Following the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power, US President Donald Trump has openly said he intends on taking control of Venezuela’s oil resources, which are, on paper, the world’s largest. While Trump frames this as a necessary payment for US military action and for past nationalizations of US companies’ assets, the unvarnished oil grab seems to ignore the long history of resource nationalism in one of Opec’s founding members. Such a violation of sovereignty is an affront to all Opec countries.

Trump’s stated intention to “run” the Venezuelan oil industry violates the right of the people of Venezuela to permanent sovereignty over its natural resources. It is an act of piracy and an illegal intervention under international law and the principles of the UN charter. By acting unilaterally, his coup de force disregarded Maduro’s head-of-state immunity. It sets a dangerous precedent where powerful states might feel free to use military force or judicial claims to overthrow governments without a self-defense justification or international consent.

The US government claims that its intervention stems from alleged criminal charges, law enforcement against international narcotics counter trade, allegations of corruption, contested elections and political reforms. However, Trump openly admits that part of his motive is access to and takeover of strategic oil resources.

Many analysts view this intervention as reminiscent of the coup by the US and UK in Iran to remove the first democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953, the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003 and the overthrow of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

Opec’s Anti-Colonial Legacy

Resource extraction under foreign control is a hallmark of colonial and neocolonial power relations. The creation of Opec in 1960 — led by Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran — was a revolutionary moment in global justice. At the time, this was only one step in the post-World War II revolt against imperialism and colonialism. Opec members terminated prior concessions and gradually nationalized the upstream assets of European and US oil companies who had for decades exploited their resources. The process — which took longer in some cases than others — was a triumph of legal recognition of human and national rights.

This was achieved peacefully. Western oil companies operating in the countries were compensated either through negotiation or arbitration. If US companies believe they are owed compensation for past nationalizations, they would invoke legal courses. Resolution of a commercial dispute does not require gunboat diplomacy.

Opec attempted to leverage its achievement to aid other developing countries, especially countries that had been victims of colonial exploitation. In 1974, Opec member Algeria called for a “New International Economic Order” during a UN Extraordinary Session. This, in turn, led to the “North-South Dialogue,” discussions under UN auspices concerning trade and tariffs, finance and foreign aid, between countries of the industrialized North and Newly Industrializing Countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Presented as a temporary takeover to serve as a lesson on how the squandered national oil sector could be restored with tangible benefits to the American and Venezuelan people, the US intervention could be seen as a de facto coup to impose a regime change. It is not yet clear how the US administration intends to run the Venezuelan oil industry nor how Venezuela will get to a phase of political stability.

Loss of National Control

The country will remain under US administration and may be deprived of exercising its normal sovereign prerogatives such as the selection of its operating partners, the definition of the terms of their participation as well as the price, volume and destination of their oil exports.

If, in addition, the country is deprived of a fair share of the oil sales proceeds, resulting from Trump’s apparent determination to make the sector more “investable” for the so far reluctant US companies, the profit split could end up being too far in the US interest.

Venezuelan state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela would lose its dominance and gradually cease to function as a unified and integrated state-owned enterprise. There would then be a real risk that Venezuela could slide into a form of neocolonial dependency as control over oil production, revenues and governance structures is exercised externally rather than through Venezuelan institutions.

The US ambition to directly influence the Venezuelan oil sector raises legitimate concerns about the erosion of the country’s economic sovereignty.

Many nations, including Brazil, China, Russia and regional Latin American governments, have condemned the intervention as an act of aggression. Even UN diplomats and some Western allies have expressed serious concern.

Consequences for Opec

The Opec silence in the face of the US neocolonial attack on a symbolic founding fellow member is surprising. The US attempt to claim rights to Venezuela’s oil reserves contradicts legal precedents established by Opec long ago. Opec must stand up and remind the world that humanity rejected colonialism for good reason, and members have no intention of allowing a restoration of Western imperialism today.

Depending on the extent and duration of the US occupation, the question related to the future of Venezuela as a member of Opec may become irrelevant. The country may be forced to leave Opec as the US intentions are not aligned with Opec’s policies and inspiration. It could simply become a powerless observer with no obligation to participate in the Opec production plan, such as Mexico or Brazil. At the extreme, Opec may ask Venezuela to temporarily suspend its membership. Such a decision will not have a serious implication on the Opec production plan. as Venezuela is not subject to quota limitations and the market does not need more Venezuelan oil, at least in the short- to medium term.

How far and how long the US intervention could go remains an open-ended troubling question. It may take a long time for Venezuela to return to a normal situation: It took Iraq more than two decades to bring its oil sector back to normal operations, while Libya is still facing headwinds to return to its historical status 15 years after the 2011 toppling of Gaddafi.

Nordine Ait-Laoussine is a former Algerian oil minister. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.