By Md. Jahedul Islam
University Law Teacher and Researcher
The recent incident of the United States detaining and removing the Venezuelan President—an act that contradicts the UN Charter and established international norms—serves as a significant case study for those who frequently indulge in rhetoric about “conquering” or “toppling” nations. This harsh reality reminds us that international politics is not a theatre for emotions, slogans, or loud proclamations. It is, fundamentally, a landscape of power, capability, and structural reality. As Hans J. Morgenthau famously posited, “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power.” This power is not an abstract concept; it is the collective result of a state’s economy, institutions, knowledge, technology, and strategic depth.
The Ingredients of National Strength
In this era of realism, a state cannot achieve true power without a sustainable GDP, effective utilization of natural resources, a robust industrial base, and, most importantly, a continuous cycle of research-based production. While a large population can fuel emotional political rhetoric, it does not automatically translate into national strength. A modern state is defined by the synergy of Hard Power, Soft Power, and Smart Power. Failing to effectively cultivate even one of these leaves a nation’s voice as nothing more than empty noise.
Threats issued by a state remain hollow without a technology-driven workforce and modern defense capabilities. In such a weakened state, taking a “tough stance” against foreign powers is often futile. The real decay, however, begins internally when a state fails to build a transparent, accountable, and research-oriented system. When decision-making is based on emotion and immediate reaction rather than data and knowledge, a nation loses its credibility and acceptance on the global stage.
The Vulnerability of Weak Institutions
When state institutions, political structures, and diplomatic capabilities are weak, external pressure becomes inevitable. The state is relegated to a purely reactive role. Global powers identify these internal vulnerabilities to exert influence through various means—be it economic pressure, diplomatic interference, or direct political manipulation. In this context, vocal protests or diplomatically unacceptable rhetoric do not create effective resistance; rather, they invite greater danger.
This same realism applies to international law. While jurisprudence considers international law a global “Grand Norm,” these norms are not born of fantasy. Powerful states interpret concepts like “Humanitarian Intervention,” the “War on Terror,” or the “Responsibility to Protect” through the lens of their own strategic interests. This does not mean international law is meaningless; rather, it becomes a shield for weaker states only when they possess strong institutions and skilled diplomacy to back their claims.
A Path Toward Strategic Capability
The objective of this analysis is not to encourage aggression or advocate for silent surrender. Instead, it underscores that there is no alternative to enhancing our internal and international capabilities. If a state acts aggressively toward another, the responsibility to respond lies with the affected state. However, that response must be articulated in the language of diplomacy, considering potential outcomes and actual capabilities.
The current interim government has maintained this balance relatively well in several instances. It is hoped that, in the future, policymakers will remain focused on increasing state capacity without compromising on justice, moving beyond reactionary measures toward long-term planning. Ultimately, a state does not grow through slogans or emotions. It grows through a knowledge-based workforce, an inclusive economy, and a realistic yet visionary diplomacy. Without this foundation, no matter how loud the rhetoric, it remains a weak echo—possessing the sound of a roar, but lacking the strategic weight to be heard.
