Sanctions, Sovereignty, and State Power: How History Shaped the U.S.–Venezuela Standoff
Current Situation — A Pivotal Moment in Bilateral Relations
As of early January 2026, Venezuela–United States relations are at an unprecedented point of tension. The U.S. announced military strikes in Venezuela and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, citing alleged leadership of a powerful narcotics-trafficking network. Caracas condemned these actions as illegal aggression, declaring a state of emergency and mobilizing political and civilian sectors in response. The incident has drawn polarized international attention, with some nations condemning the U.S. while others maintain cautious support or neutrality.
This crisis follows years of escalating sanctions, diplomatic pressure, oil embargoes, and maritime blockades, reflecting a breakdown of traditional diplomatic channels and marking the most severe rupture between the two nations in decades.
Foundations of Partnership (1835–1908)
Early Recognition and Diplomatic Ties
After Venezuela’s separation from Gran Colombia in 1830, the United States was among the first major powers to recognize the newly independent state. Formal diplomatic ties were established in 1835, followed by a Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Navigation, and Commerce in 1836, which provided a framework for early commercial exchange and consular relations. Although diplomatic engagement was limited during the 19th century, this period laid the foundation for future economic and strategic interaction.
The 1895 Boundary Crisis
A major early test came when Venezuela and British Guiana disputed their border. The U.S., invoking the Monroe Doctrine, pressured Britain to accept arbitration rather than unilateral military action. This episode was a key assertion of U.S. influence in the hemisphere and an early example of Washington positioning itself as a guarantor of Venezuelan sovereignty — a role that would later become more complicated as American power expanded.
The 1902–1903 Crisis and the Roosevelt Corollary
European Blockade and Venezuelan Debt
In 1902–1903, Venezuela faced a naval blockade by Britain, Germany, and Italy over unpaid foreign debts. President Cipriano Castro resisted payment, viewing the European intervention as an infringement on national sovereignty. The U.S. mediated, pushing for arbitration and highlighting its emerging role as a regional power capable of enforcing the Monroe Doctrine.
The Roosevelt Corollary
The crisis influenced President Theodore Roosevelt to articulate the Roosevelt Corollary (1904), which asserted the right of the U.S. to intervene in Latin American nations to stabilize economies and preempt European involvement. While framed as protective, it also codified U.S. interventionist power, signaling to Venezuela and its neighbors that sovereignty could be contingent on U.S. perceptions of stability and financial responsibility.
The Age of Oil — Cooperation and Strategic Dependency (1910s–1970s)
Venezuela as a Petrostate
The discovery of large oil reserves in the early 20th century transformed Venezuela’s global relevance. U.S. companies, particularly Standard Oil affiliates, invested heavily in extraction and infrastructure, creating deep economic interdependence. By World War II, Venezuelan oil became crucial to U.S. energy security.
Throughout the mid-20th century, oil shaped both cooperation and leverage: the U.S. supported Venezuelan economic stability, while Caracas benefited from investment and export markets.
Diplomatic Consolidation
Bilateral treaties, including maritime agreements and commercial accords, formalized the framework for trade and political engagement. Despite these ties, the asymmetry of power — with Venezuela reliant on U.S. markets and technology — would later become a source of tension, particularly under nationalist regimes.
Venezuelan Dictatorships and Strategic Calculations (Mid-20th Century)
During periods of authoritarian rule, including under Marcos Pérez Jiménez (1952–1958), U.S. policy often prioritized anti-communist alignment over domestic freedoms. While this secured American access to oil and strategic influence, it limited Venezuela’s sovereignty in practical terms, reflecting the ongoing tension between state power and foreign interests.
The Cold War reinforced this dynamic: the U.S. tolerated authoritarian regimes that guaranteed economic stability and alignment with Western geopolitical objectives, while Venezuelan leadership navigated domestic legitimacy and external pressures.
Events Shaping a Turbulent Diplomatic Landscape (1980s–2010s)
Oil Nationalization and Economic Sovereignty
The late 20th century saw Venezuela assert greater control over its oil industry. The creation and empowerment of PDVSA reduced foreign involvement, including that of major U.S. corporations. This period reflected Venezuela’s pursuit of economic sovereignty, challenging traditional U.S. influence and laying the groundwork for future confrontation.
The Chávez Era and the Bolivarian Revolution
The election of Hugo Chávez in 1998 marked a turning point. Chávez championed socialist policies, anti-U.S. rhetoric, and alliances with Russia, China, and Iran, significantly altering the power balance. Nationalization of oil assets and social programs strengthened state power internally but led to strained relations with Washington.
The 2002 coup attempt and subsequent blame placed on U.S. involvement deepened mistrust and cemented a narrative of foreign interference undermining Venezuelan sovereignty.
Sanctions, Recognition Disputes, and Escalating Pressure (2010s–2024)
Targeted Sanctions and Diplomatic Isolation
In response to alleged corruption, electoral irregularities, and human rights abuses, the U.S. implemented graduated sanctions, targeting individuals, state entities, and the oil sector. These measures were designed to pressure the Venezuelan government without triggering direct military conflict, though they contributed to economic hardship and heightened political polarization.
The Guaidó Recognition and Diplomatic Breakdown
Following contested elections in 2019, the U.S. recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president, escalating tensions and prompting Venezuela to cut diplomatic ties. This period underscores how U.S. policy increasingly framed the bilateral relationship around legitimacy, governance, and alignment with international norms, while Venezuela emphasized sovereignty and self-determination.
From Sanctions to Military Confrontation (2024–2026)
Escalation and Maritime Enforcement
By 2025, sanctions intensified and the U.S. targeted Venezuelan oil shipments, including maritime seizures and naval blockades. These measures represented a direct assertion of state power over a sovereign resource, heightening the risk of conflict.
Military Strikes and Leadership Capture
In January 2026, the U.S. executed air and special operations strikes in Venezuela, capturing President Maduro. Caracas denounced the intervention as an illegal violation of sovereignty, highlighting the enduring tension between U.S. enforcement of law and Venezuela’s claim to autonomous state power.
Themes Often Overlooked
Several recurring themes are essential for understanding this standoff:
-
Asymmetry of Power: U.S. economic, political, and military dominance has consistently shaped the bilateral dynamic.
-
Sovereignty vs. Influence: Venezuela’s attempts to assert independence have repeatedly clashed with American strategic interests.
-
Oil as Leverage: Control over hydrocarbons remains central to U.S.–Venezuelan tensions.
-
Domestic Politics: Leadership choices in both countries have amplified conflict and constrained compromise.
-
Global Alliances: Venezuela’s engagement with Russia, China, and Iran intensifies U.S. security concerns, reinforcing the standoff.
Recommendations for a Constructive Approach
To reduce conflict and restore stability, several steps are essential:
-
Immediate De-escalation: Establish formal ceasefires and avoid military escalation.
-
Inclusive Political Dialogue: Facilitate talks among government, opposition, and civil society representatives.
-
Humanitarian Support: Ensure aid reaches vulnerable populations without being politicized.
-
Transitional Legal Mechanisms: Address alleged criminal networks through judicial cooperation rather than unilateral military actions.
-
Energy and Economic Partnerships: Promote transparent energy cooperation respecting Venezuelan sovereignty.
-
Restored Diplomatic Channels: Reopen embassies and consulates under agreed protocols to rebuild trust.
In Summary
The U.S.–Venezuela relationship has been defined by sanctions, sovereignty, and struggles over state power for nearly two centuries. From early recognition in 1835 to oil dependence, Cold War dynamics, the Chávez era, and the 2026 military intervention, the bilateral relationship reflects the tension between strategic interests and national autonomy.
Understanding this history illuminates the current standoff: a confrontation rooted not only in immediate policy disputes but in structural asymmetries, resource control, and contested authority. Any durable resolution will require balancing sovereignty, economic stability, and the projection of state power in a way that avoids further escalation and supports the Venezuelan people.
