The United States' long and deadly history of interference in Latin America is a story that needs to be told. It's a tale of power, greed, and the tragic consequences for those who stand in the way.
When President Trump ordered a military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, the resulting violence claimed the lives of many innocent people. Trump's subsequent declaration that the US would 'run' Venezuela and take control of its oil industry sent shockwaves through the region. This was just the latest chapter in a long and disturbing pattern of US meddling in Latin America.
Oil has been a primary motivator for US intervention, but the legacy of the so-called 'communist threat' still influences US policy. Washington's rhetoric often revolves around depriving Cuba of its vital oil supplies from Venezuela. In a recent executive order, Trump labeled Cuba a threat to the US, echoing Cold War narratives. The order imposes additional tariffs on countries selling oil to Cuba, suggesting that oil is seen as a tool to bring down a country that has resisted US imperialism.
The choice of Venezuela as a target reflects Washington's long history of interference, with the aim of controlling its oil supply. As far back as 1972, the US expressed concerns about Venezuela nationalizing its oil resources. The US offered incentives to Venezuela to secure its oil market, but when President Carlos Andres Perez nationalized the oil industry in 1976, creating the state-owned PDVSA, it was seen as a direct challenge to US interests.
Trump's comments about Venezuela 'stealing US oil' could be a veiled reference to this nationalization. When news broke of Maduro and Flores' capture on unsubstantiated drug trafficking charges, Trump quickly shifted the narrative back to oil. The couple now faces serious charges in US courts, and Trump's attack on Venezuela's sovereignty and oil resources is part of a long-standing pattern that began with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.
The Monroe Doctrine, adapted by the Trump administration as the 'Donroe Doctrine', outlines a rationale for US intervention in the region. But long before oil, the US sought control over the tar in Venezuela's Bermudez Lake at the turn of the 20th century. When President Cipriano Castro refused a US monopoly over the country's resources, a Philadelphia businessman, John M. Mack, affiliated with the Republican Party, lobbied for a military intervention. This led to a deadly revolt, with thousands of Venezuelans killed, and Castro facing continued threats from Washington.
The Roosevelt Corollary, added to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904, justified US intervention in South America to ensure debt repayment, and by 1933, the US had militarily intervened in several countries under this doctrine. The Lodge Corollary and the Clark Memorandum further extended US intervention rights, with the anti-communist hysteria after World War II solidifying the Monroe Doctrine as a key part of US Cold War policy in the region.
At the 10th Inter-American Conference in Caracas in 1954, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles isolated Guatemala, whose president, Jacobo Arbenz, threatened the interests of the United Fruit Company. Dulles introduced the Caracas Declaration of Solidarity, which aimed to curb communist influence and recommended information exchange between governments to counter 'subversive activities'. This led to the CIA-backed coup, Operation PB Success, which toppled Arbenz.
The Monroe Doctrine was applied to Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and again in 1961 to justify the Bay of Pigs invasion. A 1969 memorandum stated the US' overt assertion of applying the Monroe Doctrine to South America, citing the need to protect its history and principles. The US also monitored Grenada's Maurice Bishop, concerned that he might turn to Cuba for legitimacy. In 1983, after Bishop's murder, the Reagan administration authorized Operation Urgent Fury against Grenada over fears that a new airport would bring Soviet power too close for comfort.
In 1989, President George HW Bush ordered the invasion of Panama to remove dictator Manuel Noriega, a graduate of the School of the Americas and an informer for the Eisenhower administration. Noriega's drug trafficking was overlooked until it became a liability for the US. One objective of the invasion was to bring Noriega to trial for drug trafficking, but another was to assert US interests in the Panama Canal. This kidnapping, like the one in Venezuela, was a precursor to the US' continued intervention in the region, guided by the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.
During the Obama administration, Secretary of State John Kerry declared the era of the Monroe Doctrine over, and President Obama worked to normalize relations with Cuba. However, Trump invoked the Monroe Doctrine at the UN General Assembly in 2017, targeting Venezuela and its socialist policies. National Security adviser John Bolton, a neoconservative, affirmed that foreign policy would be governed by the Monroe Doctrine. Trump's administration has continued this narrative, with the National Security Strategy document reinforcing US preeminence in the Western Hemisphere.
The NSS 2025 document outlines goals to 'enlist and expand' regional allies, create 'tolerable stability', and maintain a strong military presence to combat human and drug trafficking. It also sends a warning to 'non-Hemispheric competitors' who have established trade relations in the region. China, for example, has heavily invested in Venezuela, and in the aftermath of Maduro's kidnapping, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that the Western Hemisphere would not be a base for US adversaries.
Rubio's statement echoes the foundations of the Monroe Doctrine, with broader implications for the region and non-European countries. As the Trump Corollary asserts US hegemony, countries like Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba have been warned of possible military action. Trump has called on Cuba to 'make a deal', but Cubans have shown unity against Washington's threats. It's a testament to the resilience of the Cuban people, who have endured decades of hardships due to US foreign policy and an illegal blockade.
While the US pursues oil and regime change under the pretext of narcotrafficking and terrorism, it's the Cubans who have worked with the US Coast Guard to prevent real drug trafficking. The story of US meddling in Latin America is a complex and controversial one, and it's important to question and discuss these events to understand their impact on the region and the world.
What are your thoughts on this long history of US intervention? Do you think the Monroe Doctrine and its corollaries are still relevant today? Let's continue the conversation in the comments and explore these thought-provoking questions together.
