The Venezuelan oil conflict and American interventionism
American interventionism has long been justified both by international institutions and American politicians, whether for the purpose of ‘nation building,’ fighting the war on terror, or purely for economic gain. The United States’ self-imposed burden of nation-building and promoting democracy in otherwise ‘undemocratic’ nations has been a priority since the end of World War II. Cases include Japan and Germany after WWII, Afghanistan and Iraq, and most recently, Venezuela. However, the question begs: What does interventionism truly accomplish?
It is undeniable that control over Venezuela’s oil sector is an economic asset. The nation holds the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves with almost 303 billion barrels, or nearly one-fifth of global reserves, despite years of economic mismanagement and declining production.
Under President Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela has faced severe economic collapse, political repression, and mass migration, with more than eight million Venezuelans fleeing since his rise to power. These realities have given the United States the perfect rationale for a humanitarian intervention mission. However, critics argue that the intervention reflects a familiar pattern: the use of moral narratives to mask economic and strategic objectives. U.S. sanctions imposed since 2017 sharply reduced Venezuelan oil exports to the United States, while selective exemptions suggest a calculated approach to controlling access rather than promoting genuine reform. Reports that President Donald Trump intends to oversee all future Venezuelan oil production revenue and exports further reinforce perceptions of self-serving intentions rather than a focus on the democratic restoration of Venezuela’s oil industry.
International actors have concerns about the greater implications of interventionist missions. At the United Nations, multiple states warned that the seizure of a sitting head of state and the use of force without Security Council authorization threaten the credibility of international law and state sovereignty. Representatives from China, Russia, Cuba, and others condemned what they described as unilateral coercion and “lawless state power.” Even American allies such as France and Denmark emphasized that Venezuelans themselves must lead any political transition without outside interference. These responses reflect growing anxiety that powerful states are reverting to force as the first and final arbiter of international conflicts, rather than relying on existing institutions and democratic means.
Ultimately, the Venezuelan case reveals the double-edged nature of interventionism. While some Venezuelans welcomed the kidnapping of President Maduro as hope for a more democratic future for the nation, the pure disregard for international law and order presents greater concerns for the future of international relations. As global institutions lose legitimacy, the United States’s actions continue to normalise unilateral force and raise concerns about the actions of other aggressors, such as China and Russia. As Prime Minister Carney stated in his World Economic Forum address, “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.” The crises of yesterday fade quickly into the background, and new crises emerge every day. UN delegates urge international institutions to condemn unilateral aggression, reminding states to remember that force should be used only as a final resort in a conflict and not the first course of action.