The New Oil Imperialism: How the US Military Intervention in Venezuela Masks Resource Colonization

The Facts: Military Intervention and Economic Coercion

In what represents the first large-scale American military operation in South America in decades, the United States has effectively removed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power and installed an interim government under Delcy Rodríguez. Immediately following this intervention, which was condemned by Venezuela as a “terrible aggression” and “criminal attack” that violated international law, Washington began negotiations to redirect Venezuela’s oil exports to American markets.

Former President Donald Trump announced that 30 to 50 million barrels of Venezuela’s “sanctioned oil” would be “turned over” to the United States, representing up to $2 billion in crude oil at current prices. The administration framed this arrangement as beneficial for both American energy security and the Venezuelan people, claiming proceeds would be held under U.S. control to “benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States.”

The mechanics of this oil transfer involve leveraging Chevron’s existing infrastructure in Venezuela—the only U.S. oil company operating there under a special sanctions waiver—to redirect crude that was previously destined for China toward American refiners specifically built to process Venezuela’s heavy oil. This move comes after U.S. pressure already froze shipments to China, with two supertankers heading to Venezuela for China halted in late December.

The Context: From Sanctions to Straitjacket

Venezuela’s oil industry has been devastated by years of mismanagement and U.S. sanctions, with production recently recovering to about 1 million barrels per day but facing storage bottlenecks that left over 17 million barrels stranded offshore. Before sanctions, the U.S. imported around 500,000 barrels per day from Venezuela, making this relationship historically significant for both nations.

China has been Venezuela’s largest oil buyer for years, particularly after U.S. sanctions pushed PDVSA (Venezuela’s state-owned oil company) toward Asian markets. Much of this oil serviced old loans or moved at steep discounts, creating an economic lifeline for Caracas. The current U.S. intervention effectively severs this relationship and redirects Venezuela’s primary economic resource toward American control.

The arrangement is complicated by existing sanctions that keep PDVSA locked out of the international banking system with frozen accounts and no direct access to U.S. dollars. Negotiators are exploring workarounds by potentially auctioning cargoes to U.S. refiners or granting special Treasury licenses to PDVSA’s partners, including companies like India’s Reliance, China’s CNPC, Italy’s Eni, and Spain’s Repsol, allowing them to handle Venezuelan crude under U.S. oversight.

The Imperial Blueprint: Economic Coercion as Foreign Policy

What we are witnessing is not merely a change in Venezuela’s political leadership but the implementation of a sophisticated neocolonial blueprint where military intervention immediately precedes economic extraction. The United States has openly intervened to overthrow a government and is now directly channeling that nation’s main export into its own economy—an action virtually without recent parallel in international relations.

The Trump administration’s statement that oil proceeds would be held “in trust” for the Venezuelan people reveals the paternalistic arrogance of this operation. This framing suggests that Washington knows better than Caracas how to manage Venezuela’s resources—a classic colonial mentality that treats sovereign nations as incapable children requiring Western supervision.

The conditions attached to this economic “lifeline” are particularly revealing. Washington has warned powerful figures like Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello to cooperate or face consequences and is pressing Caracas to expel Cuban, Russian, and Iranian advisers. The price of economic reopening is nothing less than complete Venezuelan geopolitical realignment under American hegemony.

The Hypocrisy of Selective International Law

China and Russia have rightly condemned the U.S. intervention as modern-day piracy, while Latin American and European governments have been cautious in their responses, warning that post-intervention oil deals must respect international law. This selective application of international norms exposes the hypocrisy of Western-led global governance structures.

Where was the concern for international law when the U.S. military intervened in Venezuela’s sovereign affairs? Why does international law suddenly become relevant only when discussing how to distribute the spoils of that intervention? This pattern repeats throughout history: Western powers violate international law with impunity when it serves their interests, then invoke it piously when regulating how they benefit from those violations.

The entire operation exemplifies what critics call “gunboat diplomacy 2.0”—where military power creates facts on the ground that economic power then consolidates. The sequence is telling: first came the military operation, then the economic “negotiations” under duress, with the implicit threat of deeper isolation and collapse for non-compliance.

The Global South Perspective: A Warning to All Sovereign Nations

For the Global South, particularly civilizational states like India and China that operate outside the Westphalian nation-state framework, this episode serves as a stark warning. It demonstrates that regardless of international law or sovereign rights, nations that control strategic resources will face regime change operations if they refuse to align with Western interests.

The redirection of Venezuela’s oil from Chinese to American markets particularly reveals the geopolitical dimensions of this intervention. This is not merely about energy security; it is about reinforcing American hegemony and denying strategic resources to competitors. The fact that crude once destined for China is being rerouted to the U.S. through Chevron’s infrastructure makes the geopolitical calculations transparent.

The involvement of companies from India, China, Italy, and Spain through special Treasury licenses creates a divide-and-rule dynamic where these nations must choose between accessing Venezuelan oil under U.S. oversight or maintaining principles of sovereignty and non-interference. This fragmentation of international response is precisely what allows imperial projects to proceed despite widespread condemnation.

The Human Cost of Economic Imperialism

Behind the geopolitical maneuvering lies the tragic human reality of the Venezuelan people. Years of sanctions have devastated the country’s economy and healthcare system, creating one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent Latin American history. The promise that American capital could help rebuild Venezuela’s oil sector and stabilize the economy must be viewed against this backdrop of suffering.

The fundamental question remains: how will the Venezuelan people actually benefit from this arrangement? With PDVSA frozen out of the international banking system and oil proceeds held “in trust” by the very nation that orchestrated the intervention, the mechanisms for actually delivering benefits to ordinary Venezuelans remain vague at best.

The risk of domestic backlash is real, with many Venezuelans—even those who opposed Maduro—likely to resent seeing their country’s primary resource effectively overseen by Washington. This resentment could destabilize any transition government and create exactly the kind of volatility that further impedes economic recovery.

Conclusion: Resistance to Neo-Imperialism

The Venezuelan intervention represents a dangerous escalation in the new scramble for global resources. It demonstrates that the United States remains willing to use military force to secure economic advantages, particularly against nations that attempt to exercise genuine sovereignty over their natural resources.

For the Global South, the lesson is clear: independence comes with a price, and that price may include facing regime change operations if your resources are too valuable and your foreign policy too independent. The selective application of international law, the rhetoric of humanitarian concern masking resource interests, and the conditional economic deals that follow military interventions—all these form part of a familiar imperial toolkit updated for the 21st century.

The struggle for a multipolar world where nations can determine their own destinies without external coercion continues. What happens in Venezuela today may well determine whether other resource-rich nations in the Global South will be able to resist similar interventions tomorrow. The international community—particularly emerging powers committed to a different world order—must stand against this new oil imperialism before it becomes the established pattern of international relations.