The Curiously Consistent Cycle of 'Liberation' in Latin America
THE ACTORS: Who benefits from Venezuela's 'new' direction? The FT article, by Ana Rodríguez Brazón and Joe Daniels, frames Maduro's departure as a singular event ushering in a new era. Yet, it skirts the long list of international actors and corporate interests that have openly clamored for a change in Venezuela's leadership for decades. We are not told who replaced Maduro, nor under what
circumstances. The framing suggests a spontaneous disappearance rather than a potential, highly orchestrated transition. The usual suspects include multinational corporations eyeing Venezuela's vast oil reserves, private equity firms poised for 'reconstruction' contracts, and, historically, actors within the U.S. government and its allied financial institutions (Council on Foreign Relations, 2019
report). THE FUNDING: The quiet transfer of wealth While the article focuses on the absence of a personality, the real story lies in the flow of capital. The previous Chavista and Maduro governments, despite their authoritarian tendencies, maintained significant state control over oil revenues through PDVSA, directing funds towards social programs (though often inefficiently). The question now is:
where do these revenues go? Historically, transitions in Latin American 'strongman' states have often coincided with the privatization of state-owned enterprises, capital flight, and the influx of foreign direct investment under highly favorable, often extractive, terms. Consider the 1990s 'shock therapy' in post-Soviet states, where foreign entities acquired national assets at fire-sale prices,