In a world that claims to be governed by laws, rules, and mutual respect among nations, power still speaks louder than principle. This reality becomes clear whenever a powerful country acts beyond its borders in the name of security, democracy, or global stability. One of the most controversial modern examples is the long-standing confrontation between the United States and Venezuela. Whether through economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, support for opposition movements, or alleged covert actions, the Venezuelan case forces the world to ask an uncomfortable question: who really protects the sovereignty of weaker nations in a power-driven international system?
This discussion is not about defending bad governance. It is not about romanticizing failed leadership. Venezuela’s internal problems—economic collapse, power shortages, inflation, poor public services, and political repression—are well documented. Millions of Venezuelans have suffered, and many have fled their country in search of dignity and survival. A government that fails to provide electricity, food security, healthcare, and economic stability must be held accountable by its people.
However, bad leadership does not automatically justify foreign domination. The failure of a president does not erase a nation’s right to sovereignty. This distinction is critical, especially for countries like Nigeria.
Eminent Speaks exists not to complain, but to analyze problems honestly and propose thoughtful solutions. The Venezuelan situation offers Nigeria and other developing nations a powerful case study—one that warns us about the dangers of unchecked global power, selective morality, and silence in the face of international double standards.
THE VENEZUELA QUESTION: FAILURE AT HOME, PRESSURE FROM ABROAD
Venezuela’s crisis did not start with the United States, but it did not remain purely Venezuelan either.
Internally, decades of economic mismanagement, overdependence on oil, corruption, and weak institutions weakened the state. Electricity shortages, despite vast natural resources, became symbolic of governance failure. Citizens questioned how a country so rich could deliver so little.
Externally, the United States and its allies imposed heavy sanctions, froze assets, restricted oil sales, and openly supported opposition leadership. At various times, U.S. officials publicly stated that “all options were on the table.” There were allegations of coup support and regime-change operations, some confirmed, others denied.
This combination—internal failure and external pressure—created a dangerous precedent: when a government is weak or unpopular, powerful nations may feel entitled to decide its fate.
This is where law must speak louder than power.
WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW ACTUALLY SAY?
Under international law, particularly the United Nations Charter, several principles are fundamental:
Sovereign equality of states – No country is legally superior to another.
Non-intervention – States must not interfere in the internal affairs of other states.
Prohibition of the use of force – Military action is only lawful in self-defense or with UN Security Council authorization.
Self-determination of peoples – Citizens, not foreign governments, decide who governs them.
There is no legal provision that allows a foreign power to remove, arrest, or “kidnap” a sitting president simply because that leader is incompetent or unpopular. If such a rule existed, half of the world’s governments would be under permanent threat.
Even doctrines like humanitarian intervention or Responsibility to Protect (R2P) are highly restricted. They require:
Clear evidence of mass atrocities,
Exhaustion of diplomatic options,
Multilateral approval (usually through the UN),
Protection of civilians—not regime change.
Unilateral action—especially by a single powerful state—undermines the entire international legal order.
THE DANGEROUS PRECEDENT: WHEN POWER REPLACES LAW
When powerful nations act without consequence, a silent message is sent to the world:
law applies only to the weak.
This is dangerous for three reasons:
First, it normalizes selective justice. If one country can decide which leaders are legitimate and which are not, then legitimacy becomes political, not legal.
Second, it encourages global instability. Other powerful states may copy the behavior, leading to a world where might determines right.
Third—and most important for Nigeria—it places developing nations in a permanent state of vulnerability.
Nigeria may not be Venezuela. Our president may never face foreign arrest. But the principle matters more than the example. Once the rule is broken, everyone becomes exposed.
WHY NIGERIANS MUST PAY ATTENTION
Many Nigerians say, “America helped us before. They fight terrorism. They give aid. Why worry?”
Gratitude should never replace caution.
Nigeria is strategically important: population, oil, gas, military influence, regional leadership. That alone makes us relevant in global calculations. When a nation is relevant, it is also pressured.
Today, pressure may come as:
Diplomatic advice,
Conditional aid,
Military partnerships.
Tomorrow, it may come as:
Economic sanctions,
Political isolation,
External influence over internal decisions.
The lesson from Venezuela is not that the U.S. is evil. The lesson is that no nation acts purely out of kindness. Every state pursues interest.
Nigeria must therefore pursue its own interest intelligently.
WHAT THE U.S. COULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY
A lawful and ethical global leader should prioritize:
Multilateral diplomacy, not unilateral pressure.
Strengthening institutions, not targeting individuals.
Supporting negotiations, not covert destabilization.
Respecting international courts, not bypassing them.
If a leader commits crimes, international law provides mechanisms: investigations, indictments, tribunals—not gunboat politics.
Power without restraint breeds resentment, resistance, and long-term instability.
WHAT NIGERIA MUST DO DIFFERENTLY
Nigeria’s protection is not in shouting slogans; it is in building strength from within.
Strong institutions – Weak institutions invite foreign interference.
Economic independence – Debt and dependency reduce sovereignty.
Legal credibility – Respect for rule of law at home strengthens our voice abroad.
Strategic diplomacy – Friends are important, but blind loyalty is dangerous.
Civic awareness – Citizens must understand that sovereignty is not abstract; it affects daily life.
A country that cannot protect its people internally becomes vulnerable externally.
A HARD TRUTH From EMINENT SPEAKS
We must be brave enough to say two truths at once:
Bad leaders must be held accountable.
Foreign domination is not accountability.
The solution to African problems cannot always come from foreign capitals. Real change must be driven by informed citizens, strong laws, and accountable leadership.
When external powers act as global policemen without legal restraint, they weaken the very system that protects all nations—including themselves.
Comments