Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century: Venezuela, Oil, and the Crisis of Sovereignty in a Unipolar World

 

-Ramphal Kataria

Lenin in Caracas: Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century

Abstract

The extraterritorial abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by United States forces and Washington’s declaration of intent to administer Venezuela during a so-called transition period marks a decisive rupture in post-Cold War international norms. This article argues that the Venezuelan episode represents not an exceptional deviation but a structural expression of imperialism in its contemporary form. Drawing upon Vladimir I. Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, the article situates the intervention within the political economy of monopoly capital, finance capital, and resource extraction. It demonstrates that oil—rather than democracy, narcotics control, or human rights—constitutes the material basis of intervention. By tracing historical continuities of U.S. regime-change operations across Latin America, West Asia, and beyond, the article shows how the unipolar world order has hollowed out international law while retaining its rhetorical vocabulary. The responses of global actors—including China, Russia, Latin American states, and Western allies—are analysed to reveal fractures within the so-called “rules-based international order.” Particular attention is paid to India’s silence, which is examined as a crisis of democratic credibility and post-colonial foreign policy. The article concludes that the Venezuelan intervention exemplifies imperialism’s parasitic and decaying character and poses a fundamental challenge to sovereignty, multilateralism, and global stability.

1. Introduction: The Reappearance of Naked Imperial Power

The abduction of a sitting president of a sovereign state by a foreign military power represents an act so extreme that it destabilises not merely diplomatic relations but the conceptual foundations of international order. When the President of the United States publicly announced that Washington would “run” Venezuela following the seizure of Nicolás Maduro, the statement signified a return to a political vocabulary long believed to have been buried with formal colonialism. This was not humanitarian intervention, nor peacekeeping, nor multilateral enforcement. It was imperial trusteeship articulated without disguise.

That the act was justified through allegations of drug trafficking, electoral fraud, and authoritarianism is significant not for its persuasiveness, but for its familiarity. These justificatory narratives have accompanied imperial interventions for over a century, serving as moral alibis for material objectives. As Lenin observed, imperialism cloaks economic domination in ideological forms suited to the prevailing historical moment. In the twenty-first century, these forms include democracy promotion, counterterrorism, and anti-narcotics enforcement.

This article advances the argument that the Venezuelan intervention cannot be adequately understood through legalist or moral frameworks alone. Instead, it must be analysed as an expression of structural imperialism, rooted in monopoly capitalism, finance capital, and the strategic centrality of natural resources—particularly oil. The abduction of Maduro represents not a breakdown of the international order, but its logical culmination under unipolar conditions.

2. Imperialism as a Structural Stage of Capitalism

2.1 Lenin’s Theoretical Contribution

Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism remains among the most influential analyses of global political economy. Writing in the context of inter-imperialist rivalry preceding the First World War, Lenin identified imperialism as a distinct stage characterised by five interrelated features: the concentration of production and monopolies; the dominance of finance capital; the export of capital; the formation of international monopolist associations; and the territorial division of the world among great powers.

Crucially, Lenin rejected the notion that imperialism was a matter of policy preference or moral degeneration. Instead, he argued that it arose from capitalism’s internal contradictions—overaccumulation, declining profit rates, and surplus capital seeking external outlets. Imperialism thus represented capitalism’s attempt to postpone crisis by spatial expansion.

2.2 Contemporary Relevance

Despite claims that globalisation has dissolved imperial hierarchies, contemporary capitalism exhibits intensified monopoly power, unprecedented financialization, and heightened militarisation. Energy conglomerates, defence contractors, and financial institutions wield enormous influence over state policy, particularly in the United States. The Venezuelan episode demonstrates that imperialism has not vanished; it has merely adapted its ideological forms.

3. Oil and the Material Foundations of Intervention

Venezuela possesses the largest proven oil reserves in the world, estimated at over 300 billion barrels. This fact alone renders implausible any analysis that foregrounds democracy or narcotics control while marginalising resource politics. Historically, oil has constituted the strategic lifeblood of modern capitalism, shaping imperial interventions across regions and eras.

From Iran’s nationalisation of oil in 1951 to Iraq’s invasion in 2003 and Libya’s destruction in 2011, energy sovereignty has repeatedly triggered imperial retaliation. Venezuela’s nationalisation of its oil sector under Hugo Chávez represented a direct challenge to global energy monopolies historically aligned with U.S. power.

Trump’s assertion that Venezuelan oil had been “stolen” from the United States is revealing. It articulates an imperial ontology in which resources beneath another nation’s soil are treated as legitimate property of capital if monopolies are obstructed. Lenin described precisely this logic when he noted that imperialism reduces sovereignty to a negotiable instrument.

4. Sanctions, Scarcity, and Economic Warfare

Prior to overt intervention, imperialism typically operates through economic coercion. Venezuela has endured one of the most comprehensive sanctions regimes in modern history, targeting its financial system, oil exports, and access to international markets. Numerous studies have documented the humanitarian consequences of these measures, including shortages of medicine and food.

Sanctions function not merely as punitive instruments but as tools of political engineering. By inducing scarcity, they aim to delegitimise governments and fracture social cohesion. When popular discontent fails to produce regime change, sanctions escalate into direct intervention. The abduction of Maduro represents this escalation.

5. Regime Change as an Imperial Modality

5.1 Historical Continuities

The Venezuelan intervention fits a well-established imperial pattern observable across U.S. foreign policy history:

Iran (1953): Overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh following oil nationalisation

Chile (1973): CIA-backed coup against Salvador Allende

Panama (1989): Invasion justified by narcotics charges

Iraq (2003): Fabricated claims of weapons of mass destruction

Libya (2011): NATO intervention resulting in state collapse

In each case, the rhetoric of democracy concealed economic and strategic objectives.

5.2 The Venezuelan Escalation

What distinguishes Venezuela is the explicitness of imperial assertion. Unlike earlier interventions cloaked in multilateral legality, this episode openly discards international norms. The declaration that the United States would “run” Venezuela marks a qualitative shift toward overt imperial governance.

6. International Law and It’s Hollowing Out

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The abduction of a head of state and declaration of administrative control violate this principle unequivocally.

The selective enforcement of international law reveals its subordination to power. While weaker states face sanctions and interventions for violations, hegemonic powers operate with impunity. This asymmetry undermines the legitimacy of the global legal order.

7. Global Responses and the Fracturing of Hegemony

The international reaction to the Venezuelan intervention reveals deep fractures within the unipolar order. Latin American states—including Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, and Uruguay—condemned the action. European allies such as France and Spain expressed grave concern. China and Russia characterised the intervention as aggression.

Support came primarily from Israel and a small number of ideologically aligned regimes, highlighting the narrowing base of imperial legitimacy.

8. Palestine, Iran, and the Geography of Imperial Violence

The Venezuelan episode must be situated within a broader pattern of imperial violence. U.S. support for Israel’s destruction of Gaza, coupled with proposals to transform the territory into a commercial enclave, exemplifies the same logic of dispossession and resource control. Similarly, attacks on Iran under unverifiable security claims reflect imperial prerogative rather than collective security.

Lenin’s insight that imperialism relies on force to protect private interests finds renewed relevance here.

9. Unipolarity, Rivalry, and Systemic Instability

While the world remains formally unipolar, it is increasingly contested. Russia’s war in Ukraine and China’s economic expansion challenge U.S. dominance, though neither represents a fundamentally anti-imperialist alternative. Venezuela’s alignment with these powers heightens its strategic significance.

Unipolarity, however, breeds recklessness. Without effective constraints, hegemonic powers increasingly substitute coercion for consent, accelerating systemic instability.

10. India’s Silence and the Crisis of Democratic Credibility

India’s muted response to the Venezuelan intervention represents a significant departure from its historical anti-imperialist stance. As the world’s largest democracy and a leader of the Global South, India’s silence undermines its moral authority.

Non-alignment was not merely a diplomatic posture but an ethical commitment to sovereignty and self-determination. By failing to condemn the abduction of a sovereign leader, India risks eroding both its constitutional values and strategic autonomy.

11. Imperialism as Parasitism and Decay

Lenin characterised imperialism as parasitic capitalism, sustained by extracting surplus from abroad while stagnation deepens at home. Trump’s claim that Venezuela’s occupation would finance itself through oil revenues exemplifies this parasitism.

Imperialism today offers neither development nor stability. It produces permanent militarisation, humanitarian crises, and political decay.

12. Conclusion: Sovereignty or the Law of the Jungle

The Venezuelan crisis confronts the international community with a stark choice. Either sovereignty remains a universal principle, or it becomes conditional upon submission to imperial power. Either international law retains meaning, or it collapses into rhetorical ornament.

Maduro’s authoritarianism and economic mismanagement—real as they may be—do not legitimise external abduction or imperial administration. The struggle for Venezuela’s future belongs exclusively to its people.

Lenin warned that imperialism intensifies contradictions until the system itself becomes unsustainable. The Venezuelan episode suggests that this warning was not merely prophetic but diagnostic.

References

1.     Lenin, V I (1916): Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.

2.     United Nations (1945): Charter of the United Nations.

3.     Galeano, E (1971): Open Veins of Latin America.

4.     Harvey, D (2003): The New Imperialism.

5.     Chomsky, N (2003): Hegemony or Survival.

6.     Prashad, V (2007): The Darker Nations.

7.     Amin, S (1977): Imperialism and Unequal Development.

8.     Arrighi, G (1994): The Long Twentieth Century.

9.     Reuters (2025): Reports on Venezuela and international reactions.

10.  New York Times (2025): Coverage of U.S. actions in Venezuela.