By Dr. Abdoulie Bojang, CFEI®, DBA
Global politics is often explained in moral language—democracy versus authoritarianism, legality versus illegitimacy, order versus disorder. While these categories matter, they rarely explain why some crises trigger extraordinary international action while others fade quietly into the background. To understand those differences, one must look beyond rhetoric and examine how power, resources, and strategic interest shape outcomes.
The ongoing pressure against Venezuela, centred on President Nicolás Maduro, offers a revealing case study. It is not unique, nor is it unprecedented. But it is instructive—particularly for Africa.
Much of the global discourse around Venezuela focuses on leadership and governance. Yet many countries experience contested elections, political repression, or economic mismanagement without facing sustained sanctions, isolation, or open discussions of regime change.
What separates Venezuela from many others is not only politics but strategic value.
Venezuela possesses some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world. In a global system where energy security, supply chains, and resource access remain central to national power, this matters profoundly. When strategic resources coincide with weak external protection and limited deterrence, international pressure tends to intensify. This is not ideology. It is structural.
History repeatedly shows that states with three characteristics face heightened vulnerability:
- Significant natural resources
- Limited strategic alliances or deterrence
- Economic or financial dependence on external systems
Venezuela fits this profile. So did Libya before 2011. So did Iraq before 2003.
Africa, as a continent, increasingly fits it today.
Africa holds a disproportionate share of the minerals essential to modern industry and future technologies—cobalt, lithium, uranium, rare earth elements, oil, gas, and fertile land. These are not merely commodities; they are strategic assets in a competitive global economy. As Africa’s importance rises, so does the intensity of external interest.
One of the most overlooked aspects of international politics is selectivity. Rules, norms, and principles are rarely applied uniformly. Instead, they are filtered through strategic interest.
Countries with strong alliances, military capability, or economic leverage tend to negotiate crises on their own terms. Those without such buffers are often subject to pressure rather than dialogue. This is not a moral judgement; it is an observable reality.
The Venezuelan case illustrates how quickly political disagreements can escalate when leverage is asymmetrical. Sanctions, asset freezes, diplomatic isolation, and narrative dominance become tools not of last resort, but of strategy.
For Africa, the relevance is not hypothetical. The continent is becoming central to global energy transitions, technological supply chains, and geopolitical competition. Yet African states largely approach security and diplomacy individually, rather than collectively.
This fragmentation lowers the cost of external pressure.
African leaders may assume that distance, neutrality, or diplomatic goodwill provides protection. Recent global events suggest otherwise. In an interconnected world, sovereignty extends beyond borders to financial systems, legal jurisdictions, and information flows. Where dependence is high, vulnerability follows.
Another quiet lesson from recent global politics concerns leadership security. In the modern era, pressure rarely arrives in dramatic form. It manifests through visa restrictions, legal actions, reputational campaigns, and financial controls.
Leaders from states with limited strategic backing operate in a more conditional environment. Their mobility, assets, and diplomatic space can be constrained quickly if political alignment shifts.This reality underscores a broader truth: individual safety in global politics is closely tied to collective strength.
The issue facing Africa is not whether to confront global powers, but how to avoid being coerced by them. Deterrence does not necessarily mean militarisation. It means raising the cost of interference through unity, resilience, and strategic coordination.
States that are costly to pressure are treated with caution. States that are easy to pressure are not.
Africa’s long-standing commitment to peace and non-alignment is commendable. But peace without capacity invites dependence. Neutrality without leverage offers limited protection.
Africa’s greatest untapped asset is collective action. A continent that coordinates its security, speaks with greater diplomatic coherence, and protects its strategic resources collectively changes the calculation of external actors.
This does not require hostility or isolation. It requires clarity.
Regional security cooperation, shared intelligence frameworks, coordinated resource governance, and independent policy positions would significantly reduce vulnerability while enhancing Africa’s global standing.
The Venezuelan crisis should not be read as a prediction of Africa’s future, but as a warning about structural exposure in the global system. Power dynamics do not announce themselves politely. They reveal themselves through precedent.
Africa still has time to act deliberately rather than reactively. The choice is between shaping outcomes or being shaped by them.
History shows that relevance without preparation invites pressure. Relevance with unity commands respect.
Dr. Abdoulie Bojang, CFEI®, DBA, is a Gambian educator, politician, and Founder of Kabboumb Academy. A Distinguished Fellow of the African Institute of Public Administration, he writes and speaks on governance, leadership, and Africa’s role in the global stage.
