Venezuela: New colonialism and the crisis of resistance movements

Venezuela: New colonialism and the crisis of resistance movements

Raúl Zibechi 

 

When armed forces allow a great power to govern over another's territory and nation, either directly or indirectly, and seize control of key resources, stripping entire peoples of their wealth, we are faced with a profoundly asymmetrical colonial relationship that can be described as vassalage. These are the sort of ties that the United States is imposing wherever it can, to strengthen its economy, contain China and secure its domination of the Western world.

 

What it has done since January 3, when the US invaded Venezuela and abducted the president and his partner, is a clear declaration of intent, a genuine program foreshadowing further interventions. What they have achieved is staggering: majority control of seventeen Venezuelan oil fields with 65,000 million barrels of proven reserves, around 22 per cent of all reserves. Although there are various accounts, this is a 25-year agreement (though according to Trump, it is a 100-year one).

 

It is reported that there will be $100,000 million in investment and some $209,000 million in royalties and taxes for the Venezuelan state over the first 25 years, through the development of seventeen strategic oil fields with a production target of over 1.5 million barrels per day. There are discrepancies even regarding the duration of the agreement, as opacity prevails – as in any asymmetrical colonial relationship in which the dominant party is under no obligation to provide explanations. Contracts have not even been signed yet.

 

The agreement will be implemented through North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), the company granted the rights to exploit the oilwells. The US government holds a 35 per cent stake in NABEP’s parent company, through the Department of War’s Office of Strategic Capital, and a guaranteed 20 per cent of production at cost price for the Department of State, as well as a right of first refusal on the remaining 80 per cent.

 

It is incredible that President Delcy Rodríguez should have stated that ‘Venezuela retains ownership and sovereignty over its resources’. Even more incredible is that, shortly after Maduro’s abduction, the Chavista-controlled National Assembly — which had previously expressed itself through strong anti-imperialist rhetoric — unanimously approved the reform of the Organic Law on Hydrocarbons, which allows foreign capital to enter Venezuela.

 

The shift has been so abrupt that bewilderment reigns across almost the entire continental left. This is an effect actively sought and widely desired by the White House and the Pentagon, as it is amid chaos and confusion that they are best able to advance their interests. The confusion is all the greater given that Chavismo and the opposition — like a large proportion of Venezuelans — are divided, unable to arrive at an accurate assessment of the situation. The ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) supports the president, while Diosdado Cabello, its top leader — who in December 2025 promised ‘not a single drop’ of crude oil would go to the United States — has performed a difficult-to-explain about-turn by now backing the new relationship of vassalage with Washington.

 

There are still many honest people who maintain that the Chavistas in government are ‘manoeuvring’ in the face of a difficult situation, while remaining true to their values; meanwhile, another section of the regional left simply regards them as ‘traitors’. However, I am not aware of any dispassionate analysis that enables us to understand what is happening, free from emotive language and based on reasoned arguments. I propose several points to bear in mind.

 

The first is that the Pentagon unleashed such a brutal military offensive — with internal collusion — that it reveals a striking asymmetry in terms of destructive capabilities and direct action on the ground. This may explain why some people retreated, but it does not suffice to understand why they switched to the winning side. Resistance comes at a tremendous cost, but everything suggested that Chavismo was prepared to stand its ground because, let us remember, in their own words, this was a ‘revolution’.

 

The second point is that the problem cannot have begun on January 3, 2026. Nobody changes that much in 24 hours. It is necessary to trace what the Chavista leadership had been doing for years, and everything suggests that it exercised severe repression against its own people and that its leading cadres lived comfortably, no doubt as a result of widespread and tolerated corruption. This was much discussed during the golden years of the ‘Bolivarian revolution’, but most of the left denied it.

 

The third point concerns the profound lessons this leaves us with. The main one is the confirmation that the empire’s plans, in its current state of decline, are leading it into an endless war against the peoples and countries of the Global South. We can see the intensity of this war of extermination in Gaza and the West Bank, but also in Iran and Cuba, and there is no indication that it will ever end. It has become commonplace among analysts to speak of tactical nuclear weapons, which could be used against the Iranian people and, who knows, against those who resist the empire.

 

But it also teaches us the lesson of listening to leaders with caution, rather than following them unthinkingly. In particular, the need to distinguish between peoples and governments takes on special relevance. The former deserve our unconditional solidarity. The latter all too easily take on a repressive character, especially at such dramatic times as these. The case of Iran is very clear: supporting the long-suffering Iranian people does not mean backing a theocracy that has committed crimes and abuses.

 

We need to engage in serious debate and analysis, because, in times of confusion such as these, we will not get very far by repeating old slogans. On this continent at least, we are seeing grassroots organisations in crisis and confusion reigning among their activists.