The colonial aggression of abducting Nicholas Maduro, the head of a foreign sovereign country is celebrated by the US president as an efficient military operation conducted to restore democracy and freedom in Venezuela. Maduro has to be portrayed as the head of a drug cartel so that US intervention can be justified as a matter of national security although Venezuela has a nominal share in cocaine trade and hardly produces fentanyl. On the other hand, all right-wing forces sponsored by the US in Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Argentina, Ecuador are very much linked to global drug networks. The US who has become the self-proclaimed protector of democracy dislodged the elected Chile’s president Salvadore Allende, invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein from power with the allegation of producing weapons of mass destruction but couldn’t prove it, ousted Muammer Gaddafi from Libya and earlier invaded Panama and captured Manuel Noriega. The aggression is not only imperialistic but colonial in nature where US uses explicit force violating international law to establish control over oil and other resources in a foreign country. The act is played out in Venezuela but essentially it is part of the National Security Strategy 2025 in which the US government makes it clear that it wants to reassert its control over its backyard and supply chains in Latin America.

It is about oil, but it is also more than that. China has become the biggest bilateral trade partner of many Latin American countries including Venezuela and China imports crude oil in yuan and also invests in infrastructure in many Latin American countries. Twenty-two countries in Latin America joined China’s Belt and Road initiative and many opted out of SWIFT for Cross Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), the financial transaction infrastructure launched by China. Not only does US want to have control over Venezuelan oil, critical minerals and rare earths available in Venezuela but more importantly it wants to cut off China from the Western hemisphere. If the resources are controlled and traded with China, it is not about current oil supply alone but also the future stream of oil sales that would be de-dollarized. This would reduce the global demand for dollar as reserve currency and put the hegemony of the US in the world trade at risk. The display of power by US president Trump and the vision to control and rule Latin America is reminiscent of Monroe doctrine and hence renamed as ‘Donroe’ doctrine. This exhibition of power, however, is a futile attempt of the declining empire to restore control over the lost ground.

Act of Vengeance

Venezuela holds 17 per cent of world’s proven crude reserves and in 1970s it used to produce 3.5 million barrels per day which has come down to a third of the total, currently operating at below 20 per cent capacity. Venezuela’s oil was looted by US oil companies for decades until they were nationalised. Hugo Chavez seized oil fields owned by companies such as ExxonMobil and Conoco Philips without compensation and brought them under state-owned oil company Petrleos de Venezuela. US imposed sanctions on Venezuela in 2017. Foreign investments were choked and exports to the US were stopped. The oil infrastructure suffered due to these sanctions and oil revenues were used to fund various social welfare schemes. Venezuela had to pass through severe economic stress but could emerge as the critical node of the Bolivarian Revolution. It could build economic and military networks with China, Russia and Iran and extend alliances drawing many Latin American countries out of US influence. This is the larger context of the current invasion which has become a critical point of conflict in the new Cold War. Venezuela’s economy is in distress with declining oil production, erosion of the oil infrastructure and hyper-inflation. This was chosen as the moment of capture and reestablishing of control of US companies over the oil fields, refineries and oil transport infrastructure in Venezuela. Protecting natural resources from the loot and plunder of US companies, according to President Trump, is an act of stealth. He says, “our oil was stolen” and forcibly getting hold of oil resources located in foreign lands and handing them over to US companies to make profits is an act to protect democracy and freedom! The real challenge that Mr. Trump faces once again is the declining hegemony of the US. He wanted to bring back manufacturing through weaponising tariffs, but that didn’t materialise. It is difficult to get industry back to the US given the huge gap in production cost between countries of global North and the South. Most importantly, cutting-edge manufacturing is gradually moving towards robotisation hence it is hardly going to create jobs. Trump wants to reaffirm his support base domestically by this act of vengeance. The US also withdrew from 66 UN organisations sending a message that Mr. Trump’s priority is interest of US. The US invokes a toxic mix of Machiavellian stance with mercantilist aggression. This is the last resort of a decaying empire that flexes muscles and whims before losing further control over the region.

New Cold War

Imperialism raises its ugly face from behind the mask of globalisation and multipolarity. Market forces and arguments of competitive efficiency, free flow of goods, services and capital are no longer enough to protect the interest of the hegemonic capital. On the contrary countries of the global South, particularly China and India, are increasingly taking advantage of global flow of capital, technology and access to markets. China is extending its economic influence in the backyard of US and engaging with Europe through trade. The US wants a redivision of the world replacing the existing norms of multipolarity. This agenda demands that US companies should be given a free hand to exploit Venezuelan oil resources. Venezuelan crude oil is extra heavy and highly viscous. It requires blending with lighter hydrocarbons such as naphtha to be transported. Heavy oils are raw materials for diesel. The US depends on Canada for heavy oil. If the US can capture oil fields of Venezuela, it can threaten Canada, the way the US wants to control Greenland in the Arctic region which is another source of critical minerals.

The US has realised that augmenting surplus in the existing production structures is reaching its limits. Relocating production, particularly manufacturing, in the Global North does not seem to be promising. Imperial capital hence relies on capturing natural resources through extending its sphere of influence. This is the last resort of the decaying empire. But rejuvenating the ailing oil infrastructure in Venezuela, according to an estimate of a global energy research institute, would need up to USD 180-200 billion. However, the total investment budget of the US oil majors comes to around USD 413 billion. It is highly unlikely that US oil companies would risk huge investment in an uncertain scenario. The immediate future of Venezuela is highly volatile, and the final owners of oil infrastructure are yet to emerge. For any ruling combination, it would be difficult to rewind the control of Venezuelan oil owned by her people and offer it for loot to foreign companies. US wants to establish and fund its colonial puppet government through profits earned by US oil companies. Since oil is the lifeline of Venezuelan economy usurping of resources by the US would face immense resistance. China is one of the major importers of oil and has investments in Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. If US succeeds in getting control over the oil fields, Chinese assets will be at high risk. Most importantly, the way Latin American countries condemned the US aggression, and China and Russia stood by Venezuela in a coordinated fashion, the conflict in Venezuela is likely to be long lasting and may have wider ramifications in the region. The US wants to retain its hegemony by redefining the area of influence between major powers of the world. But this is bound to face anti-imperialist peoples’ resistance in the Global South and put pressure on respective governments to remain committed to multipolarity and protect sovereignty. This would also once again bring back the agenda of anti-imperialism as central to defining nationalism which the right-wing governments succeeded to muddle with fuzzy cultural chauvinism in the recent decades.