Author: Yaqoob Dunoo
The modern world often claims to be governed by international law, shared values, and respect for national sovereignty. Yet, time and again, global events reveal a troubling reality: power frequently outweighs principle, and justice is applied selectively.
History offers a clear example. When Iraq, under President Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait in 1990, the world reacted with unprecedented urgency. The invasion was rightly condemned as a violation of sovereignty and international law. A coalition of 32 countries was formed, leading to a full-scale military response. The message was clear: no powerful nation has the right to dominate a weaker one.
However, when we examine contemporary global politics, the consistency of this principle appears deeply questionable.
In recent years, Venezuela has faced sustained external pressure in the form of economic sanctions, political isolation, and repeated allegations of foreign interference in its internal affairs. These actions, whatever their stated justifications, have had severe consequences for the Venezuelan population and the country’s sovereignty. Yet, unlike the response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the global reaction has been fragmented, muted, or entirely silent.
This contrast raises an uncomfortable question: are international laws and moral standards applied equally to all nations, or only to those without power?
When powerful states take actions that undermine the political stability, economic well-being, or self-determination of weaker nations, the absence of collective outrage exposes a double standard. Sovereignty seems sacred only when violated by adversaries, but negotiable when challenged by allies or global powers.
Such selective morality weakens the credibility of international institutions and erodes trust in the global order. It sends a dangerous message that might determines right, and that smaller nations exist at the mercy of stronger ones. Over time, this approach risks turning international relations into a struggle where influence replaces law and coercion replaces dialogue.
A truly just world order cannot function on selective enforcement. Respect for sovereignty, human rights, and international law must be universal, not conditional. Silence in the face of perceived injustice is not neutrality—it is complicity.
If the world genuinely seeks peace, stability, and fairness, it must move beyond power politics and recommit to consistent principles. Otherwise, the fear remains that the global system will continue to resemble a jungle—where strength prevails, and justice is left behind.
