The Trump administration is reestablishing diplomatic ties with Venezuela following the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, a move driven in part by U.S. Interest in Venezuelan oil reserves. The shift comes as Venezuela’s interim government, led by Delcy Rodríguez, announced an amnesty for political prisoners, a concession coinciding with the renewed engagement with Washington.
The amnesty’s true intent remains unclear, according to Venezuelan sociologist Verónica Zubillaga, who specializes in urban violence and state repression. “We are at an unprecedented crossroads,” Zubillaga stated in an interview with CIVICUS. “Venezuela…are reconfiguring themselves in such a way that some opening could result. However, there is still a risk that an authoritarian model will be consolidated, with economic and humanitarian concessions, but without real democratisation.”
The release of political prisoners, a long-standing demand in negotiations with international actors, has been occurring in phases, beginning in early February and accelerating with the enactment of the Amnesty Law on February 19th. However, Zubillaga cautioned that the amnesty should not be viewed as a substitute for broader justice measures. “There has been no mention yet of initiating processes to seek the truth, hold those responsible accountable, provide reparations or dismantle the repressive apparatus, which are urgent,” she said.
Civil society groups have played a key role in advocating for the release of political prisoners, a cause that transcends political divides within Venezuela. Following the disputed presidential election of July 28, 2024, protests erupted, leading to the arrest of many, including young people, further highlighting the authoritarian nature of Maduro’s government, according to Zubillaga. Women, particularly mothers and sisters of those detained, have been central to organizing demonstrations and demanding their release.
The renewed U.S. Interest in Venezuelan oil is a significant factor in the shifting dynamics. According to reports, the Trump administration is prioritizing oil investment opportunities, a stance that has drawn criticism from elements within the Venezuelan opposition, such as María Corina Machado, who sense excluded from key decision-making processes. This exclusion has altered the internal political balance within the opposition, historically divided between those favoring external pressure and those prioritizing internal negotiation.
Zubillaga noted that the opposition’s ability to coordinate has been crucial to its successes, citing the 2015 legislative and 2024 presidential elections as examples. However, she also pointed to the challenges of sustaining momentum and withstanding setbacks, particularly after the government’s crackdown following the 2024 election. “The opposition lacked a long-term strategy to sustain its gains and withstand setbacks. What we have is still one of the biggest challenges today,” Zubillaga explained.
The international community, particularly Latin American states, could have taken a firmer stance following the 2024 electoral fraud, Zubillaga argued. She warned that the U.S. Military operation in Venezuela signals a potential pattern of intervention in Latin American countries under the recent U.S. National security strategy. With the U.S. Focused on energy interests, demands for democratization may be sidelined, potentially leading to an economically stable but authoritarian regime.
The situation remains volatile, with the possibility of instability and political violence if the civil-military coalition in power fractures, given the tradition of anti-imperialist sentiment within the Venezuelan armed forces. Ironically, Zubillaga suggested that the focus on energy interests could lead to a new unifying cause for the opposition – defending Venezuelan oil interests – potentially fostering agreements between the post-Maduro government and opposition forces.
