The U.S. Against Venezuela: A New Perspective on Intervention

Earlier this month, the administrative reign of Trump issued a strike against a civilian vessel in the Caribbean Sea. This was accompanied by the deployment of military warships to the region. These actions, according to U.S. officials, were intended as a deterrent against drug smuggling operations. Yet, a significant number of experts see these tactics as part of a campaign against President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, depicting the offensive deployment as more than a mere attempt to curb narcotics trafficking.

The U.S. governing body, led by the White House, accuses Maduro, a staunch critic of the United States and a socialist leader, of having ties to drug cartels despite lack of substantial evidence in support of these accusations. There has been emphasis by Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War, on the readiness of policy planners to deploy every available resource of the American military for effecting a regime change.

This vehement determination to unseat Maduro can be viewed as a reflection of a pattern of interventions in Latin America, a tendency deeply rooted but often overlooked. Dating back years, U.S. officials along with regional conservative powers have engaged in concerted efforts against leftist leaderships, identifying these as threats to their influence and vested interests.

In recent times, resistance to governments associated with the ‘Pink Tide’ movement has given rise to new methods of interference – setting forth misinformation campaigns, tactical manipulation of legal systems and other forms of intervention. The naval expedition initiated under the Trump administration serves to underline this trend, posing considerable threats to the autonomy and democratic integrity of diverse nations across Latin America.

The iteration of conflicts we see today can be traced back to the early part of the 21st century. This was when ‘Pink Tide’ governments began coming to power, challenging the U.S. hegemony and the principles of neoliberal capitalism. Bolivia’s first indigenous president, Evo Morales, is a primary example. His administration gave priority to social initiatives and sought to encourage regional unity to offset the influence of the United States.

Morales’s progressive policies and his electoral victory in 2005 caused significant unease among U.S. diplomatic circles. They perceived his reformative measures as a potential threat to foreign investments. Concurrently, financial support was provided by the U.S. government to bolster opposition entities.

In 2012, government-supported forces in Paraguay overthrew the progressive president, Fernando Lugo, who had shown support for agrarian reform and the struggles of landless peasants. Throughout Latin America, the U.S. advocacy for civic and state institutions dominated by the opposing forces aimed to tilt the power dynamics against left-leaning movements.

Conservative powers in multiple countries replaced open conflict with a legal and information warfare against the left. This ‘lawfare’ included character assassinations through the judiciary and the media, resulting in the immobilization of progressive leaders. Such operations catalyzed a series of coups against progressive governments, setting off a ripple effect across many nations.

Brazil and Ecuador, specifically, served as case studies for domestic oligarchies and U.S. officials who sought to mitigate the surge of the ‘Pink Tide’. Lenín Moreno, the President of Ecuador, exemplifies this tactic having initiated a similar ‘lawfare’ against leftist forces after taking office in 2017.

His predecessor, Rafael Correa and the Citizen Revolution Movement (RC) had succeeded in reducing poverty by 38 percent while also implementing numerous social programs. However, Moreno diverged from his erstwhile allies, persecuting them while reshaping the judiciary and enforcing austerity policies. The impact on RC leadership was severe, with threats, surveillance, and imprisonments leading many to seek exile.

The repercussions of these tactics extended to Argentina, where they became the epicenter of ‘lawfare’. Between 2003 and 2015, Argentina, under CFK and her spouse, managed to find a way out of a financial crisis, lowering poverty rates, all the while resisting the austerity measures prescribed by the IMF. However, CFK was met with an onslaught of legal actions, totaling more than 650.

Notably, a single ally of Macri initiated 74 legal complaints against CFK. The situation led to prominent international legal minds, including Baltasar Garzón, declaring CFK a victim of ‘judicial persecution’. The allure of military intervention, outdated as it might be, still lingered as a viable choice for regime change in the playbook of U.S. and local officials.

The volatile coups of 2019 made this pattern of intervention more apparent. Since then, the U.S. administration has revitalized its alliances within regional conservative circles targeting progressive movements. In April, President Daniel Noboa of Ecuador also employed strong-handed tactics to secure his re-election. Noboa ran without obtaining the required leave, using public funds illicitly for his campaign.

In the broader spectrum, the naval expedition against Maduro of Venezuela is just another piece of evidence for this pattern. U.S. leaders have taken ‘lawfare’ to an unprecedented level, justifying regime change by making claims of Maduro’s involvement in drug trafficking. Evidence for these claims, however, is questionable. To conclude, this open offensive against Venezuela is part of a persistent agenda by the United States and Latin American right-wing factions to suppress challenges to their traditional prerogatives and control.