Latin America is the region of open veins. Everything, from the discovery until our times, has always been transmuted into European— or later United States— capital, and as such has accumulated in distant centers of power. Everything: the soil, its fruits and its mineral-rich depths, the people and their capacity to work and to consume, natural resources and human resources. Production methods and class structure have been successively determined from outside for each area by meshing it into the universal gearbox of
capitalism…
For those who see history as a competition, Latin America’s backwardness and poverty are merely the result of its failure. We lost; others won. But the winners happen to have won thanks to our losing: the history of Latin America’s underdevelopment is, as someone has said, an integral part of the history of world capitalism’s development. Our defeat was always implicit in the victory of others; our wealth has always generated our poverty by nourishing the prosperity of others — the empires and their native overseers.
Eduardo Galeano, The Open Veins of Latin America
These two paragraphs, taken from page two of Galeano’s 1971 classic tome, pretty much sum up the basic argument of The Open Veins of Latin America: what should have been a source of strength for the region — its vast wealth of natural, mineral and energy resources — became its greatest curse, attracting the unending attentions of foreign powers.
Since Columbus’ first voyage over 500 years ago, Latin America has always served the economic interests of an imperial metropole — first Madrid and Lisbon, then Paris and London, and finally Washington. By contrast, the 13 colonies to the north had been blessed with “no gold or silver, no Indian civilizations with dense concentrations of people already organized for work, no fabulously fertile tropical soil on the coastal fringe. It was an area where both nature and history had been miserly: both metals and the slave labor to wrest it from the ground were missing. These colonists were lucky.” (p.133).
It is a compelling argument, though one that, as Galeano himself would later admit* that he had overlooked other fundamental factors such as weak institutions and internal political and economic problems, such as government corruption.
However, Galeano did not in any way disavow the basic premise of the book (h/t Darthbobber), which quickly became a benchmark text for the Latin American left — so much so that it was banned in many of Latin America’s military dictatorships shortly after its release, including in Galeano’s native Uruguay, where he would be jailed as a dissident.
In April 2009, during the Fifth Summit of the Americas, Venezuela’s former President Hugo Chávez famously gave President Barack Obama a copy of the book. Obama had only been president for about 100 days, and Chávez may have hoped that the new occupant of the White House had sincerely meant what he had said about hope and change, and ending US wars.
Presumably, Obama didn’t even bother to read the book. If he had, he may not have issued a presidential order in 2015 declaring the situation in Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States”. That declaration opened the way for endless rounds of crippling sanctions against Venezuela’s economy and people.
As Vijay Prashad delicately put it an an interview with Katie Halper, the United States, regardless of who is in power, “is a piece of shit when it comes to Latin America.”
However, in the past two and a half decades, something else has happened: China went global, becoming a near-peer economic rival to the US. At the turn of the century, as Washington was shifting the lion’s share of its attention and resources away from its immediate neighbourhood to the Middle East, where it squandered trillions spreading mayhem and death, China began snapping up Latin American resources.
This doesn’t mean that US-backed coups were not attempted during this period, including against Venezuela in 2002 and 2019 (both unsuccessful) and Honduras in 2009 and Bolivia in 2019 (both successful), but rather that for a brief while Washington’s leash was loosened a little (h/t Valiant Johnson).
In the first decade governments across Latin America, from Brazil to Venezuela, to Ecuador and Argentina, took a leftward turn and began working together across various fora. They also began working with China. Unlike the US, Beijing generally does not try to dictate how its trading partners should behave and what sorts of rules, norms, principles and ideology they should adhere to.
Even governments in thrall to the US, such as Milei’s in Argentina, have reluctantly embraced China’s way of doing business. Chinese trade with Latin America grew over 40-fold between 2000 and 2024, from $12 billion to $515 billion.
Now, however, as the US retrenches from some of its commitments further afield (or at least tries/pretends to), the Trump administration is looking for peoples, resources and markets closer to home to respectively exploit, plunder and crowbar open. Sadly, it seems that a new chapter in Latin America’s long history of open veins is about to be written, and unfortunately Galeano is no longer around to do it, having passed away in 2015.
Dark Shades of the Past
In the wee hours of January 3, the US carried out its first direct military intervention in Latin America since its 1989 invasion of Panama to depose the then-military ruler, Manuel Noriega. That attack resulted in the deaths of at least 3,000 people, mostly civilians. Current reports suggest that around 100 people, including 32 Cuban soldiers that were protecting President Nicolás Maduro, died in the US attacks against Venezuela in the early hours of January 3.
The attack has drawn inevitable parallels with the “capture” of Noriega as well as the Honduran army’s kidnapping and removal of President Manuel Zelaya to Costa Rica in 2009. It also bears similarities with the US’ kidnapping of the Mexican drug cartel leader Mayo Zambada in 2024. Like Zambada, Maduro may have been kidnapped by US forces as a result of insider betrayal, but there is as yet no definitive proof of this.
As Ambassador Chas Freeman said in an interview with the Neutrality Studies podcast, Maduro appears to have fallen victim to his own complacency regarding Trump’s intentions:
Nicolás Maduro discounted it too much. He seemed to believe that Trump would not be serious. The first thing to note is that the operation itself was very skilfully managed. The second is that it is entirely illegal, indecent, an atrocity really. And I think it put to an end three centuries of trying to develop a rule of law internationally.
Ret. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson described the attack on Venezuela as the US’s biggest foreign policy blunder to date — an attack that not only put an end to international law but replaced it with chaos.
The Trump administration claims to have taken full control of Venezuela despite having no troops on the ground, apart from presumably a few special forces. The Chavista government and political system remains very much intact despite the US’ extraordinary rendition of its president. Put simply, there has been no regime change nor is there a power vacuum.
As such, the Trump administration’s claims that the US is now in full control of Venezuelan oil are almost certainly premature. What’s more, the US has not nearly enough troops in the region to carry out a full-scale invasion of Venezuela. Even if it did, it would risk suffering a fate similar, or even worse, than Vietnam, as we warned a few months ago.
The question many are now asking is how long can this new, highly precarious situation hold together, especially with Trump threatening to launch a second wave of attacks should the new government fail to comply with US demands. The answer is nobody knows. If the power centre does begin to give way, the country could descend into violence very quickly.
One thing that is known is that the Chavista government is nothing if not resilient. It has faced just about every possible form of attack from the US over the past two and a half decades, with the exception of a full-scale invasion. Yet somehow, like Cuba, it has managed to survive. In other words, it has deep wells of resolve and support. But will they hold if the US intensifies its shakedown of the government and tightens its chokehold on the economy?
In her first communication as new acting president of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez struck a combative stance, alleging that the assault had clear Zionist overtones. This was in reference to the fact that New York-based hedge fund manager Paul Singer, an avid supporter of Israel who bought Citgo, the US-based subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, just months ago for $5.9 billion — a sale that was forced by a Delaware court after Venezuela defaulted on its bond payments — will be among the biggest beneficiaries of a US takeover of Venezuelan oil.
Delcy also declared that Venezuela will never be the colony of an empire again and demanded the release of President Maduro. In her second address, however, she struck a more conciliatory tone:
“Venezuela reaffirms its commitment to peace and peaceful coexistence. Our country aspires to live without external threats, in an environment of respect and international cooperation. We believe that global peace is built by first guaranteeing peace within each nation,” according to a post Rodríguez wrote in Instagram on Sunday.
“We invite the US government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation oriented towards shared development within the framework of international law to strengthen lasting community coexistence,” read the post.
“President Donald Trump, our peoples and our region deserve peace and dialogue, not war. This has always been President Nicolás Maduro’s message, and it is the message of all of Venezuela right now. This is the Venezuela I believe in and have dedicated my life to. I dream of a Venezuela where all good Venezuelans can come together. Venezuela has the right to peace, development, sovereignty and a future.”
Rumours of Betrayal
Some prominent Chavistas, including Eva Golinger, are clearly not happy about Rodriguez’s acquiescence, with some even using the word “betrayal” to describe her actions.
When it comes to betrayal by presidential successors, Latin America has a rich, storied history, as reader vao noted in yesterday’s comments:
The handover from Rafael Correa to Lenin Moreno in Ecuador constitutes a sobering precedent: from a leftist government that implemented quite a number of reforms favouring the working class, sovereignty in the exploitation of resources, and autonomy from the USA to one doing a 180-turn (Baerbock-360) that privatized everything, abolished social reforms, exited ALBA, accepted the yoke of the IMF, and started a steady cooperation with the USA. The former base of Correa protested heavily, and was crushed.
Moreno had been vice-president of Correa, and was member of the same party — just like Delcy Rodriguez wrt. Nicolas Maduro.
Rodríguez’s promotion also brings to mind the US-approved appointment of Dina Boluarte, Peru’s then-vice president, as president in 2022, following the removal, arrest and imprisonment of Pedro Castillo, Peru’s first ever indigenous president. Broadly reviled from the get-go, Boluarte would go on to become one of the world’s most unpopular leaders, reaching a disapproval rating of 94% before herself being impeached by Peru’s Congress late last year.
A Loaded Gun to the Head
For the moment, there is no conclusive evidence that Delcy betrayed Maduro, at least that I’m aware of. Things are moving exceptionally fast, reliable information is scarce, even in the Spanish-speaking press, and the dust has not even settled from the US’ January 3 attack. Also, in Delcy’s defence, what else could she do?
She currently has a loaded gun pointed at her head. Trump himself, in full New York mobster mode, said she could “pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro”, if she doesn’t comply with US demands, including giving US corporations “total access” to “the oil and other things”.
In other words, the president of the United States is openly threatening to assassinate the head of state of a sovereign nation, just as Israel has been doing. At the same time, the US’ naval blockade is beginning to asphyxiate the Venezuelan economy.
Delcy and her brother, Jorge, the president of Venezuela’s National Assembly, are arguably the most powerful duo in Venezuela. Besides vice president, Delcy has served as energy minister as well as foreign minister and played a key role overseeing the day-to-day management of Venezuela’s COVID-19 response. In short, she is internationally connected and competent.
What’s more, the two siblings know from first-hand experience just how high the stakes can go in US-led power struggles in their native country: their own father, Jorge Antonio Rodríguez, a student leader and left-wing politician, was tortured to death by Venezuela’s US-controlled security forces in 1976 at the tender age of 34.
Two things we know for sure: Nobel War Prize winner María Corina Machado has been left out of the equation by both Trump and (a presumably reluctant) Marco Rubio, at least for the foreseeable future. Trump said that while Machado was a “very nice woman,” she “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead Venezuela.
As we have been warning over the past month or so, there is no way the Venezuelan people, including many opposition supporters, would accept a Machado-led government, especially after Trump’s announcement in December that Venezuela’s oil effectively belongs to the US. She is broadly seen as a traitor to her country, even by opposition politicians and voters.
This lesson may hold a sliver of hope for Latin America. As Trump careens his way through the region, threatening its governments and insulting its peoples, other governments in thrall to US interests may become equally reviled by voters.
There are apparently other reasons for Washington’s dropping of Machado, including Trump’s wounded pride…
In abandoning Machado, Edmundo González and most other members of Venezuela’s rent-an-opposition, the Trump administration has infuriated elements of Spain’s Conservative Right, including José María Aznar’s FAES foundation, which has invested lots of political and financial capital propping them up. And that in turn appears to be causing a split in Spain’s right-wing bloc. And that’s at least one positive to take from all this.
The second thing we know for sure is that Latin America now faces a new wave of US gangsterism and resource plunder — one that has even less regard for things like national sovereignty, international law and human rights. While this new wave may be led and personified by Trump, behind him is the full weight of the US energy and military complexes as well as the Tech bro billionaires, who are looking not only for resources to plunder but also new freedom cities to seed, just like Prospera Inc. in Honduras.
The attack on Venezuela was the first real manifestation of the so-called Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. Said corollary, as outlined in the recently published National Security Strategy document, asserts Washington’s right to “restore American pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere,” and to deny “non-Hemispheric competitors” — primarily, China — “the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets.”
Those vital assets apparently include Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, which Trump cannot stop talking about. However, as Yves pointed out in her post yesterday, “wringing more production out of Venezuela’s oil fields would require a long period of investment before any real payoff took place.” And that investment is likely to run into the tens of billions of dollars.
Trump has also stated that while his government would open Venezuelan crude only for US companies, he expected to keep selling crude to China, which currently consumes most of Venezuela’s small (but recovering) output.
A Treasure Trove of Strategic Minerals
But oil isn’t the only strategic resource lying under Venezuelan soil. The country is also home to the fourth largest gold reserves on the planet and eighth largest natural gas reserves, as well as a treasure trove of critical minerals (bauxite, iron ore, copper, zinc, nickel and even rare earth materials). However, as Investor News points out, these critical mineral riches remain largely theoretical – geological possibilities rather than proven, bankable reserves:
Yet despite this vast resource wealth, commercial extraction is negligible. Minerals such as coal, lead, zinc, copper, nickel, and gold each account for less than 1% of Venezuela’s output (Ebsco.com), and there are no major foreign mining projects on the ground…
Due to a chronic lack of infrastructure, investor-friendly regulations and up-to-date exploration data, commercial extraction is negligible, notes the Investor News piece. Minerals such as coal, lead, zinc, copper, nickel, and gold each account for less than 1% of Venezuela’s output, and there are no major foreign mining projects on the ground. At least not yet.
However, Wall Street funds are apparently already eying opportunities in the country, reports the Wall Street Journal. The kidnapping of Maduro has apparently sparked renewed interest in unlocking Venezuela’s abundant natural resources:
Some on Wall Street are already considering possible investment opportunities in Venezuela following the capture of Nicolás Maduro, according to Charles Myers, chairman of consulting firm Signum Global Advisors and a former head of investment advisory firm Evercore.
Myers said in an interview he is planning a trip to Venezuela with officials from top hedge funds and asset managers to determine whether there are investment prospects in the country under new leadership. The trip will feature about 20 officials from the finance, energy and defense sectors, among others, Myers said. The tentative plan is for the group to travel to Venezuela in March and meet with the new government including the new president, finance minister, energy minister, economy minister, head of the central bank and the Caracas stock exchange.
And lest we forget, the Trump corollary is as much about trying to shut out the US’ strategic rivals — namely China, Russia and Iran — from strategic resources on the American continent as it is about the US getting its own dirty, blooded hands on them. And as we reported some time ago, China had begun to invest a lot in Venezuela’s oil sector, including in local refineries.
Put simply, the spice must not be allowed to flow to US rivals. Here we have the US ambassador to the UN saying exactly that yesterday:
This may sound vaguely familiar to long-standing NC readers, since a similar message was sent three years ago by the former SOUTHCOM commander, general Laura Richardson, in her address to the Atlantic Council.
In the speech Richardson relayed how Washington, together with US Southern Command, is actively negotiating the sale of lithium in the lithium triangle to US companies through its web of embassies, with the goal of “box[ing] out” our adversaries — i.e. China, Russia and Iran.
Which begged the question: what would happen if the US was unable to “box out” Russia and China, especially given the explosion of Chinese trade and investment in the region? Richardson answered as follows (emphasis my own): “in some cases our adversaries have a leg up. It requires us to be pretty innovative, pretty aggressive and responsive to what is happening.”
As we noted at the time, the US was essentially rejigging its Monroe Doctrine for a new age — an age in which it was rapidly losing economic influence, even in its own “backyard” — in order to apply it to China and Russia. At more or less the same time, the Biden administration signed, to minimal fanfare, a “minerals security partnership” (MSP) with some of its strategic partners, including the European Union, Canada, Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the UK.
In a press statement, the US Department of State said:
“The goal of the MSP is to ensure that critical minerals are produced, processed, and recycled in a manner that supports the ability of countries to realise the full economic development benefit of their geological endowments.”
As NC reader Sardonia put it sardonically, this is “surely some of the most polite language ever heard from someone holding a gun to someone else’s head as they demand the contents of their victims’ purse.” The US describes the partnership as a coalition of countries that are committed to “responsible critical mineral supply chains to support economic prosperity and climate objectives.” Reuters offered a more fitting description: a “metallic NATO.”
The Trump administration is merely taking this approach to a whole new level, and doing so in the crassest, most dangerous possible way…
Nick Corbishley 