Related videos:
The promise of oil transparency in the "new Venezuela" of Delcy Rodríguez is beginning to show increasingly visible cracks.
While Washington insists that it supervises Venezuelan oil revenues following the fall of Nicolás Maduro, journalistic investigations and NGO reports warn that much of the opacity inherited from chavismo remains intact.
A report published by The New York Times revealed this week that the Venezuelan oil industry continues to operate as a “black box,” despite the promises of Donald Trump and the new interim government to make PDVSA transparent and end decades of corruption.
The investigation reveals that, for years, networks associated with the Maduro regime diverted billions of dollars through shell companies, opaque contracts, and unsupervised oil sales.
The American newspaper particularly points out Carlos Malpica Flores, nephew of Cilia Flores, as a key figure in the parallel management of Venezuelan oil wealth.
According to internal documents cited by the American newspaper, companies linked to Malpica exported crude oil valued at 11 billion dollars between 2021 and 2022 without paying PDVSA.
Although the Trump administration claims to have imposed audits and control mechanisms on Venezuelan oil sales, doubts are increasing. "For the first time in decades, Venezuela is selling its oil on the global market at full market price, and the money is coming back to Venezuela and being spent for the benefit of the Venezuelan people," stated Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the end of March.
However, the NGO Transparencia Venezuela reported this week that the official portal “Transparencia Soberana,” created by Rodríguez to supposedly inform about the use of public funds, barely shows a single transaction of 300 million dollars and does not clarify who purchased the oil or how the money was actually spent.
The criticism becomes more delicate because, according to Michael Kozak, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Washington has reportedly funneled about 3 billion dollars to Caracas from oil sales. However, that figure is not reflected on the official Venezuelan portal.
“The page is lying,” stated Mercedes de Freitas, director of Transparency Venezuela, who questioned the lack of details regarding contracts, buyers, and the final destination of the resources.
The situation is particularly sensitive because President Trump has turned the Venezuelan case into a showcase for his hemispheric policy.
Since January, the White House has insisted that the United States will maintain oversight over Venezuelan oil exports and will promote multimillion-dollar investments to rebuild the country's energy industry.
But the situation begins to raise uncomfortable questions for Cuba.
For months, Trump and Rubio have intensified their rhetoric against Havana, insisting that the Cuban regime is corrupt, inefficient, and directly responsible for the island's economic ruin.
The message from Washington clearly points towards an eventual political change in Cuba. However, what is happening in Venezuela demonstrates how difficult it can be to dismantle financial structures created over decades by authoritarian regimes.
Because if in Venezuela —under direct U.S. supervision, announced audits, and international pressure— doubts persist about the management of PDVSA, what could happen in Cuba with the economic structure of GAESA, the military companies, and the financial networks historically controlled by the castrismo?
The Venezuelan case demonstrates that removing a figure from power does not necessarily dismantle the mechanisms of corruption built around the State.
In Caracas, many economic operators of the chavismo remain active within the new oil scheme. This fuels the fear that, in a hypothetical scenario of a Cuban transition, structures linked to the military and business power of the regime may recycle themselves, retain privileges, and keep shadowy areas beyond true citizen control.
For millions of Cubans, especially those inside and outside the island, the big question would not only be whether there will be a political change, but whether there would truly be transparency regarding decades of opaque businesses, foreign accounts, and fortunes accumulated under the umbrella of military power.
Filed under: