Aura Kasih
The United States has embarked on a bold, assertive foreign policy posture, signaling a departure from established international norms and ushering in an era where resource acquisition and geopolitical influence appear to be paramount objectives. This recalibration, underscored by recent actions in Venezuela and pronouncements regarding other resource-rich nations, suggests a strategic pivot towards what can be characterized as a new form of energy and resource imperialism, extending far beyond the traditional focus on petroleum.
The administration’s intervention in Venezuela, culminating in the apprehension of President Nicolás Maduro, has been explicitly framed by President Donald Trump as a means to "get the oil flowing the way it should be." This direct assertion, made shortly after an operation that many international legal experts and domestic lawmakers deemed an unlawful incursion, highlights a willingness to leverage military and diplomatic power to secure access to vital resources. However, this focus on "energy dominance" and the justification of drug trafficking charges against Maduro appear to serve as a broader pretext for a significant power consolidation. As President Trump declared, under a new national security strategy, "American dominance in the Western hemisphere will never be questioned again." This declaration serves as a stark warning to neighboring nations such as Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba, indicating a potential expansion of assertive U.S. influence. Furthermore, the White House’s contemplation of acquiring Greenland, as articulated by senior adviser Stephen Miller, underscores a widening scope of ambition that transcends mere energy resources, encompassing strategic territories and their mineral wealth.
This aggressive approach suggests a U.S. foreign policy intent on acquiring assets and asserting control, irrespective of national borders or established international protocols. The beneficiaries of this strategy, according to analysts, are likely to include powerful domestic industries such as the fossil fuel sector and technology magnates who have historically supported the administration. This presents a precarious landscape for nations possessing valuable resources, as they may become targets of U.S. acquisitive interests. The ramifications of this assertive global posture are not confined to those directly in the administration’s sights; they are poised to create widespread political and environmental ripple effects across the globe, shaping international relations and resource management for years to come.
The current geopolitical climate, marked by the United States’ assertive resource acquisition strategy, represents a significant departure from multilateral cooperation and established international law. This approach, characterized by a willingness to bypass traditional diplomatic channels and to prioritize national interest through unilateral action, is creating an atmosphere of considerable uncertainty and apprehension. As Catherine Abreu, director of the International Climate Politics Hub, observes, "We’re entering this really uncertain, scary moment where this aggressive, toxic way of doing business is being put on the table."
Abreu, who possesses a direct connection to Venezuela through her family, experienced the unfolding events firsthand. The news of the U.S. intervention brought a complex mix of emotions to her family and to many Venezuelans. While acknowledging the widespread desire for change and the years of popular protest against the Maduro regime, she emphasized that the aspiration is for that transformation to be internally driven by the Venezuelan people. This sentiment underscores a potential disconnect between the administration’s stated objectives and the desires of the population on the ground.
The alarm raised by colleagues within the climate movement further illuminates the broader implications of this policy shift. The intervention in Venezuela, largely justified in the name of securing oil and gas interests, has generated significant concern among those advocating for sustainable energy solutions. Venezuela, despite possessing the world’s largest proven oil reserves, has experienced a dramatic decline in production due to decades of mismanagement and neglect, particularly since the nationalization of its oil industry in the 1970s. President Trump’s stated intention to deploy American oil companies to invest billions in repairing Venezuela’s dilapidated infrastructure and to regain control over future oil sales represents a direct assertion of U.S. economic and geopolitical leverage.
The U.S. Department of Energy has confirmed ongoing discussions with American corporations regarding the potential ramp-up of Venezuelan oil production, alongside the seizure of oil tankers linked to the country. The administration has also announced plans to acquire and sell 30 to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil at market prices. This move, while presented as a recovery of "stolen" resources – a narrative that misrepresents Venezuela’s nationalization policies – is viewed by some as a justification for a de facto resource appropriation.
However, the viability of such plans faces considerable practical hurdles. The inherent instability within Venezuela, coupled with the substantial investment required to revitalize its oil sector, raises questions about the willingness of American companies to engage in such a high-risk venture. The United States is already the world’s leading oil producer, and the cost of restoring Venezuela’s production to even modest levels is estimated to be tens of billions of dollars over a decade and a half. Despite these challenges, the immediate aftermath of Maduro’s arrest saw a notable rise in the stock prices of major fossil fuel companies, including Chevron, which has maintained a presence in Venezuela by negotiating with the government. This market reaction suggests that speculation surrounding potential access to Venezuelan oil, rather than the immediate prospect of increased production, is driving investor interest. As Basav Sen, director of the Climate Policy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, notes, financial speculators are profiting from the anticipation of increased oil availability, regardless of the actual realization of such production.
The escalating conflicts over energy resources underscore the argument for a robust transition to renewable energy sources, which could mitigate the vulnerability of Global South nations to the resource demands of more powerful states. Non-renewable resources inherently necessitate a continuous search for new supply sources. In contrast, solar and wind power, having become increasingly affordable, are now the fastest-growing sources of electricity globally. Abreu posits that the heightened pursuit of oil and gas interests, exemplified by the actions in Venezuela, may represent a strategic effort to counter the momentum of renewable energy adoption.
The U.S. administration’s interest extends beyond fossil fuels, as exemplified by its long-standing fixation on Greenland. The potential acquisition of Greenland is driven by its significant reserves of rare earth elements and critical minerals, essential components for electric vehicles, renewable energy technologies, and advanced military systems. While Greenland’s fossil fuel reserves are also acknowledged, their accessibility and commercial viability remain uncertain. Furthermore, the extraction of these resources, particularly fossil fuels, would exacerbate the melting of Greenland’s ice sheets, contributing to global sea-level rise – a direct consequence of burning fossil fuels.
The Trump administration has framed the potential annexation of Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, as a matter of U.S. national security, largely disregarding protests from Greenlandic and Danish authorities. This stance has been met with frustration and resentment in Greenland, as it appears to disregard the territory’s self-governance and its aspirations for independent economic and societal development. Any exploitation of Greenland’s resources, according to local perspectives, must involve the meaningful participation of nearby communities to ensure equitable benefit and to minimize environmental and livelihood impacts.
This assertive posture towards Greenland is perceived by analysts like Sen as a clear signal of the U.S. willingness to engage in "naked 19th-century imperialism," where resource acquisition takes precedence over national sovereignty. This approach is seen as a threatening message to the international community, implying that nations must either cede their resources on U.S. terms or face potential aggression.
The strategic rationale behind these actions, according to former White House director of energy Landon Derentz, extends beyond mere resource acquisition. He argues that Venezuelan oil served as an "enabler" for exerting broader U.S. influence across the Western Hemisphere. This perspective revives a historical pattern of U.S. interventionism in Latin America, often aimed at installing governments favorable to American interests. Derentz suggests that the current administration is implementing an "enhanced version of the two-hundred-year-old Monroe Doctrine," now termed a "Trump Corollary" in the administration’s national security strategy.
This underlying power dynamic suggests a recurring pattern of geopolitical maneuvering, irrespective of the specific resource in contention, whether it be oil in Venezuela or minerals in Greenland. The global emphasis on collaborative efforts to address climate change and transition to cleaner energy, as exemplified by initiatives like the Paris Agreement, stands in stark contrast to this resurgence of unilateralism and strongman politics. The U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and numerous other international organizations and treaties further solidifies this trend of disengagement from multilateral frameworks.
The administration’s rhetoric, emphasizing the recovery of "stolen" oil and the reestablishment of American dominance, underscores a deliberate effort to reframe resource claims and justify assertive foreign policy. This narrative, however, is a misleading oversimplification of complex historical processes, such as nationalization, and serves to legitimize a policy of territorial and resource acquisition based on perceived entitlement. The current U.S. approach, while rooted in historical precedents of interventionism, is manifesting with an unprecedented level of directness and assertiveness, signaling a potentially volatile and consequential new era in international resource politics.
Lisa Mariana
Ridwan Kamil