For decades, the Venezuelan government has only seen one side of the United States. As a socialist dictatorship took hold in the country, a succession of US administrations responded with crushing economic sanctions, criminal prosecutions and, finally, in January, the brazen military operation that captured and overthrew President Nicolás Maduro. After Maduro’s ouster, the relationship became primarily transactional. Venezuela had oil. The United States wanted it. President Donald Trump said he would “rule” the country.
Now, amid the rubble of the earthquakes that have devastated the South American nation, politicians and analysts see an opportunity for Washington and Caracas to transform their relationship into something resembling an alliance: a diplomatic thaw that would represent one of the most rapid geopolitical shifts in contemporary history. “This can be an opportunity to show everyone who has doubts that US cooperation is not just about business,” said Freddy Guevara, a critic of Maduro and former first vice president of Venezuela’s National Assembly.
“It is also about human beings and, ultimately, democracy.” The United States seems to want to take advantage of that opportunity. Within hours of Wednesday night’s back-to-back earthquakes, Trump described Venezuelans as “our great new friends” and promised help for the “great people of Venezuela.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared Thursday morning that had spoken with interim president Delcy RodríguezMaduro’s vice president. Throughout the day, authorities announced a broad deployment of aid, including search and rescue teams from Fairfax County, Virginia, and Los Angeles, to join the search for thousands of people still missing, $150 million in aid and the deployment of the military to manage logistics and transportation.
Rubio affirmed that the United States will remain in the area to collaborate in what is expected to be a long recovery. “We have a comprehensive government response,” Rubio told reporters. “It will be forceful. It will be fast. And it will be effective.” According to analysts, if successful, it could achieve what the overthrow of Maduro has not: improve the daily lives of Venezuelans. The United States overthrew the authoritarian leader, but kept the rest of its repressive security apparatus in place, including officials whom Washington has accused of drug trafficking.
The Trump administration pressured Rodríguez to open the Venezuelan oil industry to greater foreign investment, and American investors flocked to the country with the intention of making profits. However, the majority of the population’s interaction with the government remains the same, and for them the economy has not improved. “Diplomatically, things have improved, but nothing more,” said Ronald Figuera, a commercial salesman from Caracas. “The economy is on the floor and inflation is through the roof.” There are risks to US aid commitments in Venezuela. One of them is the US not keeping its promises.
The administration has dismantled much of the bureaucratic structure, including the Office of Humanitarian Assistance and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), through which international aid was distributed. None of the hospital ships the U.S. typically sends for humanitarian disaster relief were immediately available. The USNS Comfort was being repaired in Mobile, Alabama, and the USNS Mercy was docked in Portland, Oregon, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details on the ships’ status. The US Southern Command said it would make “unmatched airlift, logistics and rescue capabilities” available in Venezuela.
“This is, to my mind, the first evidence of a post-USAID world,” said Michael VanRooyen, director of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. “Without the foundation of what their humanitarian structure was, it is a test of whether the U.S. has the ability to provide such aid outside of that structure.” As he explained, the challenge would be to distinguish between real aid work and mere public image. “If done poorly or poorly,” he said, “this could all look like exploitation and opportunism.” The fact that humanitarian aid appears to be on the verge of being realized represents a significant change from to recent relations between the US and Venezuela.
When torrential rains caused flash floods and landslides that killed tens of thousands of people in what is now the state of La Guaira, the United States was willing to deploy 450 soldiers to help rebuild a local road. Hugo Chávez, who came to power by criticizing American “imperialism,” rejected the aid. On this occasion, the worst of the disaster is concentrated again in La Guaira. However, the difference in the government’s response to the possibility of US aid is notable, said political analyst Eugenio Martínez.
“There is a parallel between what happened in 1999 and the consequences that it entailed, when international aid was rejected for ideological reasons, and what is happening right now, when arms are being opened to receive any type of assistance, regardless of the ideological inclinations of the country that offers it,” he stated. Another danger, according to analysts, is the potential for corruption. If aid becomes an opportunity for bribery rather than humanitarian aid—a possibility in a country with a history of cronyism—the population could become even more disillusioned with their political leaders.
“Aid is a double-edged sword,” said Meg Frost, a political scientist at the University of Rhode Island. “It only restores trust when it demonstrates that the government is competent and honest. In a context of low trust and high corruption, aid, whether delivered—or not—through an opaque process, can instead deepen distrust.” But the disaster represents an opportunity, according to Tulane University researcher David Smilde, to change the fundamental dynamics of a relationship long marked by antagonism.
In La Guaira, the United States will work in a bastion of Chavismo, where many have long seen it as a hostile imperial power. “It’s a crucial moment,” he said. “With a forceful and effective response, the United States could consolidate its position and popularity. As long as there is no repeat of throwing toilet paper rolls at people, as Trump did in Puerto Rico.”