--- title: 'From “The Devil” to “Venezuela Is Being Reborn”: The Extraordinary Reversal of Chavism' url: 'https://contextura.world/americas/from-the-devil-to-venezuela-is-being-reborn-the-extraordinary-reversal-of-chavism' markdown: 'https://contextura.world/americas/from-the-devil-to-venezuela-is-being-reborn-the-extraordinary-reversal-of-chavism.md' date: '2026-09-25' description: "Twenty years ago, Hugo Chávez stood at the podium of the United Nations General Assembly and delivered one of the most memorable speeches in the institution's history. On September 20, 2006, the Venezuelan president pointed toward the podium where George W. Bush had spoken the previous day and decl…" --- # [From “The Devil” to “Venezuela Is Being Reborn”: The Extraordinary Reversal of Chavism](https://contextura.world/americas/from-the-devil-to-venezuela-is-being-reborn-the-extraordinary-reversal-of-chavism) 25th Sep 2026 Twenty years ago, Hugo Chávez stood at the podium of the United Nations General Assembly and delivered one of the most memorable speeches in the institution's history. On September 20, 2006, the Venezuelan president pointed toward the podium where George W. Bush had spoken the previous day and declared: “Yesterday the devil came here. It still smells of sulfur today.” Chávez accused Bush of representing U.S. imperialism and described Washington's foreign policy as a project of domination, exploitation and pillage. The symbolism of that speech has become extraordinary in 2026. On September 23, 2026, Chávez's political successor, acting President Delcy Rodríguez, stood at the same General Assembly and thanked Donald Trump for his willingness to resume relations with Venezuela. “Today, Venezuela is being reborn,” she told world leaders. The woman representing the government that emerged from Chávez's political movement was now thanking the American president whose administration had carried out a military operation that removed Nicolás Maduro from power less than nine months earlier. It is difficult to imagine a more dramatic illustration of how quickly geopolitical realities can overturn political rhetoric. The January 3 operation was not a minor diplomatic disagreement. U.S. forces conducted military operations inside Venezuela, captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and transported them to the United States, where they subsequently faced U.S. criminal charges. President Trump also said the United States would run Venezuela temporarily while a political transition was arranged. The legal controversy surrounding that operation is substantial. The UN Secretary-General said he was deeply concerned that international law had not been respected and emphasised the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states. The UN human rights office subsequently stated that the military operation violated international law and said that even Venezuela's serious human rights record could not justify unilateral military intervention. That makes what happened afterward even more striking. Rodríguez initially inherited a government whose political identity had been built around resistance to Washington. Chávez had spent years portraying U.S. power as an imperial force that sought control over Latin America. Yet the government that emerged after his successor was captured has progressively moved toward cooperation with Washington, particularly in energy and finance. The transformation is visible in the oil sector. In March, the U.S. Treasury issued General License 52 authorizing certain transactions involving Venezuela's state oil company, PDVSA. The authorization was subsequently expanded through amendments and related licenses. By September, the Treasury's General License 52C authorized established U.S. entities to engage in a broad range of transactions involving PDVSA, including the purchase, sale, and transportation of Venezuelan oil as well as new investment contracts and joint ventures in the country's oil and gas sector. American companies have consequently moved back toward direct commercial relationships with Venezuela's oil industry. Reuters reported that Phillips 66 and Citgo were seeking direct purchases of Venezuelan crude from PDVSA, while Valero was preparing to do the same. By mid-2026, U.S. refiners and other oil companies were increasingly purchasing Venezuelan crude directly from the state oil company. This does not mean that Venezuela has simply handed its oil industry to Washington. The legal and commercial arrangements are more complicated than that. Venezuela retains formal ownership of PDVSA and its natural resources, while U.S. licenses establish the conditions under which American companies can participate. But the direction of travel is unmistakable: the government that once defined itself through resistance to U.S. economic influence is now negotiating with Washington over energy, investment, debt and access to international finance. The financial transformation is equally significant. In April, the International Monetary Fund formally resumed dealings with Venezuela after suspending them in 2019 because of the dispute over recognition of the Venezuelan government. The IMF said the decision allows regular engagement to resume, including economic surveillance, technical assistance and potential access to IMF financial support under its normal policies. For Rodríguez, this is being presented as reintegration rather than surrender. Her message at the UN was that Venezuela was recovering from an extraordinary year and rebuilding its international relationships. Critics, however, see something very different. Some argue that Washington has shifted from demanding political change through sanctions and isolation toward securing economic and strategic access to Venezuelan resources while working with the government that emerged after Maduro's removal. Reuters reported that Venezuelan officials at the current General Assembly are negotiating energy, debt, and mining arrangements with U.S. and international institutions, while longer-term agreements with major American companies are also being discussed. That is where the Chávez legacy becomes particularly difficult to reconcile with the Venezuela of 2026. Chávez's political project was not merely about opposing George W. Bush personally. It was built around national sovereignty, state control over strategic resources, resistance to U.S. influence and opposition to the neoliberal economic model that he believed had subordinated Latin American countries to external interests. Twenty years later, the language has changed almost completely. The Venezuelan government is seeking renewed access to the IMF. U.S. companies are returning directly to the Venezuelan oil market. Washington is deeply involved in the country's political transition. Venezuelan officials are negotiating with American businesses over energy and natural resources, and the country's acting president is standing before the United Nations thanking Donald Trump for reopening relations. Perhaps the most uncomfortable lesson is that revolutionary rhetoric is easier to maintain when a government possesses political and economic room to resist. Once a country is devastated by years of economic crisis, sanctions, political conflict and institutional breakdown, the practical choices facing its leaders can become radically different. That does not automatically prove that the new arrangements are good or bad for Venezuelans. It does, however, raise a legitimate question about sovereignty: when a powerful foreign state has militarily intervened, removed a sitting leader, and subsequently becomes deeply involved in the country's energy and financial reconstruction, how much freedom does the successor government actually have in negotiating the terms of that relationship? That question is particularly relevant because Trump's own January statements went far beyond ordinary diplomatic pressure. The U.S. president publicly said Washington would run Venezuela temporarily, while the UN Secretary-General warned that the operation could establish a dangerous precedent for relations between states, and that brings us back to Chávez's famous “sulfur” speech. In 2006, Chávez stood before the world and warned against a global order in which powerful countries could dominate weaker ones. In 2026, his successor stood in the same institution and thanked the leader of the country that had just demonstrated its extraordinary ability to determine Venezuela's political future. History does not always move in straight lines. Sometimes it moves in circles, only to reveal how much the balance of power has changed. Twenty years after Chávez accused Washington of imperialism from the UN podium, Venezuela is negotiating with Washington from a position dramatically different from the one Chávez imagined. Rodríguez calls it a rebirth. Her critics may call it accommodation under pressure. Whatever terminology one chooses, the contrast between those two UN speeches is impossible to miss. In 2006, Chávez told America that Venezuela would not bend. In 2026, Venezuela is saying that it is being reborn. The question is whether that rebirth represents the recovery of Venezuelan sovereignty under new circumstances, or the beginning of a new relationship in which Venezuela's strategic resources and political future are increasingly shaped by the power that Chávez spent his presidency resisting. That is the real story behind the extraordinary journey from “the devil” to “thank you, President Trump.” --- ## Navigation - Parent: [Americas](https://contextura.world/americas.md) - Previous: [Are American Presidents Above the Law? Obama, Libya and the Politics of War Without Accountability](https://contextura.world/americas/are-american-presidents-above-the-law-obama-libya-and-the-politics-of-war-without-accountability.md) - Next: [When a Foreign Flag Becomes a Political Flashpoint in Washington](https://contextura.world/americas/when-a-foreign-flag-becomes-a-political-flashpoint-in-washington.md)