By Luis Manuel Aguana
The Venezuelan reaction to President Donald Trump's announcement about the oil deal cooked up with Delcy Rodríguez's interim government was by no means surprising (see Commentary Donald J. Trump Truth Social On X, @TrumpTruthOmX, on https://x.com/TrumpTruthOnX/status/2093471486334181481).
There is not much more to say regarding its unconstitutionality, the signatory—Delcy Rodríguez—having zero authority to sign such a thing on behalf of Venezuelans, and, of course, the agreement's fragility when it comes to securing the necessary investments. Investments of the nature involved here are unlikely to materialize simply because the heirs of the Nicolás Maduro Moros regime hold power in a country lacking institutional stability—not to mention the uncertainty regarding Donald Trump’s long-term tenure in the White House.
That is not what motivates me to write these lines, however; it is what follows. The rejection by all Venezuelans of the violation of sovereignty that such an agreement would entail was a foregone conclusion. There is little to add on that subject. Culturally, we Venezuelans are fiercely patriotic and "anti-imperialist," and if there is one thing that unites all Latin Americans, it is foreign encroachment—which is why we have been dry tinder for the destructive fire communists have ignited across our nations. And regrettably, the US has given us reasons for this.
But let us make no mistake, nor rush to burn American flags. What happens in any given country is merely the result of its own errors and follies. Donald Trump is simply capitalizing on both. Or perhaps any other US president in his position would have done the same, whether to garner votes or to cement control over a territory within their sphere of influence.
In fact, this is not the first time such a situation has occurred in Latin America—allowing for historical differences—when the US has taken a keen interest in something of ours. It happened in 1903 in what we now know as the Republic of Panama. Let us take a look:
“…the statement “the United States separated Panama from Colombia to keep the Canal” contains a substantial element of truth, but it is overly simplistic if used as a complete historical description. A more rigorous formulation would be:
There was a Panamanian separatist movement with its own history, but the 1903 independence would hardly have succeeded under those circumstances without the military and diplomatic backing of the United States. Washington also had a pre-established strategic interest in obtaining the territory and rights necessary to build and control an interoceanic canal. The new Panamanian state, in an extraordinarily weak negotiating position, granted the United States, through the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, territorial and jurisdictional rights far broader than those Colombia had been willing to accept” (see Separation of Panama, ChatGPT, in https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a94658dc92c81919cebdad7632ec27a) (our highlight).
And you might ask: what does that have to do with us and with what happened more than 120 years ago in our sister Republic of Colombia? A great deal! The United States—desiring something that was geopolitically urgent and necessary for them—took advantage of the presence of Panamanian separatist groups and backed them, after having first proposed to the Colombians a 100-year lease on a portion of the territory:
“The United States negotiated a treaty with Colombia to secure the rights needed to build the canal. The result was the Hay-Herrán Treaty, signed on January 22, 1903, between the United States and Colombia. The United States offered, among other things, financial compensation and a 100-year lease on a strip of territory for the construction and operation of the canal. However, the Colombian Congress deemed the agreement unfavorable to Colombia and felt it excessively compromised the country's sovereignty. The Colombian Senate rejected the treaty on August 12, 1903” (see previous reference) (emphasis added).
What did the Americans do after that? They secured it through other means that offered them greater advantages—and "in perpetuity," as stipulated in the agreement signed between the newly formed Republic of Panama and the United States. That perpetual status would later change with the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties and the handover of the canal in 1999.
What did that newly independent strip of land—now known as Panama—actually possess? Absolutely nothing, save for its geographic location connecting two oceans. To survive, generate revenue, and gain international recognition, they *needed* the United States. Does this situation sound familiar? Yet, the price was selling their soul.
By championing the cause of their sovereignty, Colombians lost not only a vital part of their territory but also the chance to strike a deal that would have forever transformed Colombia's future. What did the Panamanians gain? Perhaps a country, but one beholden to the rules and support of another nation. In my view, when all was said and done, it proved to be a bad deal for both Colombia and Panama, with the United States emerging as the sole beneficiary.
However, there is a particularly interesting aspect of this story that can help us assess the situation in Venezuela: the United States' interest at the time in building a canal in the middle of nowhere. Let’s take a look:
“There were at least four strategic reasons:
1) Interest: Military;
Importance: Enabling the U.S. Navy to move rapidly from the Atlantic to the
Pacific.
2) Interest: Commercial;
Importance: Greatly shortening maritime routes between the two coasts.
3) Interest: Geopolitical;
Importance: Consolidating U.S. influence in the Caribbean and Central America.
4) Interest: Imperial/strategic; Importance: Preventing a European power from controlling a future interoceanic waterway.
The context of the era is important: the United States had just become a leading international power following the war of 1898 and was developing a much more active foreign policy in the Caribbean and Latin America” (see previous reference).
We could cite and explain the same U.S. interests—military, commercial, geopolitical, and imperial-strategic—that drove that power to play an indispensable role in the dismemberment of Colombia, while updating their relevance to Venezuela. Yet that will not be necessary, for Venezuelan oil alone explains them all...
When facing a power capable of carving up a country—as it did in the past—we must think with a cool head, far removed from the jingoistic and sovereignty-obsessed fervor that brought about Colombia’s downfall in 1903. Only then can we reach an agreement that suits the circumstances and benefits future generations of Venezuelans.
I do not believe the agreement between Trump and the Delcy Rodríguez interim administration will succeed in the long run; achieving its aims requires Venezuela to regain its political autonomy, and we all know how that would come about. However, we cannot ignore the fact that U.S. interest in our oil will persist—driven by the same four factors that motivated the push for a canal in 1903—and they will keep trying until they succeed. Let us not allow this to happen to us—perhaps not the territorial dismemberment seen in Colombia, but something of similar magnitude...
Caracas, August 30, 2026
Blog: TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario