Venezuelan leftist: ‘Recuperating sovereignty and control over our resources is essential’

Confusion and concern have followed the rapid pace of events in Venezuela after the US military incursion on January 3. Since then, the Venezuelan government has started to open its oil and mineral industries to transnational corporations, while there has been a constant parade of US officials and military leaders through the country.

How should we interpret these events? Federico Fuentes, from LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal, spoke with Venezuelan leftist Luis Fernando Marquez, a National Agrarian Alliance founding organiser and Alliance for Sovereignty and Democracy activist, about developments in the country, the people’s reactions and challenges for the left.

What was behind the US military actions, which, after several months of deploying warships in the Caribbean, culminated in an assault on Venezuela and the kidnapping of then-president Nicolás Maduro and National Assembly deputy Cilia Flores? 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 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, oil is a crucial factor. The major US oil companies back Trump’s MAGA project. So, 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. Venezuela’s strategic position, located so close to the US, was a major motivation. 

Post January 3, the US administers Venezuela’s oil reserves. Our country is not even allowed to manage our oil revenues, which are sent to bank accounts in Qatar and the US. 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.

Furthermore, Trump’s triumphalist message of resolving international conflicts in record time has helped strengthen his image at home. Trump’s approval rating slightly increased after the military intervention in Venezuela. This is not insignificant for Republican aspirations to win the November midterm elections, which could determine the course of US policy toward Venezuela.

I would, however, emphasise that Trump’s decision to militarily intervene in Venezuela is based on a long-term vision, not simply polls or elections. In his speeches, Trump has made clear his intention to reverse the oil nationalisation carried out in Venezuela in the 1970s and compensate oil companies nationalised during the Hugo Chávez government (1999-2013).

Another motivation is the presence of organisations in Venezuela that the US considers terrorists — specifically the National Liberation Army (ELN, from Colombia) — and countries such as Iran, Russia and Cuba. But this was a secondary consideration compared to the issue of inter-imperialist rivalry. 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, Maduro presided over a dictatorship. During this time, there were countless episodes of violence, a deep economic crisis, and a strong repressive atmosphere, with people subject to police scrutiny and protests essentially illegal. 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, taking Venezuela back to its situation at the start of the 20th century.

Generally speaking, the situation is the same as before. The economy, in particular, remains the same. People’s expectations remain focused on improving their economic situation. They are less interested in democracy or a political solution to the crisis; those issues have been relegated to the bottom of people’s priorities, according to some polls. Essentially, they want better wages and salaries.

The Venezuelan people have paid a very high price for the neoliberal policies imposed by the Chávez and Maduro governments over more than two decades. High oil revenues created a kind of economic mirage, but today we see the consequences of this disastrous economic policy that resulted in meagre wages and salaries while destroying public services and infrastructure.

The price will be even more visible as full-throttle neoliberal policies pushing privatisations and precarious employment are implemented. The neoliberal logic will prevail, because it is something that Chavismo and the main sector of the opposition agree on. The most dramatic aspect of the situation is that the solution offered to us is not just to deepen this neoliberal model, but to also auction off our resources and national oil industry at rock-bottom prices.

But, for now, apart from sporadic and isolated opposition activities that have attracted few participants, there have been no mobilisations. The calls for mobilisation issued by certain political sectors have not yet connected with the people. I believe, however, we will gradually see more participation in such mobilisations. This will depend on the ability to come up with messages and slogans that resonate with the people, as well as the dictatorship’s ability to counter such calls with more repression and immediate economic relief to demobilise working-class sectors.

For now, the atmosphere on the street remains calm. To be honest, 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. But, as the months go by and the economic situation remains unchanged, I am sure that perception will start to change.

Progressive and left-wing sectors face the enormous task of winning people over to a nationalist program. Recuperating sovereignty and control over the country’s resources is essential; without this, it will be impossible to develop the country’s productive forces. Instead, Trump is proposing an aggressive importation policy that will destroy what little remains of the productive apparatus. 

We are heading towards an economy and productive apparatus under US tutelage, which prioritises imports over national production. If Trump is successful, a monopoly of US products will be imposed, including in agribusiness, which in the US receives billions in subsidies. This will result in businesses in Venezuela’s countryside going bankrupt, and the nascent national agricultural industry will be dismantled.

I am convinced wages will improve in the short term, but this will not lead to stability due to the US’ policy of aggressive austerity and possible dollarisation of the economy. This will leave Venezuela’s state with little room to address the country’s pressing problems or economic development.

There was a lot of talk about possible regime change in Venezuela, but 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.

The right-wing opposition initially took a triumphalist tone and embarked on a pre-electoral campaign, particularly targeting working-class and poor sectors. But more than two months after January 3, they are starting to realise their mistake. They are analysing the possibility that Delcy Rodríguez will attempt to stay in power for as long as possible.

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 — oil, minerals, etc — in order to save what they call the “revolution”. Delcy and [National Assembly President] Jorge Rodríguez are hoping that this pragmatic, non-anti-imperialist and resistance-focused discourse can 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. Instead, there is a three-phase plan, the duration of which is still unclear. But this could easily change.

It is here that the opposition could play an important mobilising role. 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. But the right-wing opposition is trapped by its electoral vices, having prematurely jumped into electoral campaigning. Machado continues to lead in opinion polls by a wide margin, with 78% support if elections were held today, according to Meganalisis. However, Machado is still outside the country.

That is perhaps why Chavismo is hoping to ride out the year, anticipating material conditions will improve and give them more room for manoeuvre when nominating a candidate with the best chance of winning any hypothetical presidential elections.

Progressive, and even nationalist, sectors need to put forward a discourse of sovereignty and democracy that can connect with the Venezuelan people, who still hold strong nationalist sentiments, even if it has been somewhat blunted. These sentiments will only get stronger as US tutelage is further imposed. Over time, we need to ensure that notions of homeland, sovereignty and genuine democracy gain priority over the immediate discontent that has led large sectors of people to entrust their vote to the right.

Ultimately, we must recover democracy as a sovereign nation; that should be the principle under which we unite the opposition. We must defeat the dictatorship. But we cannot ignore the issue of tutelage. Rather, both elements must be defeated. Only a democracy that respects minorities and political agreements can guarantee stability and defend the country's borders.

How can we define the new Rodríguez government and the ties being forged between the US and Venezuela today?

The new Rodríguez government — colloquially known as the “Rodrigato” [roughly translated as Rodrigvirate] — is a government under the tutelage of the Trump administration. It has converted Venezuela into a factory or protectorate within the US’s sphere of influence. You only need to look at the parade of high-ranking US officials through Caracas to realise the speed at which this is advancing.

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 attention and 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 “Rodrigato” is in a situation 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 the Trump administration the chance to restore Venezuela within its sphere of influence.

That said, we must understand that, today, inter-imperialist contradictions are primary compared to the contradiction democracy-dictatorship, even if the latter has not gone away.

Do you see any chances to resist Trump’s recolonisation plans or a return to democratic governance?

The most likely scenario is that economic dependence accelerates. Venezuela was already sending more than half a million barrels of oil daily to the US, and that will continue to rise.

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, one that has taken us back to the Juan Vicente Gómez dictatorship era (1931–35) in terms of oil jurisprudence. During Gómez’s rule, US companies were granted large oil concessions at rock-bottom prices. Money from these concessions mostly went into the dictator’s pockets, with only a small percentage going to the state coffers.

It was not until 1936, with the first oil workers’ strike, that progress was made on a new hydrocarbons law that established the famous 50/50 royalties split. Then, after the 1976 nationalisation of the oil industry and creation of the state oil company, PDVSA, state revenues from oil sales increased and Venezuela joined OPEC.

Today, all this is at risk. Even Venezuela’s presence in OPEC is subject to discussion. Under the new law, the amount of state income is flexible: revenue collection can range between 0–30% depending on how successful transnational companies are in negotiating contracts.

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. Moreover, 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.

Elections are important and, if held this year, will determine who is in government — though whoever that is will find it impossible to govern if they do not engage with all sectors of national life. We know, however, that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s three phase plan for Venezuela does not include elections this year.

It is important to highlight that Chavismo still represents almost 20% of the electorate. Any left-wing alternative must seek to channel the 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 previously rival or enemy sectors. Within this new reality, previously rival sectors 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.

That is why we are promoting the National Agrarian Alliance, which we hope to extend to all rural sectors, including producers, farmworkers, ranchers and livestock breeders. We want to initiate a big national debate and declare a national food emergency. I am promoting this organisation, along with other initiatives such as the Alliance for Sovereignty and Democracy, to demonstrate that the Venezuelan countryside and popular sectors have something to say.

Venezuelan peasants have been among the hardest hit by the policies of the Maduro and now Delcy Rodríguez government. Inflation, fuel shortages, high input prices and the lack of credit over many years has bankrupted many farmers and peasants. Despite this, they produce a high percentage of the food consumed in the country. This could change as a result of the food import policy being imposed by Trump. Hence the need to bring all these sectors together to form what we have called the National Agrarian Alliance.