photo credit: Carter Shilling
It was a quiet night in Caracas, Venezuela. The air was warm, and the slightest breeze echoed through the streets as the city slowed down to make way for the tranquility of the night. But this mirage of serenity was hiding something much more ominous, and the silence of the night was soon interrupted by the sound of low-flying planes and a booming explosion.
At 2 a.m. on Jan. 3, U.S. military forces bombed Caracas’ main military base, Fuerte Tiuna and captured both Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores through the military operation Absolute Resolve.
This operation was formulated with the intention of capturing President Maduro and trying him on counts of narco-terrorism, drug trafficking and weapons charges. Maduro pled not guilty on all counts
Valentina Infante is a senior at the high school who immigrated to the United States from Venezuela in 2022 and witnessed the effects of Maduro’s destructive presidency first-hand.
“My initial reaction [to Maduro’s capture] was surprise, as it was something many had been expecting yet no one knew how, when, where or even if it would actually happen,” Infante said. “People were waiting anxiously which placed both the country and Venezuelans abroad in a constant state of tension.”
The inception of this tension can be traced far back into Venezuelan history, beginning in 1999 with the election of Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez, according to Frank Muci from the London School of Economics.
Chavez was known most notably for implementing poor macroeconomic policy and cyclical spending during his term. Venezuela’s economy relies strongly on oil, and instead of saving the money generated from their exports, government spending outpaced income from taxes and other revenue.
In 2013, Chavez passed away and appointed Maduro as his successor, but the change in presidency did not bring change to the struggling state of the country.
In 2014, oil prices plummeted from $100 per barrel to $40 per barrel, but due to the extreme debt the country was already in, Venezuela was dug into an even deeper hole. The Central Bank of Venezuela was tasked with printing more money, but their currency was rendered almost worthless and inflation increased 65,000 percent by 2018, according to Muci.
Under Maduro, the government stripped millions of acres of private property from citizens and transferred them into national property. Private sectors of the economy were also stripped and price/profit controls went into effect, destroying investments and only giving government assisted exchange rates to cronies and political allies.
Venezuela’s poor economic framework led them to be the victims of the largest economic decline in history outside of war, revolution, or state collapse and it is believed that over 7.9 million people have left Venezuela since the start of the crisis.
While the capture of Maduro sparks hope among many Venezuelans, the future for the struggling country is uncertain.
“We really don’t know if this event will have a lasting impact as full change has not yet occurred,” Infante said. “Although Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were captured, the so-called ‘Chavismo’ remains in power and continues to control Venezuela. Within the country, many people cannot openly express their thoughts due to fear of reprisals, censorship, or persecution.”
Along with the fear of a continuing dictatorship are worries of the United States’ intentions in capturing Maduro and ‘controlling’ Venezuela.
Leslie Hosgood is an AP United States History teacher at the high school and argues that United States intervention in Latin America is nothing new, and for centuries U.S. politicians have intervened in Latin countries to varying degrees.
“Theodore Roosevelt’s “Roosevelt Corollary” essentially saw the US positioning itself as a “police power” in Latin America,” Hosgood said. “This theme of intervention in Latin America reached new levels during the Cold War. The U.S. attempted to or successfully orchestrated regime change in countries like Cuba, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, and Panama.”
While the ousting of communist leaders and mediation in extreme socialist countries was a positive thing in theory, the United States almost always had ulterior motives.
“The justification for action was usually to oust a pro-Communist or Soviet aligned government, while also protecting American business interests,” Hosgood said. “For example, we fought the Spanish in Cuba and supported Panamanians declaring independence from Colombia as a way to get land rights for the Panama Canal.”
It is understood that the most recent motive for the United States’ involvement in Venezuela is to secure oil reserves there, many politicians arguing that the action taken would prevent competitors such as Russia or China from accessing these reserves.
Regardless of hidden motives or past failures, the ousting of Maduro marks a new chapter of Venezuelan history that many are looking to with hope. While it is uncertain what the future will hold, many Venezuelans are grateful to turn a new page.
“Honestly, I hope this chapter concludes with a return to the Venezuela that existed before the governments of Chavez and Maduro – a country where democracy was respected.” Infante said.
