Ambassador Dr. Magaly Henruez Gonzalez.
By Vitalio Angula
The re-election of Donald Trump and his Far-Right allies of the Republican Party into the White House has seen a re-emergence of a foreign policy towards Venezuela, greatly influenced by what is known as the Monroe Doctrine.
Propagated by the 5th President of the United States of America (USA), James Monroe (1817-1825), the Monroe Doctrine holds that Latin America is a sphere of exclusive influence of the United States, under the slogan “America for Americans.”
The Doctrine is supplemented by Monroe’s Secretary of State John Quincy Adams’ “Ripened Fruit Theory, which holds that Latin American nations, as they weaken, will “fall like ripe fruit” into the hands of the US.
These doctrines reflect a colonialist and paternalistic view that has guided US foreign policy for centuries. In the case of Venezuela, this mentality translates into attempts at political, economic, and military domination, particularly due to its interest in the country’s vast oil reserves, estimated to be the largest in the world.
The Abduction of Nicolas Maduro
On the 3rd of January 2026, the United States of America launched airstrikes on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in an operation codenamed ‘Operation Absolute Resolve’.
In a move widely condemned by several countries and regional blocs, including the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA-TCP), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), as well as African and Asian nations.
This abuse of power culminated in the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, First Lady Cilia Flores.
Venezuela’s Ambassador to Namibia, Dr Magaly Henriquez Gonzalez, described the assault as a “direct armed intervention, without a declaration of war or a mandate from the United Nations Security Council, which constitutes a serious violation of the United Nations Charter, the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States, and national sovereignty enshrined in international law.
America’s Thirst for Oil
Although the United States is a major oil producer, its high domestic consumption makes it a net oil importer, which critics argue motivates military interventions in countries such as Libya, Iraq and Venezuela.
Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, estimated to be worth trillions of US Dollars, have always been a target of American corporate interests; however, Trump’s predecessors took a more moderate approach towards the country to curtail resentment within Southern America, which has seen numerous US interventions.
The disputed 2024 Presidential elections in Venezuela, where Maduro emerged as the victor, provided the right conditions that emboldened Trump and his allies to launch the January 3rd attack on Venezuela.
Among “justifications” for US aggression towards Venezuela are that “Maduro managed and led the ‘Cartel of the Suns’, a Venezuelan drug-trafficking organisation comprised of high-ranking Venezuelan officials”.
According to the United States Department of State Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, which had placed a US$50 million reward for his capture, “Maduro participated in a corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a designated foreign terrorist organisation”.
In March 2020, Maduro was charged in the Southern District of New York for “narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.
Accusations that Maduro is a “narco-terrorist” have been reinforced by former President Trump’s claims that Venezuela stole oil from the United States, which Venezuela’s Ambassador to Namibia rejects as unfounded and offensive.
“Venezuela has stolen absolutely nothing from the United States. On the contrary, it has been the victim of systematic looting and unilateral coercive measures that have seriously affected its economy and the well-being of its people, Gonzalez says.
“Venezuela nationalised its oil industry in 1976; the decision gave rise to the establishment of the Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), as a state-run institution serving the interests of the Venezuelan people, Gonzalez added.
Gonzalez says the decision facilitated the rise of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) as a legitimate act of economic self-determination, rather than an act of aggression against any country.
“The U.S. government’s accusations seek to justify the illegal appropriation of Venezuelan assets abroad, such as the CITGO Petroleum Corporation, which violate fundamental principles of international law, including respect for the sovereign property of states and non-interference in their internal affairs”, Gonzalez maintains.
Gonzalez further reiterates that “Venezuela defends its right to preserve its natural wealth for the benefit of its people” and will not accept blackmail or dispossession by foreign powers.
Trump, and his allies in the White House, who include Cuban immigrant descendant Marco Rubio, maintain that American corporate interests built Venezuela’s oil industry with American talent, drive, and skill, and “the socialist regime stole it from us during those previous administrations … This constituted one of the largest thefts of American property in the history of our country”.
This assertion has been debunked!
The Roosevelt Corollary, Monroe’s Doctrine and Quincy Adams “ripe-fruit theory”
Successive US administrations have redefined US foreign policies to suit their specific needs at certain points in history. An example of this is the Roosevelt Corollary articulated by the 32nd President of the USA (before he became President), Theodore Roosevelt, as an addition to the Monroe Doctrine.
The Corollary came about as a result of a dispute between Venezuela and its creditors, which the US feared might spill over into the rest of Southern America, which the US could not allow.
Roosevelt declared that the United States might “exercise international police power in ‘flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence.’”
Over the long term, the corollary had little to do with relations between the Western Hemisphere and Europe, but evolved in meaning and interpretation and was used as justification for U.S. intervention in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela, where it initially began.
Conclusion
Trump’s actions toward Venezuela revive outdated imperial doctrines that prioritise corporate interests over sovereignty.
Framed as security or law enforcement (carry a big stick), these interventions mask regime change as a precursor to resource extraction.
History has shown us how such policies destabilise regions, violate international law, and undermine genuine self-determination for peoples resisting external domination under contemporary geopolitical conditions today, and the international community needs to take a stand.
Today might be Venezuela, tomorrow the DRC, South Africa, or even Namibia!
Vitalio Angula is a socio-political commentator and independent columnist
