During her visit to New Delhi this week, Venezuela's acting president, Delcy RodrÃguez, met US Ambassador Sergio Gor. Had the meeting taken place in Washington or Caracas, it would have attracted little attention. In Delhi, however, it carried a different significance.
RodrÃguez had come to India seeking investment, energy cooperation, and commercial partnerships. Yet the image suggested a deeper reality. Venezuela's leaders may travel the world in search of opportunities, but the country's economic future increasingly operates within a framework shaped by Washington. For example, recent US sanctions have restricted Venezuela's access to international financing and targeted the state-owned oil company PDVSA, dramatically limiting the government's ability to generate revenue and engage with global markets. The photograph captured more than a diplomatic encounter. It revealed a changing relationship between a weakened state and a dominant power.
It also revealed something troubling about America itself.
For decades, successive American administrations justified their policies towards Venezuela using the language of democracy, human rights, and constitutional governance. Critics often questioned those motives, but the rhetoric remained consistent. American power was presented as an instrument of universal principles.
Donald Trump has adopted a strikingly different approach.
The Return of Colonial Logic
Rather than disguising the centrality of oil, he has repeatedly emphasised it. He has spoken openly about Venezuela's vast energy reserves, described Venezuelan oil in terms suggesting American entitlement, and supported arrangements under which the future of Venezuelan oil production and revenue flows would be shaped under strong American influence.
The remarkable feature is not that a great power pursues its interests. Great powers have always done so. The remarkable feature is the disappearance of embarrassment.
Trump appears willing to say aloud what previous administrations preferred to imply. While leaders like Obama or Bush focused their public statements on the promotion of democracy, human rights, and constitutional order, often framing interventions in terms of universal values, Trump has spoken with unusual directness about oil, power, and strategic advantage. Where past rhetoric wrapped interests in the language of democratic idealism, the priorities now are openly transactional. Oil matters. Power matters. Strategic advantage matters. The language of democratic idealism has increasingly given way to the language of ownership and control.
That shift is important because it exposes the underlying logic of the relationship.
No American governor resides in Caracas. No American flag flies over Venezuelan government buildings. Venezuela remains a sovereign state in the formal legal sense. Yet colonial relationships have evolved. They no longer require occupation or direct administration. They operate through financial leverage, market access, licensing arrangements, sanctions regimes and influence over strategic resources.
The question is, therefore, not whether Venezuela remains independent on paper. The question is whether meaningful sovereignty can survive when a nation's most important economic decisions increasingly depend upon the approval of another state.
Yet the most important consequence of this development may not be Venezuelan. It may be American.
The Freedom Exception
The United States occupies a unique place in modern history because it was founded in opposition to an empire. The American Revolution transformed resistance to external control into a defining national principle. Liberty, self-government and sovereignty became central elements of American identity. Generations of Americans were taught that freedom was not merely a national possession but a universal ideal.
That is what makes the current moment so revealing.
If a foreign government exercised similar influence over American oil production, energy exports, or resource revenues, the reaction would be immediate and furious. Americans would rightly regard such interference as an assault on national sovereignty. Politicians would denounce it. Commentators would condemn it. Citizens would reject it.
Yet many of the same people appear remarkably unconcerned when comparable principles are applied elsewhere. This is particularly evident among Trump's political base. Few political leaders speak openly unless they believe their supporters will tolerate or even reward them for doing so. Trump's confidence reflects the knowledge that many of his most enthusiastic supporters will view such rhetoric not as imperial overreach but as evidence of national strength.
That fact should trouble Americans far more than it troubles Venezuelans.
Many of those supporters present themselves as the strongest defenders of freedom, sovereignty and self-government. They condemn foreign influence in American affairs and invoke the nation's anti-colonial origins with understandable pride. Yet when another country's sovereignty becomes constrained by American power, the principle suddenly appears less important.
The contradiction is difficult to ignore.
The issue is not simply hypocrisy. Political hypocrisy is as old as politics itself. The issue is habituation.
A society that repeatedly makes exceptions to its principles eventually ceases to regard them as principles at all. Freedom becomes something claimed for oneself rather than defended universally. Sovereignty becomes a right for the powerful and a privilege for the weak. Liberty remains celebrated in speeches while becoming increasingly conditional in practice.
History suggests that this process carries dangers far beyond foreign policy.
The founders of the American Republic understood that imperial power could corrupt republican institutions. Their concern was not merely what power would do to foreign peoples. It was what the exercise of power would do to Americans themselves. A republic depends upon citizens who believe that principles apply consistently. Once exceptions become routine, cynicism follows. The language of freedom survives, but its substance gradually weakens.
The photograph from New Delhi will soon be forgotten. Diplomats will move on. Oil contracts will be negotiated. Venezuela's future remains uncertain.
Yet the image captured something larger than a diplomatic meeting. It showed a republic founded in opposition to an empire that was growing increasingly comfortable exercising imperial influence over another nation's most valuable resource. More troublingly, it suggested that millions of Americans no longer regard that contradiction as particularly troubling. Americans, and Indians, should pay attention.
History repeatedly demonstrates that the habits developed abroad rarely remain abroad. A society that becomes comfortable making exceptions to its principles overseas eventually begins making exceptions at home. A nation that learns to tolerate the erosion of freedom abroad may one day discover that the habit has returned home.
(The author is a Research Fellow in the Geostrategy Program at the Takshashila Institution)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
