When Silence Becomes Complicity: A Lesson from the Classroom to Global Politics

A professor once walked into a classroom and suddenly announced a surprise test. The students had no prior information. The professor, however, knew it was only a small exercise meant to observe their reactions.

This simple situation reveals a powerful economic concept: Adverse Selection caused by Information Asymmetry.

The professor knows the full truth.
The students do not.

Because of this imbalance of information, uncertainty spreads across the room. Each student begins thinking individually: What if I fail? What if speaking up makes things worse? What if everyone else accepts it?

Instead of questioning the fairness of the sudden test, everyone stays silent.

No protest.
No collective action.
Only quiet compliance.

Each student chooses personal safety over collective justice.

Over time, such behavior weakens fairness in any system. When people do not challenge questionable decisions because they lack information or fear personal consequences, inefficient and unfair systems slowly become the norm.

What appears to be a harmless classroom moment carries a much deeper lesson.

Because the same pattern exists far beyond classrooms.

It exists in global geopolitics too.

Today, the world increasingly operates under a similar imbalance of power and information. The United States often acts as a global authority—invading countries, imposing sanctions, and shaping international economic policies that affect nations across the world.

Yet very few countries openly challenge these actions.

Even major powers like China and Russia often respond strategically rather than confrontationally. Smaller countries remain largely silent.

India too has historically chosen diplomatic silence in many situations, preferring strategic partnerships over confrontation.

But silence has consequences.

During Operation Sindoor, we witnessed how narratives can be shaped internationally. Claims were made that a nuclear conflict between two countries had been prevented by external intervention—claims that many observers dispute. Yet the response from many governments remained cautious and restrained.

At the same time, economic pressures continue. Tariffs on exports, conditions tied to trade, sanctions linked to energy purchases, and geopolitical bargaining are becoming normal tools in global negotiations.

For example, India has faced pressure over purchasing discounted crude oil from Russia, even though energy security is a national priority.

The U.S. recently issued a 30-day sanctions waiver allowing India to continue purchasing certain Russian oil shipments during the current supply disruptions.

However, Russia is no longer offering the deep discounts it provided earlier after the Ukraine war, and Indian refiners are now paying higher market-linked prices.

At the same time, it raises an important question — who is the U.S. to decide or advise where a sovereign country like India should buy its oil from?

Energy security is ultimately a nation’s own strategic decision, not something dictated by another power.

Similarly, trade tariff discussions often include demands related to agricultural imports or sourcing of raw materials such as cotton.

These dynamics reveal a critical truth about international relations:

Power shapes narratives. Silence shapes outcomes.

When countries fail to question injustice today, they may find themselves alone tomorrow.

And the consequences go beyond diplomacy.

When global rules appear flexible for powerful nations, it risks weakening the very foundation of international law. If one power can bypass sovereignty, others may eventually follow. Russia and China could justify similar actions. Regional conflicts may escalate without effective global accountability.

However, there are signs of resistance. Good news , but that is just from one or two countries and rest of the world is silent including India.

Greenland, for instance, has increasingly asserted its political voice in global discussions about its strategic future. Spain has also taken independent positions in international policy debates, sometimes diverging from dominant global narratives.

Spain recently refused to allow the United States to use its military bases at Rota and Morón for attacks on Iran, with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez stating that such operations violated international law and lacked global approval. The decision forced U.S. aircraft to leave those bases despite pressure and threats of trade retaliation from the United States.

This moment showed how even a smaller nation like Spain can stand firm against a global superpower, proving that sovereignty and principles can matter more than pressure or power. In global politics, such resistance reminds the world that international relations should be guided by law and dignity—not by fear.

These moments remind us that speaking up—even diplomatically—helps maintain balance in the international system.

The lesson returns us to that classroom.

When everyone stays silent because they fear individual consequences, unfair systems become stronger.

But when someone asks a simple question—
“Is this fair?”

The entire dynamic can change.

Whether in classrooms, societies, or global politics, justice rarely survives without voices willing to question power.

Because silence may feel safe in the moment.

But history often remembers it as complicity.

Comments

comments