Empty plates
Sir — Recent news about Japanese scallops being banned from China shows how food can become part of political disputes. Japan exports large quantities of seafood to China, so the ban affects fishermen and traders more than politicians. Similar disputes have occurred before, involving pineapples from Taiwan and hilsa fish traded between India and Bangladesh. These actions rarely change government policy, but they do disrupt livelihoods and everyday life. People who simply enjoy good food are drawn into arguments they did not create. International disagreements need serious discussion, not empty plates.
Alok Kumar,
Gaya
Unstable future
Sir — It was business as usual for the United States of America when it captured the president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro (“US to ‘run’ oil-rich Venezuela”, Jan 4). But the capture of a sitting head of state without a declared war raises serious questions about international order. The United Nations Charter sets a high bar for the use of force against a sovereign state, and drug trafficking — even if US allegations are true — does not meet it. Treating criminal allegations as grounds for military action weakens legal clarity. Smaller states rely on these limits for protection. When powerful countries bypass them, the system becomes selective. That precedent matters far beyond Venezuela and will shape future conflicts in unpredictable ways.
Altaf Khan,
Mumbai
Sir — Oil interests sit uncomfortably close to the justifications offered by Washington for its attack on Venezuela. Public statements about taking control of Venezuela’s reserves undermine claims of limited security objectives. Resource control has long distorted foreign policy decisions. Linking military action to commercial gain erodes credibility and fuels suspicion againstthe US. International stability depends on separating enforcement of law from pursuit of economic advantage.
Anupam Neogi,
Calcutta
Sir — International law offers extradition, sanctions, and judicial processes as steps that can be taken against a sovereign state. The abduction of Nicolás Maduro is a blatant violation of these laws. Even where accusations are grave, procedure matters. Courts gain legitimacy through consent and due process, not force. The latter approach risks normalising cross-border arrests by armies, a step that none would welcome.
Aranya Sanyal,
Calcutta
Sir — Latin America has lived through repeated interventions justified by doctrine and destiny. Reviving the Monroe Doctrine under a new label revives old anxieties. Regional sovereignty was meant to settle history. The US’s latest action signals otherwise. It invites instability by reminding neighbours that autonomy remains conditional. Diplomatic influence shrinks when fear replaces consent. The region’s response through multilateral forums reflects concern that unilateral force will return as policy, not exception.
Tharcius S. Fernando,
Chennai
Sir — India’s cautious response to US attacks on Venezuela reflects a difficult balance. New Delhi values sovereignty while facing its own cross-border security challenges. Lowering the threshold for force would harm Indian interests more than help them. Clear rules protect states without global reach. Supporting flexible interpretations today risks dangerous precedents tomorrow. Consistency in defending international law strengthens India’s position when it argues for restraint and cooperation in its own neighbourhood.
Ajay Tyagi,
Mumbai
Sir — Claims of self-defence deserve careful scrutiny. International law requires necessity and proportionality. Choosing force because it is faster does not satisfy legal standards. The removal of Nicolás Maduro appears political rather than defensive. Once self-defence stretches this far, almost any grievance becomes grounds for attack. That erosion weakens the very framework meant to limit conflict.
G. Dasgupta,
Calcutta
Sir — The reaction within the US to the attack on Venezuela itself reveals discomfort. Opposition from across party lines suggests unease with open-ended involvement abroad. Promises to end foreign entanglements conflict with plans to run another country’s affairs. Domestic scepticism matters because sustained operations require public consent. Without it, policy becomes erratic. History shows that interventions lacking internal support rarely deliver stability.
Ishika Mukherjee,
Calcutta
Sir — The United Nations response to the US’s warmongering highlights the broader concern. When the UN secretary-general warns of dangerous precedent, it reflects institutional alarm globally. Selective enforcement of the UN Charter weakens trust in multilateral systems. Law loses authority when ignored by the strong. Restoring confidence requires restraint, transparency, and renewed commitment to collective decision-making.
Bhagwan Thadani,
Mumbai