The developments in Venezuela in 2026 have displayed one of the most explicit examples of the link between military power, economic interests, and American foreign policy. On January 3, American forces, during an operation in Caracas, held hostage Nicolas Maduro, the then-president of Venezuela, and his wife and transferred them to New York. After this operation, Donald Trump spoke of Washington's role in administering Venezuela's transitional period; statements that from the very beginning raised serious questions about the country's political independence and right to sovereignty. But subsequent developments showed that the Venezuela issue is not limited to Maduro's political future and the power structure in Caracas. Oil, as the country's most important strategic asset, has become the main axis of the new relations between Washington and Venezuela's interim government.
From Military Operation to a 100-Year Oil Contract
On August 31, 2026, the White House announced a major agreement granting the concession to exploit 17 Venezuelan oil fields to the private company North American Blue Energy Partners. According to the official announcement of the American government, these fields have about 65 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and the concessions to exploit them have been granted to this company for a period of 100 years.
But the more important part of the agreement is the concessions considered for the American government. According to the details published by the White House, the US Department of War, through the Office of Strategic Investment, receives 35 percent of the shares of the parent company. The US State Department will also have the right to purchase 20 percent of this group's oil production at cost price and will also have the right of first refusal to purchase the remaining 80 percent.
In addition, Washington will enjoy considerable managerial powers; in such a way that it has the right of veto regarding the appointment of board members, and the majority of the board members must be American citizens. These details show that the agreement is not merely a commercial contract to attract foreign investment, but creates a structure in which the American government enjoys extensive economic and managerial influence over one of Venezuela's most important oil complexes.
The Trump administration has presented the value of this agreement as securing America's energy security and rebuilding Venezuela's economy and has spoken of a 100-billion-dollar investment program to develop oil infrastructure. However, the fundamental question remains: if the main goal is to help rebuild Venezuela's economy, why has such a level of ownership, managerial, and commercial concessions been considered for America?
When Oil Statistics Are Far from Reality
Reuters' October 30 report on the implementation status of this agreement presents a different picture from the White House's publicity. According to this report, NABEP has promised to increase its oil production from about 224,000 barrels per day to more than one million barrels; a goal that faces serious technical, financial, and infrastructural obstacles.
Citing conversations with 15 workers, contractors, investors, and oil industry experts, Reuters has reported that this company faces problems including debts to some contractors, a shortage of skilled personnel, difficulty in supplying equipment, and worn-out infrastructure. Also, Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin American Energy Program at Rice University's Baker Institute, has estimated that of the total declared reserves, only about 10 billion barrels would realistically be developable in the 25-year period permitted for Venezuelan oil projects.
This report also refers to the technical problems of the Maracaibo oil fields; an area where about 80 percent of its nearly four thousand inactive wells need repair. Therefore, a considerable gap is seen between the volume of declared reserves and the amount of oil that can actually be extracted and sold.
More interestingly, the first one-million-barrel cargo of oil from this agreement reached Texas, and Trump described it as a gift. On the same occasion, referring to the logic of spoils, the American president said: "To the victor belong the spoils, right?" This sentence is perhaps the most explicit expression of a view in which the economic achievement after military intervention is considered part of the rights of the victorious power.
The Contradiction of Democracy and National Sovereignty
One of the most important dimensions of the Venezuela case is the contradiction between America's official rhetoric and the practical mechanism of the agreement. Washington justifies its intervention with concepts such as democratic transition of power, economic reconstruction, and the creation of stability; but in practice, a structure has been formed in which a foreign government enjoys extensive concessions for managing and exploiting the country's resources. Of course, the interim government of Delcy Rodriguez has defended this agreement and considered it an opportunity to attract capital and increase national revenues. However, the main issue is under what conditions and with what degree of decision-making independence such an agreement was concluded. When a country, after a foreign military operation and the forced change of the head of power, enters into an agreement with extensive concessions for the same intervening power, the political conditions and balance of power cannot be separated from the economic evaluation of the contract.
On the other hand, Reuters' report shows that even opponents of the Maduro government have questions about the transparency of this agreement. Maria Corina Machado, the leader of Venezuela's opposition, has announced that she has not seen the text of the contract and is concerned about its transparency. This issue shows that the matter goes beyond the dispute between the government and the opposition and relates to the Venezuelan people's public right to know the fate of their national resources.
What has happened in Venezuela can have consequences beyond Latin America. If a foreign power can, after military intervention, influence the political structure of the target country and then obtain long-term concessions from its economic resources, in practice the boundary between economic cooperation and political domination is blurred.
The important difference between Trump's approach and some previous American administrations is perhaps less in the nature of the policy than in the explicitness of its expression. He makes less effort to hide Washington's economic and energy interests behind complex human rights and democratic rhetoric. The emphasis on oil, America's ownership share, and even the expression of spoils-taking provides a clear picture of his administration's priorities.
Under such circumstances, the Venezuela case is not only a test for this country's political future; rather, it is also considered a test for the credibility of the rules governing international relations. If the right to national sovereignty and the self-determination of nations are universal principles, these principles must also be valid regarding Venezuela, even if its oil resources have strategic attraction for great powers.
Ultimately, what is happening in Venezuela shows how fragile the boundary between the slogan of freedom and economic interests can be in Washington's foreign policy. Democracy has meaning when the people of a country, not foreign powers, decide about their government, resources, and future. Otherwise, changing political vocabulary cannot change the nature of the relationship of domination, even if this time colonialism returns not with military flags, but with oil contracts and the rhetoric of economic reconstruction.
MNNA
Your Comment