The United States’ Operation Absolute Resolve on January 3, 2026, has made global headlines. US troops attacked Venezuela, captured its President Nicolas Maduro and his wife under the cover of darkness and flew them to New York City to face what it called ‘legal action for abetting narco terrorism’
As the world still absorbs the aftershocks of the operation, Down To Earth spoke to Aprajita Kashyap, Associate Professor at the Centre for the Study of the Americas, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University about the history of US intervention in the Western Hemisphere and what lies ahead for Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world. Excerpts
Rajat Ghai (RG): The US has a long history of intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean. Can you share a few examples from the past regarding this?
Aprajita Kashyap (AK): Tracing chronologically, most countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, following the ‘Wars of Independence’, achieved independence from their Spanish colonisers (the Portuguese in the case of Brazil) between 1810 and 1825.
The interventions can be grouped into phases, and the first period extends from the 19th century, after the ‘wars of independence’, to the early 20th century. The first such episode was the Mexican-American War, a two-year-long conflict from 1846 to 1848. The US went to war against Mexico and annexed a large part of Mexican territory, which included the current US states of California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. This conflict led to the expansion of US territory in North America.
The next major intervention by the US was the Spanish-American War from 1898 onwards. When Cuba was fighting for its independence from Spain, the US intervened. It helped defeat the Spanish colonialists in Cuba and occupied the island. It imposed the famous Platt Amendment of 1901. The US later installed its own puppet ruler on the island, Fulgencio Batista. By invoking the Platt Amendment, the US gave itself the right to intervene in Cuban affairs. This also helped justify the establishment of a naval base in Guantanamo Bay (Bahia de Guantanamo) in Cuba.
The US also supported Panama’s secession from Colombia. It was followed by the building of the Panama Canal, which today is a strategic and vital waterway connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
The second phase of the 20th century was when the famous ‘Banana Wars’ in three republics of Central America (Nicaragua, Haiti and Dominican Republic) took place between the 1900s and 1930s. While the US intervened in the name of protecting human rights and democratic values, it was in fact protecting its own interests and those of the authoritarian elites. The US was also trying to prop up a group of people who would oppose whoever was in power. These were the Contras, who played a greater role in the 1950s and later.
The third phase was the period of Cold War interventions from the 1950s to the 1980s. The US feared that Communism would spread in the region and to stop the domino effect, it wanted to get a grip on Central America, Latin America and the Caribbean. The Cold War interventions started with Guatemala. The CIA overthrew President Jacobo Arbenz to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company. Following this, Guatemala had decades of military rule and civil war.
The second notable intervention of the Cold War Period was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961 in Cuba. It brought the US and USSR to the point of another great war over the Soviet Union’s support of Cuba’s Communist regime, led by Fidel Castro.
The third major intervention was in Chile. At the time, Chile had a socialist government led by Salvador Allende. The US allegedly propelled the military dictator Augusto Pinochet to power through a military coup.
The fourth phase comprised the post-Cold War interventions. In Central America during the 1980s, the US would support anti-Communist forces in any country in that region where Communist regimes were in power. These forces, or Contras in Nicaragua (counter-groups to the left-wing in power), were engaged in conflict with the left-wing Sandinistas. They were also engaged in conflicts in Guatemala and El Salvador. The US invaded Grenada and Nicaragua. They also invaded Panama to remove Manuel Noriega. In Haiti, the famous ‘Papa Doc’ and ‘Baby Doc’ (Francois and Jean Claude Duvalier) were purely US creations. And then comes this intervention in Venezuela.
The interventions and the various forms they have taken, such as direct military threats, covert operations, economic sanctions, diplomatic standoffs, or support for coups, are necessary to understand what has happened in Venezuela.
RG: Does this intervention deal another blow to the credibility of international law globally?
Aprajita Kashyap (AK): There is a lot of debate about whether this intervention or others by the US were justified. The US has claimed that its interventions are intended to protect its security interests, investments, democracy and human rights, and to promote development. The US has also advanced the argument about balancing the regional security architecture. The question of whether the US intervention in Venezuela is justified is highly normative and contested. It can be understood by breaking it into two parts.
First, what is ‘intervention’? It would constitute interference in a country's internal affairs. Then, is the intervention in Venezuela, in part, morally motivated by genuine concerns about democracy and human suffering? It is also a very political, ethical and problematic issue. Since Venezuela is a sovereign state, the US’s intervention in the internal affairs of another sovereign state amounts to an intrusion and legally lacks legitimacy.
The US concerns may be legitimate, as they cite the authoritarian rule of Nicolas Maduro, which has prompted many Venezuelans to seek refuge in the US. There is also a regional repercussion, as Venezuelans are fleeing as refugees and immigrating to the US because of authoritarian rule and the consequent humanitarian crisis. Many scholars argue that the US position is justified because it intervenes to help ordinary Venezuelans.
From an international law perspective, there are significant problems. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter states that “All members should refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
Taking the above definition into consideration, one may ask: Is force being used? The US action has justified the use of force, as it has used force and captured President Maduro and his wife. Thus, this constitutes a clear breach of Article 2(4). Second, there must be UN Security Council authorisation for any intervention. That was not taken. Third, was there an imminent threat to the US? A country can attack another only in self-defence, when there is a threat to its national integrity. But there was no imminent threat to the national security of the US from Venezuela here. So, it is clearly not an act of self-defence.
Going by these three criteria, I can confidently say that the stance of the US is not legally justified.
But Trump has a counter-argument here. He said it is a ‘law-enforcement operation’. Even that has to be backed by congressional approval. Why was the US Congress’s authorisation not taken?
Thus, there are significant takeaways. Intervention in Venezuela is justified to the extent that it concerns democracy and humanitarian protection, but not in its current coercive form, as it undermines a country’s sovereignty, lacks legitimacy under international law, and does not guarantee improvement in the current state of affairs in Venezuela.
RG: Donald Trump says the US will be heavily involved in the Venezuelan oil reserves. What major developments can we expect in this regard?
Aprajita Kashyap (AK): The entire intervention of the US in Venezuela boils down to three issues. First, there is the problem of the dominant ideology in Venezuela: socialism. Second is control over a crucial natural resource, in this case, it is oil. The third concerns the hegemonic aspect of international relations. Venezuela has developed deep relations with China, Russia and Iran. The US, which considers Latin America its backyard, is uncomfortable with the three’s presence in the country’s economic sectors. More problematic is the extent to which the three have shown interest in investing in Venezuela’s oil sector.
Therefore, Venezuela has already found some investors. If the US is forcing itself to be the primary investor and to control oil production and refining, it will be problematic because of potential clashes. So far, all the major oil refineries in Venezuela have been owned by the US. It did not begin with Trump — in 2019, the Joe Biden Administration froze the assets of the Venezuelan state oil company, PDVSA. What Trump is doing is merely taking a step forward.
Venezuela may have the largest oil reserves, but production is very low, possibly due to mismanagement, decaying infrastructure, or Maduro’s limited authority, even when compared with the period under Hugo Chavez. It would require a massive capital investment.
However, Venezuela is not seeking US investment. The US is forcing itself. For Venezuela, the only benefit of attracting US investment is a guarantee of security and political stability. The country will not face sanctions, and its oil supplies can find proper markets. That will help.
If you ask me about US oil companies’ investment and reconstruction in the Venezuelan oil sector, then yes, there is a possibility. But the turnaround may be slow. That is because the problem lies not in investment but in the political regime, culture and decaying infrastructure. If you want a replacement, that will take time.
Second, expecting a sharp rise in Venezuelan oil output soon is highly unlikely, given the long gestation period. The US cannot simply enter and commence operations. There is a legal framework for investment that will be complex and will require weeks to months.
In the medium to long term, yes, there will be a shift in global oil trade patterns. But looking at how the US has been behaving, I think Venezuelans will be very cautious or guarded about allowing US investment.