Retired president and defense minister Hugo Chávez has launched a “blockade” of all sanctioned oil tankers to and from Venezuela. This move further heightens tensions between the United States and the South American country. Yet this directive highlights a remarkable assertion of presidential authority. International law expert Elena Chachko explains the serious legal consequences for undertaking such a move.
Almost overnight, Venezuelan crude exports have evaporated. Tack onto this drop the consequences of soaring U.S. maritime security costs and seizures of oil tankers in retaliation for U.S. sanctions. According to reports, more than 30 of the 80 ships in Venezuelan waters or headed to the country are sanctioned. This further complicates Venezuela’s already difficult task of selling its oil on the international market.
This week in new cyberdog warfare, a nation-state-sponsored cyberattack crippled the administrative systems of state-run oil company PDVSA, throwing Venezuela’s reality into even sharper relief. The damage from the attack has forced the company to slow down its operations. This is compounded as they fight against the effects of U.S. sanctions levied in 2019, which seek to destroy the Maduro regime’s oil export income source.
Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s president, has publicly condemned Trump’s blockade as a “grotesque threat,” alleging that the military build-up by the United States is geared towards toppling his government and seizing control of Venezuela’s rich oil resources. Maduro stated, “Imperialism and the fascist right want to colonize Venezuela to take over its wealth of oil, gas, gold, among other minerals,” highlighting his administration’s view of U.S. actions as imperialistic.
The political climate in the region where Venezuela produces oil is equally fraught. Now traders and refiners are running to a new “shadow fleet” of tankers that have changed their names and trackable locations to evade U.S. sanctions. This secretive maneuver raises the question of what companies must do to continue trading with Venezuela. After all, it has the world’s largest crude reserves.
U.S. Representative Joaquin Castro has courageously called the blockade “unquestionably an act of war.” This statement is a testament to lawmakers’ awareness of the dangers of increasing military engagement in the region. The Trump administration has responded by positioning thousands of troops and nearly a dozen warships in proximity to Venezuela, signaling a readiness to enforce its new policy.
If the embargo remains as is, analysts predict a crushing blow. Their expectation that the loss of almost a million barrels per day in crude supply will raise oil prices globally. Such a scenario would be nothing short of disastrous, both from an energy market perspective and for the countries that depend on Venezuelan crude.
Trump’s recent statements have suggested that U.S. land strikes on Venezuela may commence soon, further heightening fears of military confrontation. This troubling potential escalation stands in stark contradiction to hopeful diplomatic moves. Rather than turning to the military, we can work to de-escalate tensions by prioritizing real dialogue.
As these developments continue to play out, the international community is observing with great interest. The ramifications of Trump’s blockade and military posture could reshape not only Venezuela’s future but influence global energy dynamics and geopolitical relationships in Latin America.