JUST as George HW Bush 鈥榙iscovered鈥� drug cartels in Panama in 1989 and Ronald Reagan labelled Grenada a 鈥楽ovietCuban colony鈥� in 1983, president Donald Trump has again manufactured a myth 鈥� this time, 鈥榗ocaine factories鈥� in Venezuela.
When Donald Trump conjured up the spectre of 鈥榗ocaine factories鈥� in Venezuela, he wasn鈥檛 breaking new ground 鈥� he was following a well-worn script. For more than a century, US presidents have justified interventions in Latin America with tales of lurking threats: communism in Grenada, drug cartels in Panama, or Soviet influence in Cuba. The pretexts change, but the pattern continues.
A search for 鈥楿S invasions in Latin America鈥� returns millions of results, reflecting a long history of US interventions across the region. From Panama and Grenada to Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, and Nicaragua, Latin American countries have faced threats, coercion, sanctions, and outright military action at different moments over the past century.
From the Spanish-American War to the present day, nearly every nation in the region has felt the heavy hand of Washington. Cuba was 鈥榣iberated鈥� from Spain only to endure repeated US occupations. Guatemala鈥檚 elected president, Jacobo 脕rbenz, was toppled in 1954 when he dared to nationalise land owned by United Fruit. Chile鈥檚 Salvador Allende was overthrown in 1973 with CIA backing after he sought to reclaim copper wealth for his people. In Nicaragua, US Marines stayed for two decades to protect American business interests. The list is long, and the logic is familiar: democracy is the banner, but resources and influence are the prize.
Pretexts for intervention are often framed as the promotion of democracy. The underlying motives are frequently economic and geopolitical. For example, democratically elected Isabel Per贸n in Argentina was overthrown in 1976 during a period the junta labelled the 鈥楴ational Reorganisation Process鈥�. In Bolivia, the US backed the 1971 coup led by General Hugo Banzer after president Juan Jos茅 Torres pursued nationalisations and leftleaning policies.
Cuba鈥檚 history with the United States illustrates how interventions 鈥� outright invasions in many cases 鈥� are justified by strategic narratives. The US occupied Cuba after the SpanishAmerican War and intervened repeatedly throughout the 20th century. The Bay of Pigs invasion and other covert efforts to overthrow Castro show how foreign policy aimed at protecting US interests became cloaked in the language of liberation.
The rhetoric is as predictable as it is hollow. Just as Grenada was branded a 鈥榗ommunism factory鈥� and Panama a narco-state, Venezuela is now cast as a hub of cocaine production. But beneath the slogans lies the same old story: a superpower unwilling to tolerate governments that resist its economic and strategic designs.
Venezuela is simply the latest lamb to muddy the wolf鈥檚 water. 听The wolf accuses the lamb of muddying the stream, only to admit that no excuse is needed 鈥� breakfast is the goal. 听Hugo Ch谩vez鈥檚 defiance of US oil interests made him a target from the moment he took office in 1998. His successor, Nicol谩s Maduro, has clung to power despite economic collapse, sanctions, and international isolation. Now, with opposition leader Mar铆a Corina Machado elevated on the world stage, Washington appears eager to engineer yet another 鈥榯ransition鈥�.
The CIA also played a central role in the 1973 coup against Salvador Allende in Chile, an event tied to Allende鈥檚 plans to nationalise copper companies. US involvement in Nicaragua during the early 20th century similarly reflected a mix of business interests and strategic aims, including contention over potential canal routes before the Panama Canal dominated hemispheric transit plans.
Venezuela is again in the crosshairs. Since Hugo Ch谩vez became president in 1998 and nationalised key oil assets, Caracas has been a persistent concern for US policymakers. Ch谩vez pursued social programmes that reduced poverty and challenged foreign corporate control of Venezuela鈥檚 resources. After Ch谩vez鈥檚 death in 2013, Nicol谩s Maduro assumed leadership amid a growing economic crisis, rising inflation, and increasing domestic opposition.
US pressure on Venezuela has included sanctions and diplomatic pressures. After allegedly disputed elections, opposition figures gained international attention, and recent developments have elevated opposition leader Mar铆a Corina Machado on the global stage. Reports of heightened US attention and a shift toward consideration of military options raise the spectre of another intervention aimed at reshaping Venezuela鈥檚 political order and securing strategic resources.
Framing Maduro鈥檚 government as illegitimate and accelerating pressure, whether economic or military, risks deepening the country鈥檚 crisis rather than resolving it. The international community should prioritise transparent, lawful measures and humanitarian relief rather than rushing toward interventionist solutions, pushed by Washington, which have historically produced costly consequences.
The broad pattern across Latin America is familiar: interventions framed as promoting democracy often serve narrower geopolitical or economic interests. Whether through covert action, sanctions, or direct force, the result has repeatedly been instability and suffering for civilians.
听
Irtishad听Ahmad is a professor emeritus at Florida International University. He writes on contemporary socio-political issues.听
