Confusion has followed the rapid pace of events in Venezuela, following the January 3 United States military incursion.
Since then, the Venezuelan government has opened its oil and mineral industries to transnational corporations, while there has been a constant parade of US officials and military leaders throughout the country.
Green Left’s Federico Fuentes spoke with Venezuelan leftist Luis Fernando Marquez, a National Agrarian Alliance founding organiser, and Alliance for Sovereignty and Democracy activist, about his views on these developments.
* * *
What was behind the January 3 US military assault on Venezuela? Was this simply to gain control of Venezuelan oil?
We are witnessing a realignment of spheres of influence on the international chessboard. In this context, US President Donald Trump has inaugurated a new way of doing politics, known as the “Donroe Doctrine”.
This Trumpist project seeks to reclaim Latin America as the US’s backyard and halt China’s rising regional influence.
The January 3 attack also sent a message to Latin American countries that this is a new phase of Trump-style interventionism, with quick and decisive actions seeking a deterrent effect.
With Venezuela, Trump was able to kill two birds with one stone: exert control in this sphere of influence and seize vast reserves of crude oil and minerals, including gold and heavily coveted rare earth elements such as rhodium and coltan.
The US has also gained a market of 30 million consumers for its products, which are now being purchased under colonial conditions.
So, there was an economic motivation as well as a geopolitical one.
As the highest stage of capitalism, imperialism requires imperial countries exerting power and control over their spheres of influence by converting periphery countries into areas of extraction or production while keeping out competitors.
This is occurring now in Venezuela.
What was the reaction within Venezuela to the events of January 3 and since? What is the mood of the population?
Most people felt a mix of relief and surprise. For more than 10 years, [President Nicolás] Maduro presided over a deep economic crisis and a strong repressive atmosphere. With all outlets for social discontent blocked, such feelings in the first few days [after January 3] were understandable.
These feelings have begun to dissipate, and I believe will continue to dissipate — even if January 3 is still very fresh in our minds — because many realise that the regime is still in power.
Moreover, they see that the US military incursion not only caused a loss of sovereignty but has imposed a protectorate.
People’s expectations remain focused on improving their economic situation. They are less interested in democracy or a political solution to the crisis. Essentially, they want better wages and salaries.
For now, the atmosphere on the street remains calm. People hope that things will improve in the short term.
It is somewhat paradoxical that people wonder when Trump will raise their salaries — which is both tragicomical and an insight into how people view our current situation.
Despite talk of regime change, power remains with Delcy Rodríguez and others in power with Maduro. Why do you think that was the result?
The Trump administration closely studied the implications of carrying out a regime change by force in Venezuela. That is why the military operation in the Caribbean took so many months.
Ultimately, Trump assessed that regime change would need a much larger intervention and cost more lives and resources.
Instead, he opted for maximum pressure and dialogue with certain sectors in power to facilitate the operation they ultimately carried out.
Within Chavismo, there is a sense of shock and divisions that could deepen. That is why Chavismo is now talking about resistance in a bid to connect with its supporters and convince them to accept surrendering everything to save what they call the “revolution”.
Delcy and [National Assembly President] Jorge Rodríguez hope this pragmatic, non-anti-imperialist and resistance-focused discourse will help galvanise their base.
Where does this leave the right-wing opposition, which the US has traditionally supported?
The US seems to be weighing its options. The transfer of power to Edmundo González — the real winner of the 2024 presidential elections — and opposition leader María Corina Machado was initially ruled out. But this could easily change.
Public opinion is largely on the side of Venezuela’s right-wing opposition due to people's fatigue with the false left-wing discourse of the Maduro government. Machado continues to lead in opinion polls, but is outside the country.
That is perhaps why Chavismo is hoping to ride out the year, anticipating material conditions will improve and provide them more room for manoeuvre when nominating a candidate with the best chance of winning any hypothetical presidential elections.
How can we define the new Rodríguez government and the ties being forged between the US and Venezuela today?
The new Rodríguez government is a government under the tutelage of the Trump administration. The US has converted Venezuela into a factory or protectorate within its sphere of influence.
This does not, however, preclude or contradict the idea of regime change; ultimately it depends on what Trump believes can get him the maximum gain.
That is why the government and the radical wing of the opposition are focused on gaining favours from the new leader.
Do you agree with the idea that the government has no options but to obey Trump in the current situation?
We can say that the situation is reminiscent of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, despite differences in form and substance.
Then, [Russian revolutionary Vladimir] Lenin temporarily sacrificed Russian aspirations and capitulated to Germany, renouncing sovereignty over certain territories and any indemnity.
This course was later proven correct, as Germany was defeated and the Soviet Union gradually recovered the lost territories.
Today, Chavismo seems to want to resist by surrendering everything and submitting to tutelage in order to ride out this period and wait for more favourable times.
It is true that, today, the Delcy Rodríguez government has no other option but to obey the US. The government was militarily defeated by the world’s greatest power.
But the government could have taken a different path if it took into consideration the country and the Venezuelan people instead of simply defending its own interests and disregarding the popular sovereignty expressed in the 2024 presidential elections.
Those elections marked the point at which the government lost international legitimacy and gave Trump the chance to restore Venezuela within its sphere of influence.
Do you see any opportunities to resist Trump’s recolonisation plans or a return to democratic governance?
The most likely scenario is that economic dependence accelerates.
The new Hydrocarbons Law, which was approved and sanctioned in 12 days, was an unprecedented event in the country’s legislative history. As a result, the country has been dealt a monumental setback.
The Venezuelan people have great capacity for resistance. We have endured so many years of profound crisis, emigration, pandemic and repression, which has helped strengthen many social organisations.
At the same time, liberal thought has gained ground among the population; that is undeniable. This largely has to do with the false equating of Chavismo with Communism.
The inability of left-wing sectors opposing the regime to create an organic movement has left a political void in most poor and working class sectors.
How can the left respond?
The situation today presents us with an opportunity to form a broad, class-struggle opposition to tutelage and dictatorship, one that involves youth, working-class and urban sectors, and differentiates itself from the extreme elements currently dominating the opposition.
Building such a front will have to be a medium- and long-term process, which starts by speaking to people’s real needs.
It is important to highlight that Chavismo still represents almost 20% of the electorate. Any left-wing alternative must seek to channel discontent within the PSUV ranks.
As time goes by, the contradiction between imperialism and sovereignty will become even more pronounced, leading to unity processes among [those who were] previously enemies. Within this new reality, [former] rivals could form political blocs.
Of course, the contradiction between democracy and dictatorship remains. But we must reclaim the banners of national sovereignty and identity, and use these to reach out to the people to combat dictatorship and tutelage.