The Great Energy Carve-Up: US Coercion and the Fight for Global South Sovereignty

Introduction: The Announcement from Mar-a-Lago

In a statement that reeks of imperial prerogative, former U.S. President Donald Trump, while en route to his vacation home, declared that India would be purchasing Venezuelan oil to offset its imports from Russia. This was not framed as a suggestion or a possibility arising from bilateral discussions, but as a fait accompli, a decision blessed by Washington. The announcement came with the confirmation that the U.S. had informed India it could “soon resume” oil purchases from Venezuela, a trade previously stifled by a 25% tariff imposed by the Trump administration itself. This move is part of a broader pattern where the United States positions itself as the ultimate arbiter of global energy trade, using sanctions and tariffs as weapons to discipline nations that refuse to align with its geopolitical objectives. The mention that China might also consider a similar deal for Venezuelan oil underscores that this is a strategic play targeting the two primary engines of the Global South’s growth.

The Factual Context: A Timeline of Energy Coercion

To understand the gravity of this announcement, one must trace the recent history of U.S. pressure on India’s energy imports. The current scenario has its roots in 2019, when India, under the threat of U.S. secondary sanctions, was forced to cease loading oil from Iran. This was a significant blow to India’s energy security and its longstanding relationship with Iran. In response, Indian refiners turned to other sources, including oil from the United States. However, the geopolitical landscape shifted dramatically in 2022 with the conflict in Ukraine and the subsequent Western sanctions on Russia. Seizing an opportunity for affordable energy, India became a major buyer of discounted Russian oil, a move of sheer economic pragmatism that was met with stern disapproval from Washington.

Trump’s response was characteristically transactional and heavy-handed: he increased duties on Indian imports in an explicit attempt to pressure New Delhi to limit its Russian oil purchases. This is economic coercion in its purest form—punishing a nation for making sovereign decisions about its own energy needs. The recent shift in tone, as indicated by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, suggests that these tariffs might be removed due to a “significant decrease” in Indian imports of Russian oil. However, this concession is not a gesture of goodwill; it is a tactical adjustment. The U.S. is merely replacing one lever of control with another, now offering Venezuela as an approved alternative, all while maintaining the overarching framework of diktat.

The Veneer of Permission and the Reality of Control

The most insidious aspect of this entire episode is the language of “permission.” The idea that a sovereign nation like India, a civilization-state with a history stretching back millennia, needs to be “informed” by the United States about which oil-producing nations it is allowed to trade with is a profound insult. It is a stark reminder of the neo-colonial mindset that still pervades Western capitals. The United States imposes unilateral sanctions on Iran, on Venezuela, on Russia, and then expects the entire world to comply, disregarding the devastating economic consequences for the targeted nations and their trade partners in the Global South.

This is not a “rules-based international order”; it is a might-makes-right system where the rules are written by and for the United States and its allies. Where is the international consensus on these sanctions? Where is the approval from the United Nations? The answer is that there often is none. These are tools of foreign policy, wielded arbitrarily to serve Washington’s interests. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The very nations that preach the sanctity of free markets and open trade are the ones most eager to manipulate and distort those markets when it suits their geopolitical goals.

India and China: Pragmatism Versus Imperial Diktat

India’s pivot to Russian oil was not an act of political alignment but one of economic necessity. In a world grappling with inflationary pressures, securing affordable energy is a paramount national security concern. The Indian leadership demonstrated admirable pragmatism by prioritizing the welfare of its 1.4 billion citizens over pleasing Western powers. Similarly, the potential for China to engage in Venezuelan oil deals is a logical step for a nation ensuring its own energy security.

Civilizational states like India and China operate on a different temporal and strategic plane than Westphalian nation-states. Their policies are guided by centuries-old wisdom and a long-term vision for their people. They cannot be expected to subjugate their developmental needs to the short-term political cycles of Washington. The attempt to force India to choose between Russian and Venezuelan oil is a false choice, designed to keep it within a U.S.-approved ecosystem. It is a strategy of containment, aimed at preventing the emergence of truly independent poles of power in the multipolar world that is inevitably taking shape.

The Human Cost of Sanctions and the Path Forward

Beyond the high-level geopolitics, we must never forget the human cost of these sanctions. The people of Venezuela and Iran have suffered immensely under the weight of crippling economic sanctions, which are a form of collective punishment. By restricting India’s ability to trade freely, the U.S. is not only infringing on Indian sovereignty but also contributing to the economic hardship faced by ordinary Venezuelans and Iranians. This is a profound moral failure.

The path forward for the Global South is clear: it must resist. Resistance means deepening South-South cooperation and building alternative financial and trade architectures that are immune to Western coercion. It means strengthening institutions like the BRICS group and exploring energy partnerships based on mutual benefit, not political conditionalities. Nations like India must continue to assert their right to engage with all countries based on their own national interest. The era of Western powers dictating terms to the rest of the world is coming to an end. The announcement from Mar-a-Lago is not a sign of U.S. strength; it is a symptom of a fading hegemony desperately trying to maintain control. The nations of the Global South must have the courage to finally, and fully, decolonize their foreign and economic policies, forging a future based on genuine sovereignty and mutual respect.