Various theories have been advanced to explain the reasons for US President Donald Trump’s order to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and attack the resource-rich Latin American nation. Is it a thinly disguised attempt to grab and control oil and other natural resources? Or a return to the doctrine-directed interventionism of the past (Monroe Doctrine of 1823) by the US in the Western Hemisphere, and its justification? The first theory centres around a bid to grab and control Venezuela’s vast oil deposits by allowing the entry of US multinational oil companies after Maduro’s exit.
Apart from oil, there is the deeper rationale of metals like silver. The Arco Minero del Orinoco, a vast mineral-rich region in Venezuela, is estimated to contain over $1 trillion in untapped natural resources. This region is said to have huge reserves of silver, gold and rare metals which are important for American military systems, defence supply chains and advanced electronics. Also, in the light of a growing shortage of precious metals, these strategic metals are becoming as important as oil was. Control of these resources could secure years of strategic metal supply and give the United States a geopolitical edge over the European Union and other countries.
The second reason is the traditionally trotted American desire to ‘restore democracy’. This time in Venezuela after the allegedly ‘rigged’ 2024 elections when Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, Opposition candidate, who was leading in pre-election opinion polls, got only 44.2 per cent votes against Maduro, who was certified to have obtained 51.2 per cent.
This was akin to what President George HW Bush had told Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev during the December 2-3, 1989, Malta summit. Bush spoke of the problems caused by Manuel Noreiga in Panama, a former CIA asset, and that the US was preparing ‘solid indictments’ against him and was going to bring in ‘democracy’ in Panama.
The third reason, as reported by the Spanish daily El Paison on December 8, relates to Trump’s new security doctrine wherein Latin America is seen as a source of some of the US’ serious problems like migration, drug export, transnational crime and also the burgeoning Chinese investment in the region. The paper said Trump would achieve this through goodwill and coercion.
Trump’s twin strategy would include rewarding right-wing regimes in El Salvador, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, expressing support to the right-wing candidate Nasry Asfura in Honduras elections and pardoning former Honduras president Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was serving 45-year prison sentence in the US for drug trafficking. Also, such countries would be awarded US companies’ contracts without the need for public tenders. Friendly countries would be encouraged by Washington to “make every effort to push out foreign companies that build infrastructure in the region”. This is a reference to China, as their companies have been constructing ports from Chancay in Peru to the metro system in Bogota. At the same time, recalcitrant states like Venezuela, Columbia and Chile would be ‘softened’ by ‘targeted deployments’ of military force, which would increase its presence and may resort to ‘lethal force’ wherever necessary.
The fourth reason is, according to some observers, to divert public attention from America’s ‘affordability crisis’ and Epstein files. As Time magazine said: “The news diverted attention from America’s affordability crisis, the loss of healthcare coverage for millions, and the Epstein files. Instead, all eyes turned to Venezuela”.
Another dimension to this fourth issue was added by Asia Times on January 2, 2026: the alarming situation when US debt is expected to hit 100 per cent of GDP by the end of fiscal year 2025. For FY 2020 the interest was US $345 billion. It has now surged to three times more to US $970 billion.
Some of these grounds appear to be unrealistic if the actual realities are closely examined. Firstly, most of the US economic and technical publications say that the American oil industry has “no interest” in “making the needed investment to revive the antiquated drilling and refining operations of Venezuela” to extract the less desirable “heavy oil, a thick, viscous product, which is far harder to extract and move compared to the domestic US sources”.
They quote Reuters and the International Energy Agency which indicate a supply glut in 2026. Reuters said in December that the global oil supply would exceed demand by 3.84 million barrels per day, “according to figures from the Paris-based IEA’s latest monthly oil market report, down from a 4.09 million bpd surplus estimated in November”.
El Pais quotes former Chilean minister and ambassador Jorge Heine, who alleges that Trump wants South America to be like ‘vassal’ states. According to him, Trump does not understand the reluctance of American companies to operate major projects in South America as they find them unprofitable.
“The United States is too late; there’s no turning back from China’s presence in Latin America.” Heine also said, early in December, that South American nations would not be cowed down by the threat of force through the modern ‘Donroe Doctrine’, which flips the Monroe Doctrine to the present with US plans to reshape the Americas.
A reason why US forces have not yet occupied and taken over Venezuela is due to the bitter experience in Iraq, despite Trump’s declaration that US would “run the country”. As of now there is no indication that US is controlling the Delcy Rodríguez government in Venezuela. On January 5, UN Secretary General António Guterres stated at the UN Security Council meeting that he was deeply concerned about the rules of international law not being respected during the January 3 military action.
Thus, as things stand, the abduction of Maduro is a US law and order action based on a 1989 legal opinion by the then assistant attorney General Bill Barr issued six months before the invasion of Panama and the abduction of Noreiga, the de facto dictator of Panama, on December 20, 1989. That opinion, which is likely to be quoted again, had said the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force in international relations did not bar the American agencies from carrying out ‘forcible abductions’ abroad to enforce domestic laws.
The Billion Press
(Vappala Balachandran is a former special secretary, Cabinet Secretariat.)
