The brazen US action against Venezuela, culminating in the arrest of its sitting president, has once again exposed an uncomfortable truth of international politics: sovereignty is not a moral principle; it is a function of power. For countries watching from the Global South, this was not merely a Venezuelan episode; it was a reminder of how the world actually works when power asymmetries are stark, and deterrence is absent.

From the perspective of many states that have historically faced external pressure, it is difficult not to feel a grim sense of relief at possessing hard deterrent capabilities. Whatever a country’s internal weaknesses, economic fragilities, or political contradictions, the presence of nuclear weapons and credible long-range missile technology fundamentally alters how it is treated. That single fact alone forces even the most powerful actors to pause, calculate, and reconsider. No superpower or regional hegemon can act against a nuclear-armed state with the casual impunity on display in Venezuela. This is not triumphalism; it is realism.

Deterrence, particularly nuclear deterrence, remains the ultimate red line in a world where international law is selectively enforced and moral language often disguises raw power. The Venezuelan case underscores that countries without hard deterrence, even those with formal sovereignty and international recognition, remain vulnerable to coercive actions that would be unthinkable against states capable of inflicting unacceptable costs in return.

The global non-proliferation narrative rests on the assumption that restraint is rewarded and that international institutions offer protection. Yet history keeps contradicting this belief. Iraq dismantled its weapons programmes and was invaded. Libya abandoned its nuclear ambitions and saw regime collapse. Venezuela, militarily weak and economically isolated, has now witnessed a direct violation of its sovereignty at the........

© The Friday Times