Loading...
Pressure points: On Trump seeking Venezuela’s oil without costs of occupation
What is unfolding in Venezuela is naked imperialism. Having ordered the abduction of a sitting head of state and imposed a naval blockade on a sovereign nation, U.S. President Donald Trump declared that Washington would now “run” Venezuela. That he endorsed Acting President Delcy Rodriguez rather than the opposition does not diminish the criminality of these actions; it merely reveals their purpose, which was not about democracy or narcotics but about control of Venezuela’s oil. The Trump administration’s approach might appear contradictory: help retain the Bolivarian regime while strangling its economic sovereignty. But the logic is coherent. Washington wants Venezuela’s oil without the costs of occupation or the chaos of regime change. It learned from Iraq that dismantling state structures creates insurgencies. It believes that it is better to capture the existing apparatus and redirect its functions — a form of neocolonialism that maintains the forms of statehood while exercising actual control.
This arrangement places Ms. Rodriguez in a difficult position. The Bolivarian movement was built on resisting precisely this kind of American domination over Venezuela’s resources. Yet her government, battered by a decade of sanctions, must now negotiate with the very power that kidnapped her predecessor. Her statement on Sunday, “Enough already of Washington’s orders over politicians in Venezuela”, reveals the strain that she is under. She has complied with American demands on oil trade and released political prisoners as a “peace gesture”. But she cannot surrender Venezuelan sovereignty entirely without losing the Chavista base that sustains her government. The more pressure Washington applies on Caracas, the more it risks the very instability it claims to want to prevent. If the U.S. wanted a productive economic relationship with Venezuela, it should not have embarked on this marauding path. The sanctions that devastated Venezuela’s economy were American policy. The migration crisis that Mr. Trump cited to justify intervention was a consequence of those sanctions. Now, Washington offers to ease the pressure it created, but only if Venezuela submits to exclusive American control over its resources. This is not diplomacy; it is extortion. The world cannot remain silent. When Russia violated Ukrainian sovereignty, the international community condemned it and imposed sanctions. Mr. Trump’s ‘Donroe Doctrine’ threatens not just Venezuela, but the foundations of the international order. If it remains unchallenged internationally, no nation in the Global South can be safe.
Overall Analysis
The editorial delivers a sharp and uncompromising critique of U.S. policy towards Venezuela under President Donald Trump, framing it as a clear case of modern imperialism. From the outset, the language is forceful and morally charged, using phrases like “naked imperialism” and “criminality” to leave no ambiguity about the author’s stance. The editorial argues that U.S. actions — including coercive measures and assertions of control — are driven not by concerns for democracy or security, but by a calculated desire to control Venezuela’s vast oil resources.
The piece then explains the apparent contradiction in Washington’s strategy: supporting the continuation of the Bolivarian regime while simultaneously undermining Venezuela’s economic sovereignty. The author resolves this paradox by introducing the idea of neocolonialism — a system where formal state structures remain intact, but real power is exercised externally. Drawing lessons from Iraq, the editorial suggests that the U.S. now prefers indirect control over costly military occupation, revealing a colder, more strategic form of dominance.
In the second half, the focus shifts to Acting President Delcy Rodriguez, portraying her as trapped between ideological commitments and political survival. The editorial’s language becomes empathetic yet critical, highlighting the pressure she faces from sanctions, internal support bases, and U.S. demands. By quoting her statement, the author adds immediacy and credibility to the argument. The editorial stresses that continued pressure risks destabilising Venezuela further, contradicting Washington’s stated goals.
The concluding section broadens the argument to the international stage. By comparing U.S. actions in Venezuela to Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, the editorial exposes what it sees as global double standards. The warning is stark: if such behaviour goes unchallenged, the entire international order — especially the security of the Global South — is at risk. The language here is urgent and alarmist, designed to provoke global moral outrage and demand collective response.
Important Vocabulary (5)
- Imperialism – a policy of extending a country’s power through domination of other nations.
- Strangling – severely restricting or suffocating something, especially economically.
- Neocolonialism – indirect control of a country through economic or political pressure rather than direct rule.
- Marauding – aggressive and predatory behaviour, especially by a powerful force.
- Extortion – obtaining something through coercion, threats, or force.
Conclusion & Tone
The editorial condemns U.S. actions in Venezuela as coercive, exploitative, and dangerous to the global order. It argues that the pursuit of oil-driven dominance under the guise of diplomacy undermines sovereignty and sets a perilous precedent for the Global South.
Tone: Fiercely critical, accusatory, and urgent — aimed at exposing power politics and mobilising international condemnation.
