American Intervention in Venezuela: A Dangerous Precedent for Democracy and Sovereignty

The Facts of the Situation

This week’s developments in Venezuela represent one of the most significant geopolitical events in recent Western Hemisphere history. President Donald Trump announced that Venezuela would provide 30 to 50 million barrels of oil to the United States, with proceeds intended to “benefit the people” of both countries. This announcement comes alongside the White House organizing a meeting with executives from major U.S. oil companies including Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips to discuss Venezuela’s struggling oil industry.

These developments follow a dramatic military operation over the weekend that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, who now faces drug trafficking charges in the United States. The operation, however, came at a terrible human cost. Venezuelan officials reported at least 24 security officers killed, while Cuba confirmed 32 of its military and police personnel working in Venezuela were also killed. The Pentagon reported seven U.S. service members injured, with two still recovering from gunshot and shrapnel injuries.

Venezuela’s Attorney General Tarek William Saab described the operation as a “war crime” and announced prosecutors would investigate the deaths. Meanwhile, acting President Delcy Rodriguez defiantly stated that her destiny is “determined by God” rather than those threatening her, directly responding to Trump’s warnings about her future if she doesn’t align Venezuela with U.S. interests.

The oil transaction, valued at approximately $2.8 billion based on current prices, represents a significant economic development given Venezuela’s status as holder of the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves, despite currently producing only about one million barrels daily compared to America’s 13.9 million.

Geopolitical Context and Regional Reactions

The situation has triggered broader regional and international concerns. Colombia’s Foreign Affairs Minister Rosa Villavicencio announced she would present a formal complaint to the U.S. Embassy over Trump’s threats against Colombia, including his description of Colombia’s president as a “sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States.” This diplomatic tension threatens to undermine cooperation in the fight against drug trafficking.

European leaders, including those from France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, joined Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in defending Greenland’s sovereignty after Trump renewed calls for an American takeover of the Danish territory. This collective statement emphasized that “Greenland belongs to its people” and only Denmark and Greenland can decide matters concerning them.

Public opinion in the United States appears divided regarding the capture of Maduro, with about 40% approving of the military operation and a similar percentage opposed. Notably, nearly half of Americans opposed the U.S. taking control of Venezuela and choosing a new government, with about 90% believing the Venezuelan people should decide their future leadership.

The Dangerous Erosion of Democratic Principles

What we are witnessing in Venezuela represents a catastrophic erosion of the very democratic principles America claims to champion. The combination of military intervention, economic coercion, and political manipulation creates a dangerous precedent that threatens the foundations of international law and national sovereignty.

The timing of the oil deal announcement immediately following a deadly military operation creates the appearance of economic opportunism at the expense of human life and national self-determination. While Nicolás Maduro’s regime has undoubtedly been problematic and his alleged drug trafficking activities deserve judicial scrutiny, the means of addressing these issues matter profoundly. Extracting economic concessions in the aftermath of military action that resulted in significant casualties dangerously blurs the line between justice and exploitation.

The principle of national sovereignty—a cornerstone of international relations since the Peace of Westphalia—is being trampled in pursuit of economic and geopolitical advantages. Venezuela’s oil resources, while potentially beneficial to American energy security, should not become the prize for military intervention. This approach echoes the worst chapters of American foreign policy where resource extraction justified undermining democratic processes in sovereign nations.

The Human Cost and Moral Dimensions

The human cost of this operation cannot be overlooked or justified through political rhetoric. Dozens of Venezuelan and Cuban personnel lost their lives in this raid—human beings with families, dreams, and inherent dignity. Their deaths deserve more than becoming footnotes in geopolitical maneuvering. When military action results in such significant casualties, the moral justification must be unquestionable, and the strategic necessity must be overwhelming. Neither condition appears to be met in this case.

The Venezuelan people have suffered tremendously under economic collapse and political turmoil. They deserve the opportunity to determine their own future through democratic processes, not become subjects of foreign intervention that prioritizes resource access over human dignity. The spectacle of oil executives meeting at the White House while Venezuela mourns its dead creates a disturbing contrast between corporate interests and human suffering.

The Slippery Slope of Interventionism

This episode represents a dangerous escalation in American foreign policy that could have far-reaching consequences throughout the Western Hemisphere and beyond. The threats against Colombia, the renewed interest in Greenland, and the military action in Venezuela collectively signal a return to interventionist policies that many hoped had been relegated to history.

When the world’s most powerful nation begins threatening sovereign neighbors, ignoring international consensus, and pursuing territorial expansion, it undermines the very rules-based order that has maintained relative global stability since World War II. The statements from European leaders defending Greenland’s sovereignty indicate growing international concern about American intentions and methods.

The bipartisan agreement that Maduro is not Venezuela’s legitimate leader does not automatically justify extrajudicial capture or military intervention. There are established international mechanisms for addressing problematic leaders that preserve due process and respect national sovereignty. Bypassing these mechanisms sets a dangerous precedent that weaker nations may eventually face when dealing with more powerful ones.

The Resource Curse and Democratic Values

The focus on Venezuela’s oil resources amid political turmoil raises uncomfortable questions about priorities and values. While energy security is important, it should not come at the expense of democratic principles or human lives. The fact that this oil deal emerged so quickly after military action creates the appearance that resource access was a driving factor rather than a secondary benefit.

This situation illustrates the “resource curse” phenomenon from an international perspective—where nations with valuable resources often face external interference that undermines their political stability and self-determination. Venezuela’s oil wealth has now become both its greatest asset and its greatest vulnerability, attracting foreign intervention that compromises its sovereignty.

The Path Forward: Principles Over Power

As proponents of democracy, freedom, and liberty, we must advocate for a different approach—one that respects international law, values human dignity, and prioritizes diplomatic solutions over military and economic coercion. The Venezuelan people deserve the opportunity to shape their own future through genuine democratic processes, not through foreign imposition.

The United States should lead by example, demonstrating that democratic values mean respecting the sovereignty of other nations even when we disagree with their leadership. This means working through international organizations, supporting diplomatic efforts, and providing humanitarian assistance without strings attached that advance economic or geopolitical interests.

The legitimate concerns about Maduro’s regime and alleged criminal activities should be addressed through proper international legal channels, not through unilateral military action followed by economic deals that benefit American corporations. Justice must be blind to economic interests and consistent with international norms.

Conclusion: Reclaiming American Values

This moment requires serious reflection about what values America represents on the world stage. The pursuit of energy security and geopolitical advantage should not come at the expense of the democratic principles we claim to champion. The combination of military intervention, economic coercion, and disregard for sovereignty represents a dangerous departure from the values that should guide American foreign policy.

We must advocate for a foreign policy that respects human dignity, national self-determination, and international law. The Venezuelan people deserve better than to become casualties in great power competition or subjects of resource extraction masked as liberation. True leadership means exemplifying the values we profess—even when it requires restraint, patience, and respect for processes that don’t immediately serve our national interests.

The world is watching how America handles this situation. Will we demonstrate that might doesn’t make right? Will we show that democratic values mean respecting the sovereignty of others? Or will we continue down a path that undermines the very principles we claim to defend? The answers to these questions will define America’s role in the world for generations to come.