The US approach to Venezuela is not an anomaly of Donald Trump’s presidency; it is consistent with decades of American foreign policy. Intervention, control over resources, and strategic influence have historically outweighed support for democracy and human rights. Understanding this historical pattern helps explain current events in Venezuela and underscores the lessons that have repeatedly gone unheeded by US policymakers.
Make no mistake: Nicolás Maduro does not deserve sympathy for his recent kidnap by US President Donald Trump. Maduro, along with his predecessor Hugo Chávez, failed their countrymen. Venezuela, a nation sitting atop the largest proven oil reserves in the world, has been transformed into a major source of refugees. In the most recent presidential election, the rightful winner is still alive and could have been restored to power if that had truly been America’s goal. Meanwhile, figures like María Corina Machado, recently awarded the Nobel Prize for her courageous resistance against Maduro’s regime, receive little attention from US rhetoric.
We are told that “no American lives were lost” during the operation. Cuba, however, reports that nearly 25 of its citizens died in the process. Venezuela is still counting the collateral dead. They were more than 55 at the last count. The US propaganda machine is so effective that the deaths of Cubans, Venezuelans, and others from “Shit hole” countries, are either ignored or minimised in official narratives. The global public has selective and short memories regarding these events. The staged mock-up of Maduro’s residence created by US Delta Force for training purposes is quite impressive; but it distracts from the human cost of the operation and other miseries that Mr Trump gloats about! History is written by the victors; the vanquished, whether they are Ugandans at Entebbe, Venezuelans or Cubans today, are left to lick their wounds.
|
|
From a US perspective, Maduro’s alleged crimes include responsibility for the refugee crisis affecting Venezuela and its neighbours, including the United States. This is a plausible, even arguable, offence. Even if international law is violated to keep in check a man who will cause an abnormal refugee crisis, many people can understand and perhaps sympathise. Claims that he is a drug dealer, as the reason for his kidnapping, are less convincing and even ridiculous. For context:
- If the US truly prioritises punishing drug dealers, why was the former President of Honduras, convicted of similar offences, released by Trump? Colombia, a neighbour to Venezuela, remains a global hub for narcotics, yet its leaders have not faced capture.
- Venezuela sits on the largest proven oil reserves in the world, far outweighing the global value of illicit drugs.
- It is therefore questionable whether the United States genuinely prioritises the drug trade over strategic interests, such as oil and political influence. Trump himself has made it clear: the government in Caracas must “do the right thing” or “face consequences worse than Maduro’s.” This statement frames US intervention primarily in terms of American interests in oil and resources, not humanitarian concerns.
Historical Context: US Interests Abroad
|
|
|
|---|
Since World War II, the United States has been armed to the teeth! It is, by far, the most militarily interventionist nation in history. No other comes close! American propaganda, which I personally encountered in secondary school via the Voice of America, and other US machines, portrayed the US as a global force for good, and the Soviet Union as the ultimate evil.
Nuclear weapons provide a striking example of this selective morality. When the US developed a bomb capable of destroying multiple cities, it was framed as a “Godly bomb.” When the Soviets created a weapon of equal or greater destructive power, it was deemed “Satanic,” despite an identical devastation and radiation fallout. Hollywood films, documentaries, and historical accounts reinforce this narrative, highlighting the heroism of US and allied forces, while marginalising the suffering of local populations.
For instance, depictions of North Africa during World War II focus on British and German troops, rarely acknowledging the civilians of Tunis, Algiers, Casablanca, or Tangier. Similarly, the Pacific campaigns often omit the experiences of Filipinos, Malaysians, Burmese, Thais, and Indonesians. To the American worldview, what counts are exploitable resources that can benefit the US, even if local populations are destroyed in the process. International law is applied selectively to justify this pursuit.
Lessons from History
1. Vietnam
After World War II, Vietnam declared independence from France on 2 September, 1945, under Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh. Ho Chi Minh sent a letter directly to US President Harry S Truman, appealing for recognition and assistance for an independent Vietnam (Logevall, 2012). He argued that Vietnam had fought against Japanese occupation, in cooperation with US forces, and deserved sovereignty.
Ho Chi Minh requested recognition of Vietnamese independence; support in resisting a return to French colonial rule; and diplomatic backing in international forums.
The United States ignored these appeals, favouring France as a NATO partner and growing concerns about communist expansion. Consequently, the US supported France economically and militarily in its war against the Viet Minh. Ho Chi Minh was not initially a communist adversary; he was a nationalist seeking independence. A diplomatic engagement at this stage might have prevented decades of war and suffering (Herring, 2002).
2. Iran
In 1951, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran, democratically elected, nationalised the country’s oil industry, previously controlled by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The CIA, in cooperation with British intelligence (MI6), orchestrated Operation Ajax, a covert coup that removed Mossadegh in August 1953 (Kinzer, 2003).
The aftermath strengthened Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s autocratic rule and directly contributed to the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini decades later. Mossadegh had been pro-American but prioritised the fair distribution of Iran’s oil wealth — a stance that conflicted with US and British interests.
3. Chile
Salvador Allende, a Marxist, was the democratically elected president of Chile in 1970. Declassified documents reveal CIA involvement in economic destabilisation (“Project FUBELT”) and encouragement of military plots. On 11 September, 1973, General Augusto Pinochet led a coup that resulted in Allende’s death and a 17-year dictatorship. Allende’s “crime” in US’ eyes was prioritising the welfare of his people over American interests (Kornbluh, 2003).
4. Congo
Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo, sought independence from Belgium and requested assistance from the United States. The US refused, and because the Soviet Union offered support, they labelled Lumumba a communist threat. In September 1960, CIA Director Allen Dulles (the nameplate of the largest airport in Washington DC) approved Operation JM/WIGWAM, a covert plan to remove Lumumba. He was ultimately capturedby Mobutu-aligned forces and executed on 17 January, 1961, with Belgian involvement (Nzongola-Ntalaja, 2002).
The Pattern
From Southeast Asia to South America, the Middle East, and Africa, US interventions have consistently prioritised American interests in oil, lands and other resources, over democracy or human rights. Presidents such as Jimmy Carter or Harry Truman, themselves altruistic people, have occasionally moderated this approach, but the institutional pattern remains clear. Support for democracy is secondary to securing resources, strategic influence, and alignment with US’ geopolitical objectives. In Donald Trump, the world is confronting a double jeopardy: A greedy nation led by a greedy, infantile, imbecile president.
Maduro and Venezuela Today
Even if one accepts that Maduro has harmed Venezuelans, does this justify US control of Venezuela’s oil industry? Now that Maduro has been captured, is there a clear plan to install a government that respects human rights? Will Trump:
- Restore the acclaimed winner of the 2024 election?
- Promote María Corina Machado, the Nobel laureate, or
- Organise free and fair elections under international supervision.
None of these options have been publicly supported so far. Instead, the US seems to be negotiating with remnants of Maduro’s government, many of whom are unpopular and complicit in human rights abuses.
Trump’s stated goal is to manage Venezuela “for America’s interests”, while ostensibly considering Venezuelan welfare. But history suggests that American intervention is guided by self-interest, not humanitarianism. Nationalist leaders who prioritise their citizens, rather than US objectives, are unlikely to receive support — a pattern repeated throughout history.
Conclusion
The US approach to Venezuela is not an anomaly of Donald Trump’s presidency; it is consistent with decades of American foreign policy. Intervention, control over resources, and strategic influence have historically outweighed support for democracy and human rights. Understanding this historical pattern helps explain current events in Venezuela and underscores the lessons that have repeatedly gone unheeded by US policymakers.
References
Herring, George C. America’s Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950–1975. McGraw-Hill, 2002.
Kinzer, Stephen. All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
Kornbluh, Peter. The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability. The New Press, 2003.
Logevall, Frederik. Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America’s Vietnam. Random House, 2012.
Nzongola-Ntalaja, Georges. The Congo: From Leopold to Kabila – A People’s History. London: Zed Books, 2002.
Omotayo Fakinlede is a professor of Engineering at the University of Lagos.
