Washington should reimpose all the sanctions adopted against the authoritarian government of President Maduro, writes the Financial Times, citing Rador Radio Romania.

These are the kind of extravagant territorial claims any authoritarian leader would drool over.

The call to annex two-thirds of the neighbor’s much smaller territory aims to correct a historical injustice. Access to a rich offshore oil field makes this venture even more attractive, in addition to the lure of onshore gold and diamonds.

The revolutionary president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, could not resist the temptation. Leading a propaganda campaign complete with rousing reggaeton songs and school trips to instill patriotic values, Maduro last week held a referendum to ask voters whether they wanted to annex Guyana’s Essequibo region to the less populated and more jungle-covered Venezuela.

The official press trumpeted the approval of the vast majority of the population, despite the low turnout attested to by witnesses. Maduro has ordered state-owned oil and gas companies to issue permits to drill in the Essequibo region’s delicate ecosystem, redrew Venezuela’s official map and designated a new military zone covering a disputed region the size of Greece.

But Maduro’s antics also have broader geopolitical implications. Venezuela is an authoritarian regime supported by Russia, China and Iran. Moscow has provided him with weapons, although it is rumored that his army is in a precarious state. On the other hand, Guyana is a democratic country close to the West. Thanks to the discovery of oil last year, it has become the world’s fastest growing economy.

Backed by the US and Great Britain, Guyana has condemned Venezuela’s aggression and vowed to resist the territorial claims, which it says violate an 1899 international court ruling. ExxonMobil, the company that is developing a large oil field near the Essequibo region, hopes that all Parties will respect the decision of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations, which is currently considering Venezuela’s claim. Caracas has already said it does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction.

The fact that Maduro pulled this statement out of mothballs after such a bitter time has a lot to do with domestic politics. After undermining the economy, suppressing dissent and forcing over 20% of the population to flee the country, the president is deeply unpopular. In next year’s election, where many expect him to run again, he will face an energetic and popular opposition candidate. What could be better than a foreign adventure to distract voters from wages with almost zero purchasing power and inflation running to 100%?

Maduro could reflect on how another South American authoritarian regime in the 1980s, backed by the military, put an end to a similar affair. The Argentine junta’s decision to invade the Falklands triggered a war with the United Kingdom and a humiliating defeat that removed the generals, paving the way for a return to democracy—certainly not the outcome Maduro wanted.

Maduro’s aggression against his smaller neighbor casts serious doubt on the Biden administration’s decision in October to relieve Venezuela of heavy economic sanctions for six months in exchange for a promise to hold free and fair elections and release hostages.

Few observers attributed such intentions to Maduro. But by taking American concessions offered without preconditions on trust and then launching a new campaign to suppress the opposition, Maduro trampled the deal before moving on to Essequibo.

The US should respond by immediately activating sanctions, sending a clear message to Maduro that this behavior is unacceptable and indicating that future sanctions relief will only be possible if he takes clear steps towards free and fair elections, right and if he respects his neighbor’s position. territorial integrity. Anything less would be a betrayal of Venezuela’s long-suffering opposition and an important democratic ally.