Nournews: Three days late

On August 28, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump announced an unprecedented agreement to extract oil from Venezuela—one that would effectively place control over Venezuela’s oil resources in U.S. hands for the next 100 years.

Three days later, the White House released further details about the agreement, stating that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had signed it on behalf of Washington.

The announcement, which generated considerable attention, has been and will continue to be examined from various angles. In the modern era, there is hardly a precedent comparable to Venezuela, where the United States intervened in another country, abducted its president, and created a new political order that subsequently enabled the signing of a 100-year agreement granting Washington control over the country’s oil resources.

How should this agreement be analyzed?

First, the agreement reflects a colonialist text and framework. Second, it was concluded within a colonial environment. Third, the deeper meaning of both the text and the circumstances surrounding it echoes a colonial process. And fourth, it signals the return of traditional, old-style colonialism to international relations.

The text of the agreement indicates that the United States would effectively gain control over Venezuela’s 65 billion barrels of oil reserves, with a new company to be established in which the United States would hold a central position. Washington would also have veto power on the company’s board of directors.

The company would become the second-largest and most significant oil enterprise of its kind after Saudi Aramco, which controls oil production in Saudi Arabia. Under the agreement, the United States would assume control over 17 oil fields in Venezuela.

What makes the colonial nature of the agreement even more striking is that it was signed by the U.S. secretaries of state and war. According to the details released, 35 percent of the extracted oil would be allocated to the U.S. Department of War.

The White House’s August 31 explanation was particularly revealing. Among other things, it invoked the Monroe Doctrine and suggested that the agreement should be regarded as a new development.

The Monroe Doctrine refers to the 1823 declaration by then-U.S. Secretary of State James Monroe, which effectively established Latin America as an exclusive sphere of influence for the United States and warned European colonial powers against further intervention and colonial activity on the continent.

The White House statement of August 31 explicitly invoked the Monroe Doctrine while adopting a critical and warning tone toward the two major global powers of today, Russia and China.

However, this tension must also be examined in the context of the authoritarian political environment surrounding the events.

It should not be forgotten that the Trump administration carried out one of its largest military operations in the Caribbean over several months against Venezuela. Interestingly, Washington’s stated justification for its heavy military presence in the region was the fight against drug traffickers.

The U.S. argument was that drugs were being transported from the region into the United States and that military action was therefore necessary to confront so-called narco-terrorism. Under this pretext, the United States targeted dozens of fishing boats, killing a significant number of people.

Washington portrayed the Venezuelan government as a narco-state that had to be confronted.

Following the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the establishment of a new political order in the country, it became clear that drugs and narco-terrorism had served as a pretext for gaining control over Venezuela’s energy resources. The so-called gunboat diplomacy and military projection were targeting not drugs, but energy resources.

What has happened amounts to a return of old-style colonialism to international relations.

Following the Industrial Revolution and the rise of Western powers in international affairs, these powers turned Africa, Asia and Latin America into arenas of economic and strategic competition for roughly four centuries, primarily in pursuit of economic interests, control over natural resources and access to markets. They sought not only to control resources, but also to dominate the sovereignty of the countries concerned.

This colonial competition, accompanied by bloody wars between colonizers and the colonized, eventually came to an end through numerous independence movements, and almost all colonies became independent.

But what came to be known as neocolonialism replaced the old form of colonialism. In other words, the elites and institutions of newly independent countries maintained unequal ties with their former colonial powers.

This phenomenon subsequently underwent various transformations and adaptations. Nevertheless, the use of gunboat diplomacy gradually gave way to complex and intertwined economic, political and cultural networks.

What has unfolded in Venezuela during Trump’s second term represents a return to traditional, old-style colonialism.

Whether this phenomenon will endure, however, is a question for which there is no easy answer. It remains highly uncertain whether such an agreement can genuinely be implemented for the next 100 years.

Trump and his team—particularly Rubio—have their immediate political calculations, including efforts to contain rising energy prices and secure an electoral victory.

At the same time, opposition to this colonial trajectory, both inside Venezuela and beyond its borders, will undoubtedly emerge.

But what should not be forgotten is the intent of those seeking to revive old-style colonialism in international relations.