Thomas Friedman to the Venezuelan People: Trump Came to Liberate Your Oil, Not to Liberate You

SadaNews - In a historically charged moment filled with external interventions and power struggles, Venezuela returns to the forefront of international debate, not as a battlefield for restoring democracy but as a vast oil reservoir being contested by major powers.

In a critical reading, American political writer Thomas Friedman scrutinized President Donald Trump's policy towards Venezuela, revealing the gap between the rhetoric of "liberating peoples" and the reality of "liberating resources" of countries.

He argued that the primary goal of Trump's policy following the "kidnapping" of President Nicolás Maduro last Saturday from his residence in Caracas has never been to liberate the Venezuelan people or restore democracy but to seize its vast oil wealth and direct it to serve the American economy.

Friedman addressed the Venezuelan people, stating that there is one thing for sure: "If you have not known before, you know now; Trump came to liberate your oil, not to liberate you. I regret to inform you that last Saturday was an oil day, not a liberation day."

Attracting Oil Companies

The writer believes that Trump is making a grave strategic error by assuming that military force and agreements with remnants of Maduro's regime can entice major American oil companies to return and invest in Venezuela's crumbling infrastructure.

According to Friedman, considered one of the foremost political columnists, Trump is betting on introducing Venezuela's huge oil reserves to global markets to lower fuel prices in the United States and win votes from constituents.

However, he doubts the realism of this gamble, expressing his belief that any significant U.S. oil investment in Venezuela would not be possible without restoring democracy and the rule of law.

He clarified that major U.S. oil companies are public entities with shareholders and cannot risk billions of dollars in investments in a country governed by an illegitimate elite managed by directives from the White House.

Friedman attributed his view to the current climate in Venezuela, characterized by instability, lack of political legitimacy, and widespread public anger, amid the marginalization of the opposition, which is believed to have won about 70% of the votes in the last elections held there.

He mentioned Trump's intention to meet with the leaders of three American oil companies to propose investing in the reform of the Venezuelan oil sector, perhaps with promises of government support.

However, the writer reminds that ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil left Venezuela since their assets were nationalized in 2007 and are still demanding tens of billions of dollars in compensation. Chevron is the only American company still operating there under a special license.

The Need for Stability to Attract Investment

Friedman emphasized, relying on sources from within the oil industry, that any new investment requires a return to the rule of law, ensuring security, repaying debts, enacting transparent profit-sharing laws, resorting to international arbitration instead of local judiciary, in addition to having a democratically elected government capable of concluding long-term contracts that enjoy popular acceptance.

He also criticized Trump's reliance on Delcy Rodriguez, Maduro's vice president, to manage the country, despite opposition accusations of corruption and involvement in torture, drug trafficking, and alliances with Russia, China, and Iran. He views this approach as deepening public anger and increasing the likelihood of unrest.

He cited expert estimates indicating that rehabilitating Venezuela's oil infrastructure would require more than $100 billion over 15 years, in a highly challenging investment environment due to corruption and mismanagement.

He claimed that major companies would not redirect their investments to Venezuela unless the political system changes and a stable and predictable system is established.

The article concluded that Trump underestimates the importance of free elections, viewing them as an obstacle to running the oil sector, while Friedman considers them a prerequisite for any serious investment.

Without real democracy, there will be no major American investments and no actual recovery of Venezuelan oil exports, according to Friedman.

Source: New York Times