The return of resource imperialism?

Editor's note: Oliver Vargas is a current affairs commentator. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

After years of economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and open attempts at regime change, the United States has crossed a new line in its confrontation with Venezuela: the abduction of the country's head of state. When combined with increasingly explicit statements from Washington about the need to "manage" Venezuela's political future and its oil industry, this escalation exposes the underlying logic of U.S. policy: gloves-off resource imperialism.

For more than a decade, the U.S. approach toward the country has relied on economic strangulation and funding for internal destabilization attempts. Oil exports were blocked, access to international finance was restricted, and state assets abroad were frozen. Hundreds of millions of dollars were funneled to the right-wing opposition. All these measures used the rhetorical pretext of "democracy promotion" to cover Washington's true interests.

However, this naked imperialism under Trump should not be seen as a new phase of U.S. foreign policy, but as a logical conclusion of Washington's long-standing policy of resource imperialism. What has changed today is not intent, but openness. Trump has openly stated the U.S.'s true intentions and disregard for international law.

20 years of U.S. intervention in Venezuela

To understand why Venezuela and its oil reserves have faced such a ferocious onslaught, it is necessary to revisit the legacy of former President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez and the transformation he initiated in the energy sector after taking office in 1999.

At the center of Chavez's project was the recovery of state control over Venezuela's oil industry. Energy revenues were redirected toward domestic development rather than external extraction. This heralded a golden era for the country: Between 1999 and 2012, Venezuela's GDP more than doubled in nominal terms, while GDP per capita increased by over 50 percent during the high-growth years of the 2000s. From 2004 to 2008 alone, the economy expanded at an average annual rate of around 8 percent – one of the fastest growth rates in the region at the time.

This growth underpinned major social advances. Overall poverty declined from 42 percent in 1999 to about 26 percent by 2011, while extreme poverty fell from over 20 percent to below 7 percent. Inequality also declined sharply, with Venezuela registering one of the lowest Gini coefficients (a widely used measure of inequality, typically income or wealth distribution ) in Latin America by the end of the decade.

These were not merely domestic achievements. They challenged a dominant narrative that state-led development and resource nationalization were incompatible with growth. Venezuela demonstrated that reclaiming control over strategic resources could finance poverty reduction, expand public services and strengthen national sovereignty.

Energy diplomacy and the threat of a good example

What most alarmed Washington was not only Venezuela's internal policies, but their regional and international implications. Chavez actively used energy diplomacy to build alliances and reduce dependency on U.S.-controlled markets.

Through Petrocaribe, launched in 2005, Venezuela supplied oil to Caribbean and Central American countries on preferential terms, allowing deferred payments and long-term financing at low interest rates. For many small island economies, Petrocaribe provided critical energy security and fiscal breathing room. In return, it fostered political cooperation and regional solidarity, weakening U.S. leverage in what Washington had long considered its strategic backyard.

From pressure to escalation

The response was systematic. As Venezuela deepened state control over its energy sector and pursued an independent foreign policy, sanctions expanded year after year. Financial isolation, trade restrictions and secondary sanctions were imposed with the explicit goal of forcing regime change.

These measures failed to trigger social unrest deep enough to topple the government, nor did they produce the internal fractures – particularly within the armed forces – that Washington had anticipated. Instead, they inflicted massive economic damage on the population while the Venezuelan state endured. Rather than reassessing the strategy, Washington intensified it. Today, we see the final escalation of this years-long process only after every other measure had failed.

Gloves-off imperialism

What is unfolding in Venezuela is not a break with past policy, but the natural escalation of a strategy pursued over many years. Sanctions, financial isolation and political pressure were always intended to weaken the Venezuelan state and force concessions. Military action now represents the next step. The key difference is that under Trump, Washington has abandoned the moralizing language of democracy promotion.

This bluntness brings clarity. By discarding appeals to international norms, Washington has made its intentions explicit: access to resources, backed by coercive power and colonial expansion. For those on the receiving end, this removes ambiguity. Sovereignty is no longer contested rhetorically, but physically.

The current confrontation is therefore not simply about governance. It is about whether a state that once used its natural resources to reduce poverty and build regional alliances will be permitted to retain sovereign control over its development path. If military pressure succeeds, it will reinforce a dangerous precedent: That prolonged unilateral sanctions, followed by violent force, can yield results.

However, if Venezuela withstands this pressure, the implications will extend well beyond its borders. It would demonstrate that sanctions and military threats do not automatically translate into compliance and that sovereignty, while under strain, is not yet obsolete.

Escalation and continuity

The consequences extend beyond Venezuela, but also precede the current moment. Sanctions and war have been disrupting oil markets for years – first through restrictions on Venezuelan exports, then through sanctions on Russia and Iran before that. The U.S. launched invasions in Iraq and Libya to seize oil, just as it hopes to do now in Venezuela.

The attack on Caracas, therefore, is absolutely an expression of resource imperialism, but it has also been Washington's long-standing state policy. What defines the current moment is the honesty and transparency regarding their intentions. The virtue-signaling facade has gone, and the international community must prepare accordingly.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)