Despite Coddling Maduro, Biden's Dirty Oil Deal Goes Up in Flames
Biden's naïveté towards Maduro did nothing but legitimize the brutal dictator.
Few regimes in the world are as illegitimate, detestable, and antagonistic towards the United States as the Socialist Republic of Venezuela. Yet it is with this nefarious regime that President Biden finds himself at the negotiating table. Mr. Biden, in a fight for his political survival, was driven by the need to increase oil production, an imperative to manage illegal migration more effectively, and not least, the strategic consideration of drawing Venezuela away from its pariah status, back into the community of nations.
In truth, Venezuela epitomizes the capitulation of American foreign policy in South America and is a reminder of the perils of inaction. The United States waged interventions in Korea, Vietnam, and Grenada — these were contexts where American resolve was manifested in the service of resisting the tide of socialism.
In the Monroe Doctrine, the United States made clear that any power intervening in the affairs of any country in the Western hemisphere would be construed as hostility against the United States. Yet, Mr. Maduro has generously granted openings to the new “axis of evil”, specifically Russia, Iran, and China. Moscow, in particular, has thrown a financial lifeline to Mr. Maduro's beleaguered regime, under the guise of aiding with debt and making investments in the oil sector. On the surface, these may seem like standard economic transactions, yet the subtext is clear: they are a pretext for Russia to weave itself into the economic sinew of Venezuela, thereby gaining a lever with which to exert pressure on global oil markets—a lever aimed squarely at the interests of the West.
Historically, the idea of Russians having a military presence would have set off alarm bells in Washington, but this seemed to be of little concern to any of the prior administrations. The United States, historically, would have worked overtime to “dispose of” Mr. Maduro, and install a more friendly regime — but we find ourselves in new times where the appetite for such covert operations and the desire has waned, or at least, evolved.
Not that such an effort would be disastrous, but the fragility of his regime was laid bare on August 4th, 2018. An attempt on Mr. Maduro's life, perpetrated by drones, though failing to achieve its most immediate objective, succeeded in another, unintended way—it laid bare the tenuous nature of his command. The images of his guards, those tasked with the very embodiment of state security, scattering in disarray did more than showcase a momentary lapse; they visually echoed the sentiments of a nation's collective discontent. In the bygone days of geopolitics, such internal uneasiness would have eagerly incited further intervention from Washington, typically prioritizing regional stability and the promotion of democracy to an oppressed populace. Yet, the new isolationist shift in our nation seems to steer us away from such interventions.
Consequently, the Biden administration has found itself in a bit of a bind, as their aversion towards domestic energy production has left the United States grappling with the burden of surging gas prices—a predicament that any incumbent would recognize as perilous in the run-up to an election cycle.
The Biden administration has found energy policy to be its weakness, though it is unsurprising given the amount of amateurs who are in positions of dictating policy. The Biden white house placed out policy statements reminding Americans how it is “so critical that [we] reduce [our] reliance on fossil fuels.” Unfortunately, this announcement was not coupled with an immediate and miraculous announcement of a nuclear fusion breakthrough — which means it is just preposterous and ludicrous.
Mr. Biden's green energy fantasy, an expensive fantasy at that, is not only unfeasible but unsafe. The United States, which owes much of its industrial and political capital to affordable energy, has effectively shirked this power and left itself reliant on hostile regimes. This approach, one might argue, presents a contradiction in both the realms of economic pragmatism and moral consistency. It raises probing questions about the implications for the nation's economic well-being and strategic autonomy. The underlying reasons for these policies, as they stand, remain elusive to those who advocate for an 'America first' approach to energy independence.
Mr. Biden thus found his eye turned to Venezuela, where his administration has decided it is better to buy unrefined filthy oil from a socialist regime, that exists solely for the profit of its bankrollers in Cuba and Russia. One of the prime examples of the cognitive dissonance among the “greenies”, who fixate on climate change, is why it is seemingly better for the United States to buy dirty oil from an authoritarian dictator than produce cleaner energy at home.
It's a curious, yet remarkably underappreciated fact, that as they denounce America's energy production as the harbinger of environmental doom and gloom, the data sings a different tune— we are, in fact, responsible stewards of the environment. For over four decades, we have witnessed an unparalleled increase in energy production, yet, as a result of our innovation and environmental regulation, we have witnessed a record decline in pollution and emissions. The facts are clear: the United States embraces its role as an energy behemoth while also maintaining a responsible commitment to the environment.
Instead of embracing facts, Mr. Biden has instead embraced optics — negative ones. His administration has worked tirelessly in negotiations with Mr. Maduro, all while ignoring the true leader of Venezuela. The energy crisis provided Mr. Biden with a rare opportunity to score a desperately needed foreign policy win, to stick it to our adversaries, and to empower the Venezuelan people to have a government of their choosing.
The Venezuelan National Assembly is, according to the State Department, the only legitimate branch of the Government of Venezuela. In January 2019, they elected Juan Guaidó as President of the Assembly. Mr. Guaidó’s first act was to declare Mr. Maduro’s reelection in 2018, an election littered with fraud and irregularities, as illegitimate — and attempted to assume power under the vacancy clause of the constitution. Unfortunately, Mr. Guaidó soon found himself arrested, though released, his assets were frozen, and he was immediately accused of colluding with foreign governments.
Should the United States enrich a regime that uses such brutal tactics to avoid a peaceful transfer of power? If we must have Venezuelan oil, which we do not need, why did we not lend our support to a democratically elected leader in his struggle? Mr. Biden would respond to these allegations that he has coerced Mr. Maduro into holding free and fair elections, which went about as well as one would expect.
On October 18th, Mr. Biden's administration lifted several sanctions in exchange for a “pinky promise” from Mr. Maduro that the 2024 election would be free and fair. The presidential primary drew millions of voters to the polls, with opposition party candidate Maria Corina Machado winning more than 90% of the vote — meaning that Mr. Maduro would lose in a landslide. Mysteriously, in what seems to be a coincidence, the Maduro handpicked Supreme Court suspended the primary results and ordered a criminal investigation into the electoral process. Ms. Machado's candidacy was banned by the regime, though surely this is a result of sheer coincidence?
Mr. Maduro got what he wanted, the ability to sell oil and gas, a removal of the ban on trading Venezuelan bonds, debt, and equity, and the satisfaction of humiliating the President of the United States. Mr. Biden comes home looking foolish, our country is humiliated, and we are left to reflect on whether our words still hold sway.
It is like “Groundhog Day” for this administration in foreign policy — every action yields the same outcome. Deterring Putin's invasion of Ukraine, a nuclear deal with the Mullahs in Iran, and now an attempt to bring democracy to Venezuela — all of Mr. Biden’s attempts at diplomacy have failed. The State Department insisted that it will reimpose sanctions if any part of the deal is violated, though so far no such undertaking has occurred.
One cannot help but question the wisdom of this entire engagement. Is the allure of foreign oil, promises from a brutal dictator, and the long-term geopolitical chess game worth these compromises? These are negotiations laced with concessions, and concessions to a regime of this nature come at a cost, both morally and diplomatically. And, despite the best of intentions and the loftiest of promises, we emerge from these negotiations with nothing that one would deem a victory.