Intervention Policy as a Representation of the United States' Identity in International Relations Activities

Venezuela is a republic that was formerly a Spanish colony, located on the northern coast of South America along the Caribbean Sea. It is an independent nation in South America, bordered to the west by Colombia, to the east by Guyana, and to the south by Brazil. Venezuela spans an area of 912,050 km², with its capital being Caracas. Geopolitically, Venezuela is situated at the northwest tip of South America, with a coastline extending approximately 2,800 km. It is also home to Lake Maracaibo, which covers about 3,512 km², making it the largest lake in South America. Venezuela's complex history under U.S. influence is marked by the United States actively shaping its political processes, particularly through the promotion of liberal values across South America. The United States has substantial interests in Venezuela, primarily due to the country's vast oil reserves. Consequently, the U.S. has sought to assert its influence over Venezuela’s internal and external affairs to further its own national interests.

After the death of Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, from cancer, the situation in Venezuela began to deteriorate, leading to various internal upheavals. This was evident in the collapse of many sectors that had thrived under Chávez's leadership. Following his death, a political transition ensued, causing political chaos, financial crisis, and an increase in violence, compounded by ineffective management in addressing these issues. Chávez had chosen Nicolás Maduro as his successor, and Maduro narrowly won the election, securing a victory by just 1.6% points over his opponent, Henrique Capriles. Maduro quickly consolidated his power, with the National Assembly granting him authority to implement his policies. However, there was one thing that Maduro could not manage during his presidency: the plummeting oil prices, which ultimately led to the collapse of Venezuela's economy. This situation worsened over time, as Maduro’s government also resorted to imprisoning journalists, preventing them from reporting on critical issues. These actions contributed to the further deterioration of Maduro’s reputation both domestically and internationally.

In light of this situation, Venezuela attracted the attention of other countries, particularly the United States, which supported the idea of a change in leadership. The U.S. backed Juan Guaidó as the candidate to replace Nicolás Maduro as the president of Venezuela. As we know, the United States has long been keen on exploiting public diplomacy or soft power, not only to achieve its economic and political interests but also to contribute to the development of regions beyond its borders. Public diplomacy is a program focused on utilizing social media, which has been relatively underexplored, resulting in historians and experts knowing little about the international communication channels in that region. The goal of this program is to strengthen civil society, political parties, and fair elections in Latin America. Since then, the internet and social media have provided new opportunities for U.S. public diplomacy to support liberal politics, independent organizations, and resilient leaders in Latin America.

In its political diplomacy, the United States supported Juan Guaidó as the legitimate leader of Venezuela because Guaidó was seen as having moderate and democratic values, which could make Venezuela more cooperative with other countries, particularly the United States. Therefore, to facilitate cooperation between the U.S. and Venezuela, Donald Trump sought to achieve his interests by intervening to overthrow Maduro’s government. This support was likely related to Venezuela's vast oil wealth. As part of its intervention in Venezuela, the U.S. applied bilateral pressure by responding to the human rights crisis in Venezuela with its first sanctions as a strategy to control the country. These sanctions included an Executive Order, issued because the U.S. considered the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela to pose a threat to national security and U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. pressured Venezuela through two main actions: (1) Issuing a threat to Venezuela that the U.S. would carry out a military intervention, as announced by Trump during a UN Security Council meeting on August 11, 2017. (2) Implementing updates to the humanitarian sanctions under the executive order, which included a ban on all transactions with the Venezuelan government, specifically with the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

U.S. Political Interests in the Intervention of Venezuela's Domestic Conflict in 2019

 The United States is a country that adheres to the principles of democracy, viewing it as a powerful ideology that shapes the character and development of a nation. Democracy is a fundamental principle and a key issue in U.S. foreign policy. On the other hand, Nicolás Maduro is a moderate figure with a socialist background. Given this situation, the U.S. aims to use democracy as a strong tool to influence the international system, as the more countries that adopt democratic principles, the more allies the U.S. will have. This, in turn, makes it easier for the U.S. to legitimize its foreign policy decisions on the international stage. 

Democracy facilitates the United States in achieving both its economic and political interests. Therefore, the U.S. has consistently sought to overthrow Maduro, a figure seen as a socialist who could potentially indoctrinate his society. Moreover, the U.S.'s intervention in Venezuela is also driven by the desire to prevent the dominance of China and Russia, both of which adhere to communist ideologies. Additionally, another political interest involves the U.S.'s dependency on oil, as the U.S. is one of the countries that imports oil from Venezuela. 

U.S. Economic Interests in the Intervention of Venezuela's Domestic Conflict in 2019 

The United States' primary objective in establishing a partnership with Venezuela was to fulfill its own needs, particularly for oil. The U.S. requires large amounts of oil as an energy reserve to support its industrial processes. Over time, however, a shift in political direction occurred due to a change in leadership. This political shift began to hinder U.S. interests in Venezuela. When leadership transitioned from Hugo Chávez to Nicolás Maduro, the U.S.'s position in the context of cooperation with Venezuela weakened. This was because Maduro, as president, pursued a political direction that opposed U.S. hegemony and intervention in Venezuela.

In light of this, to reestablish its economic interests in Venezuela, which had previously been obstructed, the U.S. intervened by supporting Juan Guaidó, who was seen as more favorable to U.S. interests, as the new president of Venezuela. After Guaidó won the election, he implemented democratic principles and allowed U.S. oil companies to resume operations in Venezuela, improving the cooperation between the two countries.

Geopolitical and Energy Interests of the United States in the 2019 Venezuela Domestic Conflict Intervention

The ownership of oil resources in oil-producing countries has become a crucial element for the United States to secure and maintain. There are two key factors in energy geopolitics that play a significant role: (1) location of resources, which in the case of Venezuela refers to both the country’s vast oil reserves and its strategic position that facilitates the efficient transport of these resources; and (2) politics of states, which involves the interdependence and mutual reliance between countries, influencing the flow of resources and fostering political cooperation between nations. These two elements are critical to understanding the strategic concept that the U.S. applies to Venezuela and form the backdrop of its foreign policy in response to Venezuela’s presidential crisis. The U.S. involvement in Venezuela’s leadership conflict appears to be motivated by the desire to ensure a government that can maintain stable control over Venezuela’s natural resources, particularly oil, to meet U.S. energy needs. The political crisis in Venezuela thus becomes part of a broader U.S. strategy to maintain its hegemonic influence and secure its interests in the region.

.........................................................................................................................

The United States has not only intervened in Venezuela but has also been involved in nearly all international issues or events, consistently playing a role. Therefore, in my opinion, actions like intervention have become a new identity for the United States—an identity defined by intervening in the domestic affairs of other nations. One such intervention took place in the 2019 domestic conflict in Venezuela, where the U.S. sought to instill its democratic and liberal values into the leadership of Venezuela, aiming for policies that would align with and support U.S. interests, particularly in securing oil resources. Once again, this is not unique to Venezuela; in fact, the United States has a history of intervening in many countries around the world.