The questions (and the certainties) left by Trump's operation in Venezuela
The military operation carried out by the US government raises many questions and clarifies some things. Let's begin by stating that the true interest of Donald Trump's administration has always been to seize control of Venezuela's oil wealth. He also made it clear in his press conference at Mar-a-Lago, Florida, that the United States would "run" the country from that moment on. At the same time, the "extraction" of Nicolás Maduro as a defendant in a drug trafficking case is a strictly legal matter, with no political validity or consideration given to his status as head of state. de facto From Venezuela.
Trump has said that Venezuelans stole oil facilities and wealth from the United States. In reality, Trump is committing a fallacy. The nationalization of the oil industry took place in 1976, under the presidency of former President Carlos Andrés Pérez. US companies were fully compensated for the assets they held in the country. Perhaps they felt mistreated, but they never stole them.
Maduro's dictatorial and authoritarian regime has generated a regional crisis. An eight million people have been exiled worldwide, the country's resources have been mismanaged, and power has been concentrated in a way that contradicts basic democratic principles. Thousands of political prisoners and detention centers have been plagued by violations of fundamental human rights. This humanitarian tragedy is perhaps the most profound aspect of the Venezuelan crisis. Families are divided, separated, and emotionally broken. Migrants are increasingly rejected by neighboring countries. And all this in what was once the richest country in Latin America. It has been utter devastation.
Chavismo has also failed as a form of social organization. In 2017, amidst a terrifying economic crisis marked by hyperinflation, a brutal reduction in GDP, and shortages of food and medicine, a completely individualistic response emerged, one that undermined the Chavista discourse, whose narrative revolved around a new collective consciousness. None of that materialized. The informal economy, tolerated by the Maduro government in strategic locations throughout the city, preyed on the wallets of Venezuelans, as basic necessities were sold at exorbitant prices.
Economic crises are always what trigger alarm bells. They warn of the impending collapse. Venezuela was no exception. The policy of expropriations, the state-run enterprise, and the control of strategic sectors, including banking, iron and aluminum, telecommunications, and important agricultural sectors, very quickly became rampant hotbeds of corruption, irrefutable examples of mismanagement that left Venezuelans without public services. Did Venezuelans need the intervention of a foreign country? This is something Venezuelans were unable to resolve and manage the political crisis that worsened following the rejection of the election results held on June 28, 2024. Chavismo decided to forge ahead and fell into the abyss. The thesis of a people in arms, the perfect unity between the people and the army, the military doctrine known as protracted people's war, designed and implemented by Mao Zedong's China and later by the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh, turned out to be a jumble of nonsense that fell on deaf ears. The political conditions and social organization necessary to build political and military resistance against a formidable army like that of the United States did not exist.
The country's sovereignty, its self-determination, has been compromised. It will be a political transition managed and then monitored by the United States. Which is saying something. A major question also arises for countries like Mexico and Colombia, drug producers. Will they be subjected to military operations as has happened in Venezuela? The United States has dusted off the Monroe Doctrine (America for the Americans), now remastered by its new national security strategy, outlined by President Trump during the press conference in which he detailed the military operation carried out in Venezuela. But if history tells us anything, it is that US interventions in Latin America have been traumatic and disastrous in their political consequences.
Other questions remain to be answered: Which security forces will exercise territorial control of the country? Is the lack of response to the US military action due to a division within the Venezuelan army? Could the military institution collapse? Are we on the verge of social chaos? These are the risks and dangers we face as a result of the intervention of the United States military forces.
