Cuba reports that 32 of its nationals were killed in Venezuela, including military personnel.
The city experienced a blackout. The air defense systems were rendered ineffective. Explosions echoed through the night. Amidst the darkness, a squadron of American helicopters descended and apprehended the president. Hours later, in a celebration of the U.S. government’s capture of Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, President Trump referenced Venezuela’s oil 20 times. This moment impacted Latin America perhaps more than any other occurrence this century — yet its significance varies depending on one’s perspective. For those on the Latin American left, it validated decades of warnings from certain leaders: The United States is an imperial power prepared to invade and exploit its southern neighbors for its own benefit and their natural resources. Conversely, for the Latin American right, Mr. Trump had liberated a distressed Venezuela from a leftist regime and would finally unlock the nation’s vast economic potential. Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Spain, and Uruguay — all governed by leftists — collectively condemned the bombings and the capture, labeling them “an exceedingly dangerous precedent” and cautioned against “any measures of governmental control, administration, or external appropriation of natural or strategic resources” in Venezuela. President Javier Milei of Argentina, the most prominent right-wing leader in the region, praised the U.S. actions. “There’s no middle ground here,” he announced. “You are either aligned with GOOD, or aligned with EVIL.” What everyone can agree upon is that the intervention demonstrated that the United States remains the focal point in Latin America, for better or for worse. A damaged military vehicle at La Carlota Air Base in central Caracas following the U.S. strikes on Saturday. Credit…The New York Times Mr. Trump is one of the proponents of this view. “The Monroe Doctrine is significant, but we’ve far surpassed it, by a substantial margin. They now refer to it as the Donroe Doctrine,” he stated on Saturday, referring to the 1823 policy initiated by President James Monroe aimed at preventing European interference in the Americas. “Under our current national security strategy, American supremacy in the Western Hemisphere will never again be questioned.” During the three decades preceding the current Trump administration, U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America primarily emphasized the support of democracy and free trade. Mr. Trump has significantly altered that strategy to prioritize what benefits the United States — or, in many instances, what benefits him personally. He imposed tariffs on Brazil in a futile effort to prevent his ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro, from incarceration. He enacted sanctions on Colombia’s president after he criticized U.S. strategies. He endorsed a right-wing candidate in Honduras, a surprising move that may have swayed the election outcome. Additionally, he provided Argentina with a $20 billion financial aid package to assist Mr. Milei in legislative races. Such actions have unsettled many across Latin America, reminding them of America’s long-standing history of interventions in the region, including its invasions of Mexico, Panama, and Haiti, as well as its backing of military coups. “Considering the region as a whole, this is frightening in a manner I haven’t witnessed in a long time,” remarked Celso Amorim, the chief foreign policy adviser to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil and one of Latin America’s most seasoned government officials, having served in various capacities, including as Brazil’s foreign minister, defense minister, and special adviser over 16 years. “What concerns me most is that this revival of interventionism is not even concealed,” he commented during an interview. “There isn’t even an attempt, let’s say, to declare, ‘We intervened to protect democracy.’ There is a goal that is evidently economic.” Anti-American demonstrators gathered outside the Venezuelan Embassy in Mexico City on Saturday. Credit…Marian Carrasquero for The New York Times Mr. Lula, the most influential politician in Latin America, conducted two separate discussions with his ministers regarding the U.S. assault on Saturday, per the Brazilian administration. He subsequently issued a notably fierce critique, asserting that Washington’s actions “cross an intolerable boundary” and that “the international community, via the United Nations, must respond forcefully.” On Sunday, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States — the principal multilateral organization for the region — convened an emergency meeting to discuss the conditions in Venezuela. Many nations managed by leftists dispatched their foreign ministers, while those led by conservative figures sent junior diplomats. During the meeting, Venezuela’s foreign minister, Yván Gil, cautioned that the rest of Latin America should be concerned. “This assault does not target just Venezuela; it represents an attack on Latin America and the Caribbean,” he stated to the assembly of 33 nations. “Today it may concern Venezuela; tomorrow it could affect any other nation that opts to assert its sovereignty.” Several individuals in Latin America held differing views. They maintained that the Maduro regime was corrupt and oppressive, which sparked U.S. discontent. “To all the narco-Chavista criminals, your moment is approaching,” President Daniel Noboa of Ecuador declared on Saturday, referring to followers of Mr. Maduro’s socialist predecessor, Hugo Chávez. “Your entire structure will distinctly collapse across the continent.” However, whether countries will take further action beyond issuing angry declarations remains uncertain. The United States stands as the most vital economic partner for a significant portion of the region, and Mr. Trump has shown a readiness to intervene economically, politically, and now militarily against nations that defy him. Colombian troops positioned at the border with Venezuela in Cúcuta, Colombia, on Sunday. Credit…Alejandro Cegarra for The New York Times “I believe we are experiencing a nadir in inter-American diplomacy, as all nations have shifted focus inward, developing transactional methods in their interactions with this administration,” remarked Arturo Sarukhán, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States. In light of the growing partisan divide throughout the region, he continued, “I suspect that a strong response from Latin American and Caribbean nations will be quite difficult to witness.” The reaction from President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico exemplified this political balancing act. While she criticized the attack on Venezuela, Ms. Sheinbaum did so more diplomatically than many of her counterparts. Note that concurrently on Saturday, Mr. Trump was reiterating that Mexican cartels could be his next military target. Brazil, conversely, is much further from the United States, with China now as its primary trading partner. This has permitted Mr. Lula to adopt a far more confrontational stance toward Mr. Trump — a strategy that has yielded positive outcomes for Brazil. Mr. Amorim indicated that Mr. Trump’s policies could drive other nations toward China. Interventions “are likely to produce the opposite outcome of what the United States desires,” he remarked. Countries “will increasingly be compelled to seek counterbalances, thereby avoiding getting involved in this kind of situation.” A resident overlooking Port La Guaira in La Guaira, Venezuela, after U.S. strikes on Sunday. Credit…The New York Times What appears most probable now is that the differing opinions on Venezuela within Latin America — along with each nation’s efforts for self-preservation — will result in minimal unified action. Mr. Sarukhán suggested that a full-scale occupation of Venezuela would likely be necessary to elicit more than mere proclamations. This also implies a potential empowerment of Mr. Trump. Over the past year, his behavior in Latin America has become bolder. This has left many countries grappling with how to interpret his aggressive rhetoric. Just hours after observing a successful U.S. military operation in Venezuela, he began to indicate that Cuba might be next. “I believe Cuba is going to be a subject we’ll need to discuss, because Cuba is a failing nation,” he told reporters on Saturday. On Sunday morning, during a conversation with The Atlantic, he stated, “We do need Greenland, absolutely.” By Sunday evening, he had identified another target in the hemisphere. “He’s not going to last there long,” Mr. Trump commented about Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, who has frequently criticized him. “He has cocaine mills and cocaine factories.” When asked if the U.S. would launch an operation against Colombia, he responded, “It sounds good to me.”
Published: 2026-01-05 03:52:00
source: www.nytimes.com
