The global shock caused by the Trump administration’s recent actions in Venezuela has left analysts scrambling for historical comparisons, while leaders across the Americas express alarm over potential future US interventions. This week, the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has drawn parallels to past US actions in the region, yet none seem to fit the current scenario precisely.
Direct comparisons have been made to the 1989 capture of Panamanian leader General Manuel Noriega and to previous US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, these comparisons fall short of capturing the unique nature of the current situation. The Trump administration’s approach in Venezuela seems to defy traditional paradigms of regime change and military intervention.
Rethinking Regime Change
The capture of Noriega by President George H.W. Bush’s administration provided a legal framework for the Trump administration’s seizure of Maduro on drug charges. However, unlike Noriega, Maduro is recognized as the head of state in Venezuela. The US has notably refrained from pursuing regime change in Venezuela, a stark contrast to its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
According to reports, including those from the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration has struck a deal with the Venezuelan military regarding the next steps. Trump has also avoided a large-scale military intervention, at least for now. This strategy has significant implications for international norms and the global order.
“The United States must be pre-eminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity,” the US national security strategy states.
Dominance in the Western Hemisphere
Trump’s actions in Venezuela are part of a broader strategy to assert US dominance in the Western Hemisphere. This strategy is characterized by a mix of threats and rewards, focusing on economic and business interests over traditional alliances and legal frameworks. The administration’s approach involves targeting individual leaders and leveraging economic tools like tariffs and financial aid.
In Argentina, the US supported President Javier Milei’s government with a $20 billion currency swap agreement to stabilize the economy. Conversely, Brazil’s left-wing government faced increased tariffs due to its economic ties with China and alleged human rights abuses. This approach, described as “geo-strategic coercion,” highlights the complexities and potential pitfalls of the Trump administration’s foreign policy.
Implications for Latin America and Beyond
The US’s strategy in Venezuela and other Latin American countries raises questions about its long-term effectiveness. While punishing Brazil for its ties with China, the policy may inadvertently strengthen those ties. Meanwhile, Cuba faces increased pressure due to changes in Venezuelan policy, and potential US interference in Colombia and Mexico remains uncertain.
Beyond Latin America, Trump’s interest in Greenland has resurfaced, with historical ambitions dating back to 1867. The sparsely populated territory is strategically important due to its natural resources and Arctic location. Trump’s comments about acquiring Greenland, coupled with his administration’s stance, pose challenges for NATO allies, particularly Denmark.
Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, stated, “Nobody is gonna fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland.”
Conclusion: A New Era of US Foreign Policy?
The Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela and beyond signal a shift in US foreign policy, characterized by unconventional methods and a focus on hemispheric dominance. This approach has turned traditional diplomatic norms on their head, raising concerns about future interventions and the stability of international relations.
As the world watches, the implications of these actions will continue to unfold, shaping the geopolitical landscape for years to come. The challenge for global leaders will be to navigate this new era of US foreign policy, balancing national interests with the complexities of international diplomacy.
