Introduction

Narco-terrorism refers to the nexus between drug trafficking networks and terrorist or insurgent organisations, where proceeds from narcotics are used to finance violence, destabilise governments, and undermine state authority. Coined during the conflicts in Latin America, the term has gained renewed relevance in the context of recent U.S. military action in Venezuela, where Washington has justified extraordinary measures by accusing the Venezuelan leadership of involvement in narco-terrorism. This development has revived global debates on the definition, misuse, and geopolitical implications of the concept.

Understanding Narco-Terrorism

Narco-terrorism operates through a mutually reinforcing relationship:

• Terrorist or insurgent groups provide protection, logistics, and territorial control.
• Drug cartels supply funding, arms, and transnational networks.

Historically, groups such as FARC in Colombia, Shining Path in Peru, and Taliban-linked networks in Afghanistan have exemplified this phenomenon. Narco-terrorism thrives in regions marked by weak governance, porous borders, poverty, and prolonged conflict.

Narco-Terrorism as a Security Narrative

In recent decades, narco-terrorism has evolved beyond a criminal phenomenon into a strategic security narrative. Powerful states increasingly frame political adversaries as narco-terrorists to:

• Justify coercive diplomacy or military intervention
• Bypass international legal constraints
• Mobilise domestic and international support

This trend raises concerns about the blurring of lines between law enforcement, counter-terrorism, and regime change.

The Venezuela Case: Recent Developments

The recent U.S. operation in Venezuela, culminating in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, has been justified primarily on charges of narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine trafficking, and links with armed groups. U.S. authorities allege that the Venezuelan state apparatus had become an extension of drug-smuggling networks operating across the Caribbean.

However, the operation has triggered global controversy:

• It bypassed the UN Security Council
• It allegedly violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which protects state sovereignty
• Civilian casualties and maritime interdictions were reported without multilateral authorisation

While narco-terrorism is a genuine transnational threat, the unilateral use of force under its banner raises serious legal and ethical questions.

Geopolitical Dimensions

The Venezuela episode highlights how narco-terrorism intersects with great-power politics:

1. Energy Security – Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves, making it strategically significant.

2. U.S.–China Rivalry – Venezuela’s economic alignment with China challenged U.S. influence in Latin America.

3. Revival of the Monroe Doctrine – The intervention reflects attempts to reassert hemispheric dominance.

Thus, narco-terrorism accusations appear intertwined with strategic calculations, not merely crime control.

Global Implications

The misuse or overextension of the narco-terrorism framework risks:

• Normalising unilateral interventions
• Undermining international law and multilateralism
• Encouraging selective justice and double standards

If powerful states act as judge, jury, and enforcer, global governance mechanisms weaken, and smaller states become vulnerable to coercion.

Relevance for India

For India, narco-terrorism remains a direct security challenge, particularly along its western borders, where drug trafficking finances cross-border terrorism. However, India consistently advocates:

• Rule-based international order
• Respect for sovereignty and non-intervention
• Counter-narco-terrorism through intelligence sharing, financial tracking, and multilateral cooperation

The Venezuela case reinforces India’s position that counter-terrorism must not become a pretext for geopolitical domination.

Conclusion

Narco-terrorism is a real and evolving threat that demands coordinated global action. However, the recent U.S. action in Venezuela demonstrates the dangers of weaponising the concept for unilateral intervention. A credible response to narco-terrorism must be grounded in international law, transparency, and multilateral consensus, lest the fight against crime itself become a source of global instability.