LaDue presents her research and opinions on the existence of Nicolás Maduro’s “Cartel de los Soles” at the Paul Meek Library on Wednesday, Jan. 14, in Martin, TN | (Pacer Photo/Ethan Tanner)

In response to the United States’ most recent foreign policy controversy, the Paul Meek Library hosted a discussion panel to discuss the history and reasoning behind the intervention in Venezuela at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 14.

Ever since President Donald Trump captured Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, political experts have offered various different theories as to why Trump took such a bold move and whether his actions were just or helped the greater good.

Panelists included Chair David Coffey, Phd, of the Department of History and Philosophy, Assistant Professor Britt Koehnlein, Phd, of the Department of Political Science and Global Studies and Information Literacy Librarian Johnnie LaDue, Phd.

The discussion started with Coffey’s explanation of how Venezuela was sought after since the 1920s, detailing why Latin American countries and their resources have been so desirable to more powerful nations.

“Venezuela wasn’t a target of [their] interventions, but it was intervened in anyway, economically and culturally. The United States put a stamp on Venezuela early, but seriously beginning in the 1920s with the first oil well,” she said.

Coffey went on to describe how the United States left a heavy footprint in Venezuela’s economy and culture, before distancing itself from the country in the past couple of decades to focus on finding oil elsewhere.

“The influence of American oil interests and engineering expertise had a huge effect on Venezuela’s development,” she said. “The price of oil plummeted. It was expensive doing business in Venezuela. And so, the United States, most of the oil companies compensated.”

Koehnlein, in her first public speech event on the UT Martin campus, then described the “broader picture” and “competing interests” that define this unique incident. Koehnlein claimed that the Venezuela situation was neither a war or a regime change, but was best defined as an incursion.

“This was a targeted military operation that crossed an international border that resulted in the removal of a sitting head of state from office,” she said.

Even though she believed that this was a violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty by international law, Koehnlein made sure to reiterate that Maduro was not a good leader to his citizens in Venezuela.

“Many Venezuelans were not supporters of Maduro, and for most ordinary Venezuelan people life has become worse since he was originally elected, including food shortages, medical shortages, mass migration and the erasure of basic public services,” she said.

She continued to discuss how there was plenty of evidence that suggested that Maduro had won by election fraud in 2024 and that his removal was in the best interest of the average Venezuelan.

While it seemed obvious to Koehnlein that the ordinary Venezuelans supported ousting Maduro while the elites preferred his leadership, she found the United States’ interests much more complicated.

“Most U.S. companies do not operate in Venezuela anymore. U.S. foreign policy towards Venezuela has been shaped by sanctions, energy concerns and regional instability,” she said. “Despite this, there has been growing U.S. interest in reestablishing economic and diplomatic ties in Venezuela, but this would have been difficult under Maduro.”

Koehnlein believed that Maduro was a bad leader by most standards, but worried that the U.S. might communicate the wrong message by violating international law to oust the corrupt Venezuelan politician.

“By ignoring international law and international norms, the U.S. has told those countries that these laws and norms do not matter,” she said. “It sends a strong signal that rules apply selectively, and that’s where this precedent becomes dangerous.”

LaDue was the final speaker to present her thoughts and feelings about the intervention of Venezuela, where she discussed and debunked what she saw as the justifications for Maduro’s removal. She provided evidence through screenshots of new headlines that were all compiled into a slide presentation as he dissected the supposed “information warfare” in U.S. media.

“The dominant ideas of society come from the ruling class because they are the ones that own the means of production. They own all the publishers, the TV stations, the radio stations, etc.,” she said.

LaDue claimed the Cartel do los Soles was not an actual group and that drug trafficking was not as big of a problem in Venezuela as many thought.

“According the U.N. office on drugs and crime, Venezuela is not a major producer of coca, which is the primary drug they are accused of trafficking,” she said.

She also argued that the Venezuela government had little to do with the criminal group known as Tren de Aragua, and even went on to assert that the 2024 Venezuelan election fraud claims may be false since everyone who supported said claims had connections to the IMF, World Bank and the opposing party itself.

“Whether there was election fraud or not I can’t say with certainty, but its certainly not as clear-cut a case as you can find in other countries around the world,” he said.

LaDue came to the conclusion that the intervention was orchestrated because the U.S. wanted control over the country’s oil reserves, especially since oil companies were notified beforehand and Trump’s frequent comments concerning “taking the oil.”

“The Venezuelan opposition is openly saying it’s about the oil,” he said. “Maria Machado’s pitch is essentially, ‘put me in charge and I’ll make you even richer.'”

LaDue went on to reiterate that the media was on the side of the government and big business and that the layman should remember that before listening to news about the ousting of Venezuela’s President Maduro.

The panel sparked much discussion afterwards, as the world awaits to see how leadership will shift in Venezuela and what the United States’ next foreign intervention will be.