By;Abdul Basit Alvi
Across the developing world, Venezuela is widely seen not as an isolated crisis but as a revealing example of how global power politics operate and how vulnerable states without sufficient national strength can become. Observers in Africa and Asia interpret its experience as part of a recurring pattern in which powerful actors employ sanctions, diplomatic pressure, propaganda, covert measures, and military threats to bend weaker states to their will. This interpretation resonates strongly in Pakistan, where historical experiences of conflict and external pressure have fostered the belief that moral arguments, resource wealth, or popular leadership alone offer little protection in an international system driven by interests and power. As a result, Venezuela’s predicament is absorbed as a cautionary tale rather than distant news.
Pakistan’s own history reinforces this outlook, shaping a conviction that survival depends on demonstrable strength, particularly robust defense capabilities and credible deterrence. The development of its armed forces and the acquisition of nuclear deterrence are viewed as existential necessities that safeguarded sovereignty in a hostile regional environment. In contrast, Venezuela’s trajectory is seen as a warning: despite vast oil wealth and assertive leadership, internal polarization, economic collapse, and weakened institutions eroded national cohesion and defense capacity, leaving the state vulnerable to external pressure and intervention. For many in Pakistan and the wider developing world, the central lesson is that internal fragmentation and perceived weakness invite foreign interference, while unity and credible strength remain the most reliable shields for national independence.
Venezuela, US Agree Export Deal for Millions of Barrels
For Pakistan, this perceived lesson carries profound and immediate implications. There exists a strong and widely held belief that similar, albeit contextually adapted, pressures are continuously being applied against the country, even if they manifest in more subtle or structurally economic forms. Periods of acute economic stress, bouts of political instability, sophisticated campaigns of information warfare, and spells of diplomatic isolation are often viewed not as purely endogenous failures but as elements of a toolkit designed to systematically weaken the country from within, to soften its resolve, and to dilute its strategic cohesion. In this worldview, the existence of a strong, unified, and credible military establishment acts as the nation’s ultimate and final line of defense against these worst-case geopolitical scenarios. The palpable fear expressed by many is that if Pakistan’s armed forces were ever to be deliberately weakened, irrevocably politicized, or stripped of public trust and institutional integrity, the country could swiftly face external actions that currently seem unthinkable, including direct and overt challenges to its constitutional leadership, its territorial integrity, and its very sovereignty.
Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro Denies Charges in US Court
This chain of reasoning culminates in the assertive conviction that a strong army is not a luxury, an anachronism, or a symbol of undesirable militarism, but an absolute necessity for survival within an unforgiving and anarchic international system. Economic development, social progress, and democratic stability are all universally acknowledged as vital and desirable national goals, but they are simultaneously regarded as fragile and potentially ephemeral achievements unless they are underwritten and protected by robust, credible, and alert defense capabilities. From this perspective, even a strong and thriving economy is viewed as ultimately vulnerable—a tempting prize—if the nation-state cannot physically defend its borders, deter military aggression, or resist multifarious forms of external coercion. Venezuela’s vast but ultimately unsecured oil wealth is routinely cited as definitive proof that natural resources and economic potential alone are hollow guarantees of true security or meaningful independence.
The argument derived from this geopolitical realism is further extended to inform internal debates within Pakistan, including those pertaining to regions like Azad Jammu and Kashmir. When voices advocating for separation or complete independence from Pakistan are raised, proponents of national unity often employ Venezuela’s experience as a potent cautionary tale. Their contention is that small, fledgling, or newly formed states located in perpetually hostile neighborhoods face immense, often insurmountable, challenges in maintaining genuine sovereignty and security autonomy.
In a world order still fundamentally driven by raw power politics, fragmented regions lacking in comprehensive national strength—particularly in defensive capacity—may swiftly become easy targets for external manipulation, becoming pawns in larger geopolitical games rather than masters of their own destiny. Therefore, the argument follows that unity with Pakistan, despite all its well-documented internal challenges and governance complexities, offers infinitely greater collective security, strategic depth, and diplomatic heft than would a precarious and isolated existence in an uncertain and often predatory global environment.
Recent regional crises and military confrontations, often referred to within Pakistan’s strategic discourse as defining moments of national testing, are consistently invoked to reinforce this foundational belief. The prevailing view is that Pakistan’s demonstrated ability to stand firm during such acute crises, to maintain its dignity and agency on the world stage, and to avoid catastrophic outcomes is directly and causally linked to its relentless military preparedness and the sobering shadow of its nuclear deterrence.
According to this entrenched narrative, any visible hesitation, public discord within the security apparatus, or perceived weakness in national resolve would inevitably invite the same kind of treatment that other vulnerable countries have endured, potentially transforming Pakistan from a respected actor into yet another cautionary example in the annals of post-colonial realpolitik.
Thus, the central message distilled from Venezuela’s recent ordeal is not primarily framed within Pakistan as a moral or legal judgment on the specific rights and wrongs of actions taken by various international actors towards Caracas. Rather, it is internalized as a stark, unambiguous, and sobering reminder of the enduring realities of international power. Survival in today’s world, it is concluded, depends on a synergistic combination of internal unity, strong and resilient state institutions, credible and modern defense capabilities, and unwavering national resolve.
For Pakistan, translating this lesson into practice is seen to necessitate a continuous commitment to strengthening its armed forces through sustained investment in modern equipment, rigorous training, and doctrinal innovation; to maintaining the credibility and security of its nuclear deterrent; and to fostering a durable sense of unity and purpose among its diverse populace. It also implies a conscious national effort to reject and counter what are perceived as agendas—whether born of external inspiration or internal division—that seek to weaken the state from within through sectarian or ethnic polarization, political extremism, or the persistent cultivation of hostility toward the country’s core national institutions. In this comprehensively held worldview, a strong, united, and cohesive Pakistan, underpinned by a capable, professional, and respected military, is therefore not merely a source of national pride or a ceremonial artifact of statehood. It is, instead, the very bedrock, the non-negotiable foundation, upon which the nation’s continued independence, its sovereign prerogatives, and its hard-won dignity ultimately and irrevocably rest.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.