There are no items in your cart
Add More
Add More
| Item Details | Price | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Dangerous paradigm
Following the kidnapping and removal to U.S. soil of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, on the back of military action not authorised by Congress or supported by the UN, U.S. President Donald Trump has now made clear his intent to set the crosshairs of American neo-imperialist expansionism on other nations and territories including Colombia, Greenland, Mexico, Cuba, and Iran. The Trump administration surprised the world, and apparently Venezuelan military forces, when it launched an overnight strike on Caracas over the weekend, including likely use of artillery and special forces, to extract the Maduros to face federal drug trafficking and weapons charges – charges that Mr. Maduro pleaded not guilty to. Responding to media after the event, Mr. Trump appeared to be setting his sights on Colombian President Gustavo Petro, when he said that that country was being “run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the U.S.,” and “He’s not going to be doing it for very long.” Similarly, Mr. Trump has remarked that the U.S. has a “need” for Greenland from the perspective of its “national security”, that “something will have to be done about Mexico” to rid the nation of the scourge of drug cartels, that Cuba is “ready to fall” in the absence of revenue linked to Venezuelan oil, and that Iran would be “hit very hard by the U.S.” if it cracked down on protesters on its soil.
While the Trump administration has consistently lowered the threshold of norms and acceptable standards for the conduct of nations on the global stage and diverged from the positions of previous Democrat- and Republican-led governments on the threat posed, for example by Russia to Europe, to directly engage in unauthorised and illegal interference of a brazen kind and seek regime change through the use of force in an established hemispheric power is a new low. The deeper danger of this so called “Donroe Doctrine” — ultimately premised on seizing Venezuela’s cherished oil resources rather than any pretext of “restoring democracy” — is that it may embolden autocrats and nations with an appetite for fomenting conflict to engage in similar destabilising unilateral military action against perceived enemies, potentially resulting in full-fledged cross-border confrontations. Today’s Venezuela was yesterday’s Ukraine and might be tomorrow’s Taiwan, if Mr. Trump’s paradigm for settling scores propagates further. While the leaders of each potential future target of U.S. aggression and the UN leadership have protested such action by Washington, it might take nothing less than the major powers of today, including India, Europe, Australia, Africa and Latin America, speaking in one voice against this unhinged depredation by the Trump administration to halt this dangerous new paradigm in its tracks.
Top 10 Vocabulary
1. Paradigm
Meaning: A typical example or model of something; a framework that shapes thinking or action.
Example: The unilateral intervention marked a dangerous paradigm in global diplomacy.
2. Neo-imperialism
Meaning: Indirect control by powerful states over weaker nations through political, military, or economic means.
Example: Critics argue that the intervention reflects a revival of neo-imperialism.
3. Sovereignty
Meaning: Supreme authority of a state over its territory and domestic affairs without external interference.
Example: Violation of sovereignty undermines the foundations of international law.
4. Precedent
Meaning: An earlier event or action that serves as an example or justification for future actions.
Example: Such unilateral actions create a dangerous precedent for global conflict.
5. Unilateral
Meaning: Conducted by one state without the consent or cooperation of others.
Example: The unilateral use of force bypassed multilateral institutions.
6. Regime Change
Meaning: The replacement of a government by external or internal force.
Example: Forced regime change has historically destabilised regions.
7. Multilateralism
Meaning: Coordination among three or more states based on shared rules and institutions.
Example: India consistently advocates multilateralism in global governance.
8. Deterrence
Meaning: Prevention of action by fear of consequences or retaliation.
Example: Erosion of norms weakens deterrence against cross-border aggression.
9. Legitimacy
Meaning: Lawful or moral justification for authority or action.
Example: Actions lacking UN approval suffer from a legitimacy deficit.
10. Anarchy (in International Relations)
Meaning: Absence of a central authority governing relations among states.
Example: Unchecked unilateralism risks pushing the world towards anarchy.
RC MCQs
Q1.
The author’s primary concern in the passage is that the U.S. action against Venezuela:
A. Will inevitably lead to the collapse of multilateral institutions
B. Weakens international norms by legitimising unilateral regime change
C. Reflects a continuation of Cold War–era ideological conflicts
D. Is primarily motivated by economic interests such as oil
Q2.
By stating that the U.S. “blurred the distinction between criminal jurisdiction and the use of force,” the author implies that:
A. International criminal law lacks clear enforcement mechanisms
B. Military interventions can legitimately be framed as police actions
C. Legal justifications are being used to mask violations of sovereignty
D. Sovereignty is no longer relevant in contemporary international relations
Q3.
Which of the following, if true, would MOST strengthen the author’s argument?
A. Several powerful states publicly endorse the U.S. action as justified
B. Other countries begin citing the Venezuela episode to justify cross-border military actions
C. The Venezuelan economy stabilises following the U.S. intervention
D. The UN retrospectively condemns the intervention
Q4.
The passage suggests that the “deeper danger” of the U.S. action lies in:
A. The humanitarian consequences within Venezuela
B. The weakening of the U.S.’s moral authority
C. The international precedent it establishes
D. The domestic political backlash in the U.S.
Q5.
The tone of the passage can best be described as:
A. Descriptive and neutral
B. Cautiously optimistic
C. Critical and warning
D. Analytical but approving
Answers with Explanations (All Together)
Q1 — Correct Answer: B
Explanation:
The passage repeatedly emphasises erosion of norms, precedent, and normalisation of regime change by force. The author is less concerned with immediate outcomes (A, D) or ideology (C) and more with long-term damage to international norms.
Q2 — Correct Answer: C
Explanation:
The author criticises the U.S. framing of the intervention as a “law-enforcement operation,” suggesting this is a legal cover for what is essentially a violation of sovereignty. Option B is the opposite of the author’s view, while A and D are too broad or incorrect.
Q3 — Correct Answer: B
Explanation:
The author’s core warning is about precedent and emulation. If other states begin using the Venezuela case to justify similar actions, it directly validates the concern about a slide into power-centric anarchy. Options A and C weaken the argument; D helps but less directly than B.
Q4 — Correct Answer: C
Explanation:
The phrase “deeper danger” is explicitly linked to the signal sent to the international system and the precedent created, not humanitarian issues, U.S. image, or domestic politics.
Q5 — Correct Answer: C
Explanation:
The language—dangerous precedent, erosion of norms, descent into anarchy—clearly reflects a critical tone with a warning intent, not neutrality or approval.
Tragedy and farce
Trump’s Venezuela strikes constitute the latest act of U.S. imperialism
Tragedy has followed every act of imperialism by the U.S., but under President Donald Trump, the consequences have also taken on a farcical character, typical of the Theatre of the Absurd. In 2003, the invasion of Iraq, on false premises to depose a dictator and “export” democracy, instead rendered the nation asunder, birthed outfits such as ISIS, and destabilised West Asia. The same playbook was used later in north Africa. In 2026, the world is witness to another tragedy that is also a farce: a repeat of the imperial script in Venezuela, orchestrated by a Trump administration that has traded coercive diplomacy for bombing campaigns and naval blockades. The apprehension and forced exile of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is a flagrant violation of international law and also flouts Article 2 of the UN Charter. By conducting “interdictions” of oil tankers and illegally killing civilians on boats in Caribbean waters under the unproven guise of anti-narcotics operations, the U.S. has bypassed the UN Security Council to position itself as judge and executioner. This intervention is driven by a familiar calculus. The first is the resurrection of the Monroe Doctrine to re-establish U.S. hegemony in the Americas, an order that regimes such as Venezuela’s sought to upend through alternative alliances with Cuba. The second is the desire to sever Latin America’s ties with China, as the Maduro regime looked eastward for investment and oil trade. The third is the cynical drive to control Venezuela’s very large crude reserves. These resources represent a “prize” for U.S. business.
In any case, the U.S.’s claims of victory could be pyrrhic. While Maduro’s governance was authoritarian, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela retains a strong support base. The Bolivarian movement rose to tackle the rampant inequality fostered by previous U.S.-backed elite regimes. By forcibly installing a new order, the U.S. is not “liberating” the people but validating their fears of colonial looting. The hypocrisy is stark. While the Trump administration justifies Maduro’s removal by labelling him a cartel leader without public evidence, it ordered the release of the narcotics-trafficking convicted former leader of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, and helped facilitate the rise of the pro-Washington Nasry Asfura. The hope that a globalised, interdependent world would yield a stable liberal order following the Cold War has been repeatedly belied by the actions of the U.S. and Russia. Yet, by withdrawing from climate accords and escalating tariff wars, the U.S. has signalled a contempt for international norms that surpasses other egregious acts. Venezuela’s invasion is the natural, violent conclusion of this isolationist-imperialist hybrid of Trumpism. If the international community remains silent, it ratifies a world order where sovereignty exists at Washington’s pleasure.
Top 10 Vocabulary
1. Imperialism
o Meaning: A policy or ideology of extending a nation's power and dominance over other countries through force or influence.
o Example: The history of European imperialism in Africa resulted in significant political and cultural upheaval.
2. Hegemony
o Meaning: Dominance or leadership of one state or social group over others.
o Example: The United States maintained hegemony over the Western Hemisphere after the Cold War.
3. Sovereignty
o Meaning: The authority of a state to govern itself or another state.
o Example: Venezuela's government claims its sovereignty has been violated by foreign interventions.
4. Unilateralism
o Meaning: A policy of acting alone or independently, especially in foreign affairs, without consulting other nations.
o Example: The U.S. pursued a unilateralism approach when it invaded Iraq in 2003, bypassing the United Nations.
5. Interventionism
o Meaning: The policy of intervening in the affairs of other countries, typically through military, economic, or diplomatic means.
o Example: The U.S. foreign policy has often been criticized for its interventionism in Latin America.
6. Coercive
o Meaning: Relating to or using force or threats to make someone do something.
o Example: The coercive diplomacy of the U.S. led to economic sanctions against the Venezuelan government.
7. Diplomacy
o Meaning: The conduct of negotiations between countries, typically involving the peaceful resolution of issues.
o Example: The successful diplomacy between India and Pakistan in the 2000s led to reduced tensions in the region.
8. Cartel
o Meaning: A group of independent companies or nations that work together to control prices or production of a commodity.
o Example: OPEC is often considered an oil cartel, controlling a significant portion of the world's oil production.
9. Extradition
o Meaning: The action of delivering a person accused or convicted of a crime from one jurisdiction to another.
o Example: The U.S. requested the extradition of a fugitive from Venezuela, citing drug trafficking charges.
10.Pyrrhic
MCQs
1. What is the primary reason behind the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, as highlighted in the passage?
a) To prevent the rise of authoritarianism in Latin America
b) To assert U.S. control over Venezuela’s oil reserves
c) To protect the Venezuelan people from internal conflicts
d) To support Venezuela's efforts to fight drug trafficking
2. According to the passage, what is the contradiction in the U.S. justification for the intervention in Venezuela?
a) The U.S. claims to be supporting democracy while imposing authoritarian measures.
b) The U.S. claims to fight drug trafficking but has not provided public evidence.
c) The U.S. claims to uphold international law but disregards the UN Security Council.
d) The U.S. claims to be acting in self-defense while threatening Venezuela's sovereignty.
3. How does the passage describe the impact of the U.S. intervention on Venezuela’s people?
a) The intervention has effectively liberated Venezuela’s citizens from authoritarian rule.
b) The intervention has resulted in widespread support for U.S. actions among Venezuelans.
c) The intervention undermines the people it claims to support by exacerbating inequality.
d) The intervention has helped stabilize the country by removing corrupt officials.
4. The author refers to the U.S. intervention as a "farcical" element of imperialism. What does this imply about the nature of the intervention?
a) The intervention is overly dramatic and ineffective.
b) The intervention is humorous and serves no purpose.
c) The intervention is absurd and self-contradictory.
d) The intervention is well-reasoned but ultimately unsuccessful.
5. What does the passage suggest about the U.S. treatment of different leaders?
a) The U.S. treats all leaders equally, regardless of their political stance.
b) The U.S. selectively justifies the removal of leaders while supporting others with similar or worse records.
c) The U.S. avoids getting involved in the politics of other nations unless absolutely necessary.
d) The U.S. promotes democracy by supporting leaders who are in power through free elections.
Explanations
1. Answer: b) To assert U.S. control over Venezuela’s oil reserves
The passage explains that the primary motivation behind the U.S. intervention in Venezuela is to gain control over Venezuela’s substantial oil reserves, as well as to reassert geopolitical dominance in the region, driven by the Monroe Doctrine and economic interests in oil.
2. Answer: b) The U.S. claims to fight drug trafficking but has not provided public evidence
The passage points out that the U.S. claims to be fighting drug trafficking in Venezuela, yet no solid evidence is provided to justify these actions. This contradiction undermines the credibility of the U.S. intervention, raising doubts about the true motives behind the operation.
3. Answer: c) The intervention undermines the people it claims to support by exacerbating inequality
Despite the U.S. portraying its intervention as a way to help the Venezuelan people, the passage highlights that the intervention actually undermines the Bolivarian movement, which aimed to address inequality. Instead of alleviating inequality, the intervention exacerbates it, further destabilizing the country.
4. Answer: c) The intervention is absurd and self-contradictory
The use of the word "farcical" suggests that the U.S. intervention is not only absurd but also self-contradictory. The intervention claims to fight for the people of Venezuela, yet it violates international laws and acts in its own self-interest, making the entire operation seem illogical and contradictory.
5. Answer: b) The U.S. selectively justifies the removal of leaders while supporting others with similar or worse records
The passage criticizes the U.S. for selectively justifying Maduro’s removal, labeling him as a criminal without public evidence, while it has supported other leaders with similar, if not worse, records. This reveals a double standard in U.S. foreign policy.
Launch your Graphy