Article by: Nakeria Woods, Contributing Writer

On January 3, the United States’ military conducted an overt military operation in Caracas and surrounding areas that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the first lady Cilia Flores, as well as a death toll of around one hundred. This mission was described by American officials as a law enforcement mission. Subsequently, both Maduro and his wife were brought back to the United States to be charged with narco-terrorism, cocaine importation conspiracies, and other drug-related offenses. These charges and the forcible removal of the Venezuelan president have come after months of targeting boats and seizing oil tankers off the coast of Venezuela, as well as even longer years of harsh sanctions that were placed on the country and its officials. 

As stated, the Trump administration partially justifies its actions in Venezuela by claiming criminal or illegal drug operations happening within the country, pointing particularly to Venezuelan officials like President Maduro. The validity of these claims, particularly the claims of fentanyl trafficking, is questionable. Another point of justification used by the Trump administration is the nature of Maduro himself. The administration has labeled President Maduro as a “socialist dictator who plunged Venezuela into chaos, starved its people, and menaced American security.” 

Ultimately, though, Venezuela’s oil is central to this larger story, as proven by statements from President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Both have expressed the desire for American oil companies to go into the country, with Trump explicitly wanting these companies to “spend billions of dollars.” 

On January 9, President Trump met with American oil executives to discuss the major oil companies investing in Venezuela’s oil and oil infrastructure. Currently, the President’s plans have only been met with a lack of strong commitment from oil executives. Many of these executives are very cautious about re-entering Venezuela because of the political climate and the lack of security for their investments. This can be attributed to the multiple oil industry nationalizations that have taken place in other countries over the last couple of decades.

The South American country’s oil has long been at the center of Venezuela’s domestic and international policy and operations. Like most Latin American countries, the end of the colonial period did not mark the end of mass exploitation and inequality, especially once oil was discovered in the country in the early 20^th century. Almost none of the wealth from this initial oil boom helped to advance the situation of poor Venezuelans, who made up the majority of the country. This would be a continuing factor throughout the second oil boom in the 1970s, and even as President Carlos Andrés Pérez nationalized the oil industry. Pérez’s implementation of neoliberal policies in the late 20^th century only exacerbated the conditions of poor working-class Venezuelans and helped maintain mass inequality. 

Enter Hugo Chávez, who was democratically elected in 1998. Chávez gained notoriety for his involvement in a coup to oust Pérez in 1992. After the failure of the attempted coup and a presidential pardon after two years in prison, Chávez began to engage in electoral politics. This was largely based on the mass support he had from working-class Venezuelans who  had long been excluded and ignored in Venezuelan politics. With Chávez officially taking office in 1999, the Bolivarian Revolution officially started. The revolution was based on the pan-Latin American dreams of Simón Bolívar, a Venezuelan national independence hero who sought to unite all of Latin America against colonialism and domination. In many ways, the Bolivarian Revolution was able to accomplish this, at least within Venezuela. The revolution was very successful in completely changing the lives of the most marginalized in Venezuelan society: women, indigenous Venezuelans, Afro-Venezuelans, and the poor, largely using the money from the high petroleum prices to fund various programs and missions. This relationship between the success of the revolution and the dependence on oil, though very beneficial at the time, would prove to be very disastrous down the line. 

In 2005, Chávez formally declared the Bolivarian Revolution a socialist one in his speech at the World Social Forum, stating strongly that “Capitalism is savagery. Every day I’m more convinced, less capitalism and more socialism.” 

In many ways, as is common with many revolutions, the Bolivarian Revolution became deeply intertwined with its founding leader. Chávez consistently enjoyed mass support among marginalized Venezuelans, as evident by his four successful elections, and was an idealized figure in his life. Because of this, his death in 2013 and the ultimate passing of power to his vice president, Nicolás Maduro, caused support for the socialist project to begin to wane. The falling oil prices, which caused the progress of the revolution to slow, only amplified this decline in support. 

The staunch opposition that the revolution was met with also added to this. Domestic and international opposition were closely tied and often worked together to undermine the revolution and its leaders. Direct opposition to Venezuela has commonly been tied to the Trump administration, but this ignores the bipartisan opposition to Venezuela. In 2015, President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order that highlighted the “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Venezuela.” Trump only escalated this American policy in his first term through the ramping up of sanctions and support of the opposition leader, Juan Guaidó. 

The American political establishment and many Western media outlets have been manufacturing consent for some type of intervention in Venezuela for at least a decade. The inflexible consensus has allowed little room for nuance in discussions of Maduro and Venezuela, which is worrying as the Trump administration’s actions in the country have much larger implications. 

Does the United States have the right to capture and charge a leader of a sovereign nation in the 21st century? If the answer to this question becomes yes for Venezuela, what about other nations? As the world moves beyond the Cold War context that defined half a century of domestic and international politics, what place does Western intervention, involvement, and outright exploitation have? These multi-layered questions must be considered and asked as we collectively follow this event. To learn more about the topic discussed here, the University of North Carolina Press hosted an author panel discussion that offers much insight into this complex topic, https://youtu.be/VGlfGplYdm4?si=yIk06708FJIjj-x6.