implementation, the inability to prevent war, attack, violence, injustice and oppressive militarization except for some work in humanitarian aid, and the lack of leadership.

Various multinational and international organizations were also created in accordance with the policy of working together for world peace, happiness and prosperity, and for nations to enjoy gains on the basis of equality, and to ensure development and security by ensuring equality for the weak. Although they contributed to their construction and development, the democratic world naturally spent more power and strength. The United States became the leading nation in terms of leadership.

Looking at American domestic politics, most of the leadership of such organizations was during the Democratic government, but subsequent Republican governments continued it. Trump became a president who not only reduced democratic influence and dominance along with American participation, leadership, and investment, but also opened up space for competing and previously considered benign forces by withdrawing from various organizations. The entire democratic world is now not only fed up with American leadership and policies, but has also become defensive.

America is abusing its global status in such a way that it is as if Trump no longer needs to obey international law. Even the core values ​​of the UN Charter, such as world peace, sovereign equality, human rights, and non-interference, have now been limited to American definitions and interpretations. The world community has become divided into pro-American and anti-American.

Since nations are centered on their own interests, they do not speak out for the justice and rights of others as much as possible, putting their own interests first. Even if they do, they are told to obey the law. If they do not, there is no binding alternative or provision for punishment in international law. Apart from creating moral pressure, there is no way in international law to force the perpetrators of power-hungry acts to correct themselves. As a result, there is opposition, consolation, and support in various voices and languages ​​for any harm or loss caused to small nations, but they have to face it alone and suffer the consequences alone, as seen in Ukraine and Venezuela.

In essence, one of the important agendas of Trump's last presidential election was to end wars like Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine within 24 hours and establish world peace. The US President, who is said to be aiming to establish world peace and claim the Nobel Peace Prize, is now promoting a list of the ‘kidnapped’ heads of state of another small country.

Russia, which is about to invade Ukraine and annex one-third of its land, and China, which has stood by Russia in the Russia-Ukraine war and has been supporting and assisting it in every way, are now seen against the US and defending the Maduro couple.

On the one hand, China, which has suppressed internal dissent by saying that Taiwan, which claims to be an independent state, will be annexed by China in the near future, speaks in a roundabout way in favor of Venezuela. On the other hand, the US, which talks about the independence of Tibet, does not consider Taiwan an integral part of China and does not allow it to be, now announces its plan to form a government in Venezuela.

They do not have a single or common standard to measure justice, injustice, and rights, but rather their own favorable definitions. Small nations do not find these common characteristics and games among all powers – where do they come into conflict, where do they come together? Small nations hold their own, which is counterproductive in terms of their long-term interests.

Instead of accounting for justice and injustice to a victim Ukraine, which was forced to go to war with its neighboring power Russia to protect its territory, independence, and sovereignty, the latest proposal to leave the land occupied by Russia to Russia and proceed with negotiations with the US having priority over Ukraine's minerals is painful even for those who listen to it.

It is said that if President Trump considers the 'arrest' of the Maduro couple, the US legislative body Senate's right to mobilize troops, and the right to declare war as his sole right, how can we understand the basic principles of the separation of powers and checks and balances of the US presidential system? Even if his move is questioned in the Senate, since the Republican Party has a majority, it seems that a no-confidence motion against him or any other action will be secondary.

How do we view a country that never tires of presenting itself as the mother of stable, mature, and institutional democracy, but whose methods, procedures, processes, and the basic principles of the Constitution are in crisis? The question seems to apply to the American people and the world it supports.

Geopolitics and Natural Resources 

Developed countries have elevated themselves to the status of developed or powerful nations by exploiting the natural resources available in their territories, while many others are poor and weak because they do not have such capabilities.

Not only are most of the neighboring and other large countries now eyeing the additional resources needed to accelerate development, which are completely or partially owned by less developed and developing countries, but the geopolitical competition to seize them has become a major security challenge for small, developed, or developing countries.

Venezuela, which has benefited from American assistance in oil production, processing and storage, is a reaction to the internal political changes there and the policy of diversifying resource exploitation and distribution of the changed leadership, which has resulted in the control and dominance of America's competing powers over time.

The unspoken and partially-expressed but important issue of the Russian attack on Ukraine in the name of its national security and the American kidnapping of the Venezuelan President is natural resources. Nepal, which is said to be the second richest country in water resources after Brazil, which is being wasted without being able to use it properly, needs to be serious about this issue as well.

Our political history, which is fraught with competition between neighbors in the production and use of water resources and its impact, is not a very pleasant experience, although it is not as deep and serious as that of Venezuela and Ukraine. It is also clear from looking at the condition of the projects that are said to be of national pride.

In conclusion, geopolitics is always there, everywhere. If there is unanimity in matters of international relations and development, the nation becomes strong, and others do not get a chance to play. अन्यथा हामी जुन अवस्थामा छौं, थुप्रै चुनौती देखिन्छन् । शक्तिको चरित्र नै हो आफ्नो प्रभाव बनाउने, विस्तार र सुदृढ गर्ने तथा कायम राख्ने । त्यसका लागि शक्तिहरूले हरेक राष्ट्रमा स्वयंमैत्री सरकार वा नेतृत्व खोज्छन् ।