Pakistan’s intervention at the United Nations Security Council this week was a timely reminder that international order, already frayed by wars and widening rivalries, cannot afford further erosion by expediency. By expressing profound concern over the escalating tensions in Venezuela and urging de-escalation through dialogue, Islamabad placed itself firmly on the side of international law and restraint. That stance deserves not only endorsement but amplification.
The crisis in Venezuela has become a familiar test case for how power is exercised in the global system. Economic hardship, political polarization and governance failures are real and painful for the Venezuelan people. Yet history shows that external pressure, coercive measures and unilateral political recognition rarely alleviate such suffering. More often, they harden divisions, undermine institutions and entrench instability that spills beyond borders.
Pakistan’s emphasis on the principles of the UN Charter is not rhetorical. The obligation to respect sovereignty, refrain from the threat or use of force, and avoid interference in internal affairs is the thin line separating a rules-based order from a world governed by might. When powerful states unilaterally decide who should or should not govern another country, they cross that line. The recent U.S. posture toward Venezuela, including the practice of politically misnaming leadership through unilateral recognition, stands in clear violation of these norms, irrespective of the individual or faction involved. Legitimacy cannot be outsourced, nor can it be conferred by external fiat.
Such actions also carry wider consequences. Latin America and the Caribbean have long been recognized as a Zone of Peace, a hard-won status achieved through regional consensus and restraint. Injecting great-power rivalry into this space risks reversing decades of progress. Instability in one country can rapidly metastasize, disrupting migration patterns, economic ties and regional security. In a world already stretched by conflicts in Europe, the Middle East and beyond, opening another front of confrontation is reckless.
Pakistan’s call for dialogue and diplomacy is therefore not an abstract appeal but a practical one. Sustainable political solutions emerge from inclusive processes that reflect the will of the people concerned. External actors can support such processes through mediation, humanitarian assistance and respect for international mechanisms, but they cannot substitute themselves for domestic consent. Sanctions, recognition games and political pressure masquerading as moral clarity often do more harm than good.
By urging restraint at the Security Council, Pakistan has aligned itself with a growing chorus of states that see the preservation of international norms as essential to global stability. The message is clear: principles must not be bent to suit power, and legality must not be sacrificed for convenience. Venezuela’s future, like that of any sovereign nation, should be shaped by its people, not scripted in foreign capitals.
