Trump’s Indirect Rule: Venezuela as a Modern Protectorate
The new Imperialism in Venezuela: how the US Gains Control Through Economic Leverage
DAVOS – The ongoing political and economic crisis in Venezuela is often framed through the lens of a US-led attempt at regime change or a simple power struggle between political factions. However, a more subtle and consequential growth is unfolding: the emergence of a new form of imperialism, one that eschews traditional military occupation in favor of economic control. Under the presidency of Donald Trump, and continuing through the Biden management, the United States has increasingly exerted influence over Venezuela not through direct governance, but by strategically controlling the nation’s primary sources of revenue, effectively transforming it into an American protectorate cloaked in the symbols of self-government.
This shift represents a 21st-century adaptation of colonial-era indirect rule, were control is exercised not through overt political domination, but through economic manipulation and the leveraging of financial dependencies. It’s a strategy that allows the US to reap the benefits of Venezuelan resources while maintaining plausible deniability regarding direct interference in the country’s internal affairs.
The Weaponization of Venezuelan Assets
The cornerstone of this new approach lies in the US government’s targeting of Venezuela’s oil industry, the lifeblood of the nation’s economy. Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves [https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/VEN], yet its production has plummeted in recent years, not primarily due to natural decline, but due to a combination of mismanagement, underinvestment, and, crucially, US sanctions.
Initially imposed under the Obama administration and significantly escalated under Trump, these sanctions were ostensibly aimed at pressuring the Maduro regime to restore democracy and address human rights concerns [https://www.state.gov/countries-regions/venezuela/]. However, their impact extended far beyond the intended targets, crippling the Venezuelan economy and exacerbating a humanitarian crisis.
The sanctions took several forms, including:
* Executive Order 13808 (August 2017): Prohibited dealings in new debt issued by the Venezuelan government and PDVSA (Petróleos de venezuela, S.A.), the state-owned oil company.
* Executive Order 13850 (November 2018): Targeted individuals and entities involved in corruption and undermining of Venezuelan democracy.
* Oil Embargo (January 2019): Blocked all exports of Venezuelan oil to the United States, effectively cutting off the country’s primary source of foreign exchange.
While the Biden administration has eased some sanctions in response to political negotiations [https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/recent-actions/20231117], the core restrictions on the oil industry remain largely in place, and the chilling effect on foreign investment persists. The US Treasury Department has repeatedly extended licenses allowing transactions with PDVSA, but these are often conditional on funds being directed towards humanitarian aid or debt repayment, rather than bolstering the Maduro government.
Beyond Oil: Control of Gold and Other Assets
The US strategy extends beyond oil. The government has also targeted Venezuela’s gold reserves, attempting to prevent the Maduro regime from selling gold to circumvent the oil embargo. In 2019, the US imposed sanctions on entities involved in the trade of Venezuelan gold [https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm738]. Moreover, the US has actively supported legal challenges aimed at preventing Venezuela from accessing its gold held in the Bank of England, arguing that the Maduro government is illegitimate.
The dispute over the gold reserves highlights a key aspect of this new imperialism: the use of legal and financial mechanisms to exert control over Venezuelan assets. By challenging Venezuela’s ownership of its own resources in international courts and through financial regulations, the US effectively dictates how those resources can be used.
The rise of a De Facto Protectorate
The cumulative effect of these policies has been to create a situation where Venezuela, while nominally independant, is heavily reliant on the US for economic survival. The country’s oil production has fallen to its lowest levels in decades, its currency is virtually worthless, and millions of Venezuelans have fled the country due to economic hardship and political instability.
In this context,the US has gained significant leverage over the Maduro government,influencing its policies and decisions.While the US does not directly govern Venezuela, it effectively acts as a protectorate, dictating the terms of economic engagement and shaping the country’s political landscape.
This dynamic is further reinforced by the US’s support for opposition figures, such as Juan Guaidó, who was recognized as the interim president of Venezuela by the US and several other countries in 2019. While Guaidó’s claim to the presidency ultimately failed to dislodge Maduro, his recognition by the US provided a legal justification for further economic pressure and intervention.
The Moral Hazard of Indirect Rule
the shift towards economic control and indirect rule presents a number of challenges. Firstly, it obscures the lines of accountability.By avoiding direct military intervention, the US can distance itself from the consequences of its