- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
The U.S. has struck a deal to take majority control of more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s oil reserves, nine months after the U.S. military abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores in a raid on Caracas and two months after The New York Times revealed that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has become the de facto viceroy of Venezuela, effectively controlling Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources and its government. The new oil deal gives the Department of Defense a 35% stake in a joint U.S.-Venezuelan private company that now holds 100-year leases to 17 oil fields. It also gives the U.S. the right to buy some of the oil produced at cost — a major triumph for the Trump administration as the war on Iran depletes the United States’ strategic oil reserves. Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez claims U.S. investment in Venezuela’s oil industry will jumpstart the country’s floundering economy, but critics, including Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodríguez, say the deal is not only “unfavorable to Venezuela” but also appears to violate the Venezuelan Constitution.
You must log in or register to comment.
Colonialism never stopped, it just has Stars and Stripes instead of a Union Jack.
A contract made under duress, like having a gun to your head, is not a valid contract. The dumb, rapist, Donald Trump, should know that seeing how many contracts he’s violated in his lifetime. These leases are not legal and will not be valid after this administration is gone.
The US always does this and always will.
They’ve been trying to get Venezuela back since Chavez.
I highly doubt the DNC would disqualify the contracts. These contracts will not outlive the fall of the US Empire itself though.
I’d say that Venezuela would be able to disqualify the contracts and they would be on stable legal footing. The question is whether the American people will stop being evil imperialists and support Venezuela’s right to do so, or whether there would be another jingoistic movement to seize “their” oil.
Serious question for you: how exactly do you see the American people doing anything about this beyond trying to vote out the fascists? The decades of protests since Iraq accomplished nothing, whether it was the Iraq war, Occupy, BLM or ICE.
General strikes, protests in the streets and government buildings, recall elections when available, voting for candidates who are anti-imperialism. The protests of the past few decades haven’t accomplished enough because only a very small percentage of Americans actually get out to protest. The problem is one of general apathy from the American electorate.
The protests of the past few decades haven’t accomplished enough because only a very small percentage of Americans actually get out to protest.
Let me guess, the magical 3,5%?
I know that the Center for American Progress put out that 3.5% number, but I think it’s too low and basically means that 96.5% either don’t care enough or don’t agree, which I think is the bigger problem.
The US has fallen into this decline because, in my opinion, too much apathy exists and isn’t appropriately ridiculed. Almost 40% of eligible voters don’t participate and apart from impacts from disenfranchisement, that’s something to call out and ridicule. Of the people who do follow politics, only about 20% have ever attended any sort of protest.
Statesians do not control the state, capitalists do. That’s why the DNC would not cancel it in my opinion.
Do you think a Democrat run administration would attack Venezuela if it unilaterally decided that the lease agreements it made under threat were not valid? I’m arguing from the POV of the Venezuelans and think they can, should, and will rescind this agreement once Trump is finally gone.
Nobody remembers Juan Guaido except for leftists it seem.
They did worse for less.
Yes, absolutely the DNC would.
On repudiation of the contracts the companies would take them to court, secure a large judgement, then get the court to seize assets for them. The democrats wouldn’t stop it.
How? What consideration did the Venezuelan side have? From a legal standpoint, is consideration not required for a valid contract?
Law is class power. From a legal standpoint, the law is whatever the ruling class says it is.
No matter how iron clad air tight the Venezuelan legal defense is, a US court can just say “nuh-uh” and seize assets.
This exact scenario already happened, was it chevron? I forget but chevron never left, exxon and the other majors left when they nationalized, that was before chevron merged with some other dickheads if I recall and were somewhat smaller but still large. Now they are fucking satan incarnate but that’s another story.
The oli major filed a case in fed court in texas, the court ruled for the company, not sure if Venezuela sent an attorney even, and the court was petitioned to seize assets, which they did, including some billions of dollars worth of oil refineries if I recall but I don’t quite recall.
But ships, oil cargoes, all sorts of shit, the US can seize. Because who is going to stop them?
Official “enemy states” like Venezuela are enemy States for both parties, and their populations are considered less than human for the sake of foreign intervention and adventurism by the entire US political establishment.
Want proof? Look at how nominally left and liberal allies to the US in government treated and treat the US’ behaviour in Venezuela. They don’t give a fuck.
Legal footing means nothing. Might makes right as of now.
No legal footing has less of foothold than international law either.
If (when,) they repudiate the contracts, US courts will freeze assets outside of the US for the complainants, if not arrest and charge people they kidnap unlawfully or not from other countries.
Long history of that though. For example its still our reasoning for Guantánamo Bay.
“Oil Grab” is a surprising white washing of imperialistic plundering, considering this is truthout.org
I mean “oil grab” is a pretty non-consentual thing. Fits the bill for me. They literally took over the country, put their guy in, then grabbed the oil. Basically Iraq all over again but with no declaration of war and a lot less bombs.
The oil majors didn’t even want these, the administration forced them into it. They are worried about governmental and societal certainty, which is very in the air there.
I’m pretty sure big oil wants more oil. If govenment stops letting them take the oil they will just coup them again. Why does big oil not want this?
They do, but they do risk analysis. Money put in, to money earned, and in a country like this, with the way this deal was made, they don’t believe the odds of the agreement standing for long enough to make them bank is good.
The coups don’t cost them any money, it’s the tax payers that pay for that.
They have to put billions into these fields to make them profitable.
They don’t have to extract the oil if they don’t want to, but clearly it’s profitable for them because they are extracting oil.
They think they will lose on bet, but they are joining because the gangsterr king, that is the proez of usa, can’t make this shit up
I don’t understand the wording of that sentence.
The least efficient oil fields in the world iirc.
Winning so fuckin hard
Also the largest proven reserves in the entire world.
