Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s interim president, is staunchly defending a contentious energy agreement with the United States, asserting that Venezuela will maintain its control and sovereignty over its vast oil resources. This assertion comes in response to intense criticism within the country. Rodríguez, who assumed the presidency earlier this year following the removal of Maduro in a U.S.-backed operation, addressed the nation to dispel allegations that she is ceding national assets to the U.S.
Rodríguez highlighted the potential advantages of the deal, suggesting it could generate more than $209 billion in revenue and elevate Venezuela to the status of a leading energy producer. She emphasized that the country’s enormous oil reserves are of little value without the necessary investment, technology, and infrastructure to turn them into tangible economic growth for Venezuelans. The agreement, which reportedly took months to negotiate in secrecy, would grant the U.S. a significant stake in Venezuela’s crude reserves, which are the largest proven reserves globally, surpassing those of Saudi Arabia and Iran. The deal involves 17 key oilfields, aiming for a production target of over 1.5 million barrels per day.
The announcement has sparked considerable backlash from both opposition figures and members within Rodríguez’s political circle. Detractors have labeled the agreement as a grab for resources, with a former state oil executive condemning it as a betrayal of national sovereignty and noting that Venezuela has never before transferred reserves of this magnitude. Protests erupted in Caracas, with demonstrators decrying what they see as foreign encroachment, while social media users ridiculed the deal, suggesting a rebranding of the national oil company.
This development marks a notable shift for Rodríguez and her political movement, which has traditionally opposed foreign control over Venezuela’s natural assets. Rodríguez herself had previously spoken out against such arrangements. Opposition leaders are concerned that the agreement could hinder the push for democratic elections in the country, raising questions about when a future vote might occur. Critics argue that sustainable economic benefit from the deal hinges on transparent governance and free elections, warning that without these, the agreement could be built on shaky ground.