NOBEL WAR PRIZE

 

 

Someone can say “tum kaun”. I would reply main hun Mr “khaam-a-kha” to comment on what the US did in Venezuela yesterday. It took me by surprise, like the rest of the world. It is a new precedence set after WWII. Tomorrow, this idea could spread and create absolute chaos in the world.

 

In the international system today, few words are ‘invoked’ frequently and violated as casually as “sovereignty”. It is the foundational principle enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The UN is now defunct. They can only do “Kari Ninda”, vote for and against, speak polished English and send peacekeepers as confetti purposes.

 

In practice, sovereignty today appears conditional, granted not by ‘international law’ but by ‘geopolitical alignment’. Nowhere is this contradiction more visible than in the United States’ conduct toward Venezuela, Iran, and others that ‘resist its demands’.

 

The US did not act in Venezuela, Iran, etc out of impulse or accident. These interventions are not aberrations but are expressions of a myopic self styled worldview that sees global stability as inseparable from American dominance. From Washington’s perspective, disorder arises not when sovereignty is violated, but when defiance goes unpunished.

 

Venezuela is a case in point which is sitting atop the world’s largest oil reserves. It is not merely a troubled state with authoritarian tendencies. It is  rather a resource-rich country that refused to submit to the economic and political architecture dominated by the United States. Its efforts to trade oil outside the dollar system, cultivate ties with Russia, China, and Iran, and resist American diplomatic pressure place it squarely outside the acceptable perimeter. America cannot stand it.

 

Sanctions, diplomatic isolation, asset seizures, and support for parallel political leadership have therefore been framed not as acts of coercion, but as moral necessities. The cumulative effect has been economic strangulation, humanitarian suffering, and regional instability. Outcomes that are rarely acknowledged as consequences of policy, but rather blamed entirely on the targeted government. For that they went in and kidnapped their President. What nonsense!

 

Iran has endured decades of sanctions, affecting ordinary citizens while hardening political attitudes. Ukraine has become the site of a proxy conflict whose consequences reverberate well beyond Eastern Europe.

 

Israel receives unwavering military and diplomatic backing regardless of the broader regional fallout. Each case differs in context, but the underlying principle is consistent: alignment determines legitimacy, thanks to American bullying.

 

In the short term, such interventions project strength. They demonstrate reach, deter dissent, and reassure allies who rely on American power. But the long-term repercussions are corrosive, both to global order and to America’s own strategic position. Hope US understands it.

 

One immediate consequence is the loss of trust in international institutions. When international law is applied selectively, it ceases to function as law and becomes a tool. Countries begin to see the United Nations, financial systems, and human rights mechanisms not as neutral frameworks, but as extensions of US and allied power. This perception, whether fully accurate or not, drives nations to seek alternatives.

 

The ‘weaponisation of finance’ has been particularly consequential. Sanctions were once exceptional measures which are now routine instruments of policy. Entire economies can be paralysed with the flick of a pen.

 

Thus, states have begun to respond by reducing exposure to the dollar, exploring bilateral trade mechanisms, and strengthening regional blocs. The US may get isolated in the near future and face the wrath of new alignments which are soon to emerge. Hope they understand what living in a ‘fools paradise’ means.

 

For India, this environment presents profound challenges. India’s foreign policy has long rested on strategic autonomy, engagement without entanglement, cooperation without subordination. Yet repeated interventions make neutrality harder to sustain. Energy security becomes politicised, financial transactions become potential liabilities, and diplomatic choices are scrutinised through the lens of allegiance rather than interest.

 

India’s concerns are not ideological but practical. If sovereignty is negotiable for Venezuela or Iran today, it is negotiable for anyone tomorrow. Large countries may resist longer than small ones, but precedents do not discriminate. Power, once normalised as a tool of coercion, eventually seeks new applications.

 

A global conflict is not inevitable, but the conditions that historically precede such wars are increasingly visible: multiple simultaneous flashpoints, alliance rigidity, diminished diplomatic trust, and the normalisation of escalation. The US better be aware; people are not aligned to what you think is right for you. Consequences could be devastating.

 

Undercurrents and sentiments in Iran are under wraps. Any direct conflict there would disrupt global energy flows, and may draw in other major powers, directly or by necessity with global consequences which the US may have war gamed already.

 

World wars rarely begin with declarations. They begin when systems designed to manage rivalry fail under strain. The US has now become the main catalyst rather it is the fulcrum of unnecessary strain.

 

Can the United States be ‘restrained’? I anticipate it cannot be done by appeal alone. Constraints emerge when power encounters limits, economic, political, and psychological. Multipolarity, for all its instability, does introduce friction into unilateral action. Alternative institutions and regional groupings, though imperfect, reduce dependency. This is very much on the cards.

 

Domestic fatigue within the United States itself like war weariness, political polarisation, and economic pressure may ultimately impose some discipline. Maybe a ‘change of leader’ would mellow down things. Mid term polls are around the corner.

 

The debate over Trump being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize reveals how distorted the conversation around peace has become. Avoiding a declared war while intensifying sanctions, undermining institutions, and openly entertaining territorial acquisition does not constitute peace in any meaningful sense.

 

Peace is not merely the absence of battlefields; it is the presence of restraint, understanding dialogue, and respect for mankind as such. The US is missing a point here by being selfish and totally self centred.

 

Acquiring territories like Greenland gains momentum after this Venezuelan ‘Fauda’. Such thinking weakens norms, even if no annexation occurs. Once power speaks openly in the language of possession, the international system begins to erode.

 

For nations like India, and indeed for the world at large, the task is not to oppose one power blindly or embrace another uncritically. It is to insist, consistently and patiently, that sovereignty cannot be a privilege granted by the powerful. The US has to realise it. Trump should be awarded the Nobel War Prize instead.

 

Will good sense prevail? I wonder!!!!!!

 

JAI HIND
©® NOEL ELLIS