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 devastating consequences for the people of the region.
When President Donald Trump ordered a military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, the resulting chaos and violence claimed the lives of many innocent people. But this was just the latest chapter in a long and tragic story.
Oil has been a driving force behind US intervention in Latin America, but it's not the only factor. The legacy of the so-called "communist threat" still haunts US policy, with remnants of Cold War narratives shaping the country's approach to the region.
In a recent executive order declaring Cuba a threat, Trump echoed these Cold War sentiments, stating that Cuba's "communist ideas" pose a danger to US foreign policy. This order, which imposes additional tariffs on countries selling oil to Cuba, highlights the US's perception of oil as a tool to undermine a country that has stood strong against US imperialism.
The choice of Venezuela as a target reflects Washington's long-standing desire to control its oil supply. As far back as 1972, the US expressed concerns about the potential nationalization of Venezuela's oil resources. The US offered incentives to Venezuela's political parties to minimize oil's influence in their campaigns, aiming to secure its own market access.
When Carlos Andres Perez, a member of the Democratic Action party, became Venezuela's president in 1974, the US's threats became more explicit. In a telegram sent by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the US essentially warned Venezuela of potential problems if it proceeded with nationalization.
Despite these threats, Perez announced the nationalization of Venezuela's oil industry in 1976, creating the state-owned company Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). Trump's comments about Venezuela "stealing" US oil could be a veiled reference to this historic nationalization.
The recent kidnapping of Maduro and Flores on unsubstantiated narcotrafficking charges has once again brought oil to the forefront of US rhetoric. Maduro and his wife now face serious charges in US courts, while Trump's attack on Venezuela's sovereignty and oil resources continues a deadly pattern established by the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.
The Monroe Doctrine, originally intended to prevent European colonial powers from expanding their influence in South America, has been twisted and manipulated to justify US intervention. The Trump administration has even adapted this doctrine, now calling it the "Donroe Doctrine," and outlined its rationale in the National Security Strategy Document.
But the US's interest in Latin America goes beyond oil. At the turn of the 20th century, the US sought control over the tar resources in Venezuela's Bermudez Lake. Through the National Asphalt Trust, a well-connected Republican businessman, John M. Mack, lobbied for the use of battleships to assert US dominance. When President Cipriano Castro refused to concede, Mack financed a revolt, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Venezuelans.
The Roosevelt Corollary, added to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904, further expanded US interventionist powers. It claimed the right to intervene in South American nations to ensure debt repayment, under the guise of preventing "foreign aggression" to the region. By 1933, the US had militarily intervened in several countries, including Cuba, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
The Lodge Corollary of 1912 and the Clark Memorandum of 1928 further extended US interventionist rights, giving the US the power to directly intervene in South America, regardless of colonial interests. With the anti-communist hysteria following World War II, the Monroe Doctrine became an integral part of US Cold War policy in the region.
At the 10th Inter-American Conference in Caracas, Venezuela, in 1954, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles exploited the opportunity to isolate Guatemala, whose president, Jacobo Arbenz, threatened the interests of the United Fruit Company. Dulles introduced the Caracas Declaration of Solidarity, which aimed to curtail communist influence and facilitate the exchange of information between governments to counter "subversive activities."
The Monroe Doctrine was also invoked during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, with President John F. Kennedy stating that the US would interfere if Cuba became an "offensive military base" for the Soviet Union. Just a year earlier, the Bay of Pigs invasion, justified by the Monroe Doctrine, aimed to overthrow Fidel Castro's revolutionary government.
The US's overt assertions of applying the Monroe Doctrine to South America were made clear in a 1969 memorandum: "We are too rich and powerful to leave the nations of our hemisphere to drift into economic stagnation and social upheaval."
The US's monitoring of Grenada's Maurice Bishop, the leader of the New Jewel Movement, is another example of this interventionist mindset. In 1983, after Bishop's murder, the Reagan administration authorized Operation Urgent Fury, concerned that an airport being built for tourism purposes was actually a plan to bring Soviet power closer to the US.
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, known to Washington long before he took power, was overlooked until it became a liability for the US.
The objectives cited for the invasion included apprehending Noriega for drug trafficking and asserting US interests in the Panama Canal. This kidnapping, like the recent events in Venezuela, is a stark reminder of the US's willingness to intervene for its own interests.
While the Obama administration seemed to move away from the Monroe Doctrine, with Secretary of State John Kerry declaring its era over, Trump's administration has brought it back to the forefront. Trump invoked the Monroe Doctrine at the United Nations General Assembly in 2017, targeting Venezuela within the context of migration and socialism.
The National Security Strategy document of 2025, under Trump's second administration, reinforces this narrative, stating that the US will "reassert and enforce the Monroe doctrine" to restore its dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
The document's goals of "Enlist and Expand" highlight the US's intention to work with regional allies while sending a warning to "non-Hemispheric competitors" who have established trade relations in the region.
China, for example, has heavily invested in Venezuela, with a significant portion of Venezuela's oil exports headed to China. In the aftermath of Maduro's kidnapping, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that the Western Hemisphere is where the US lives, and it won't allow it to become a base for its 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.
Since the US captured Maduro, Venezuelan oil exports to Cuba have ceased, and Trump has called on Cuba to "make a deal." However, Cubans have expressed unity against Washington's interventionist threats, understanding that it is US foreign policy and the illegal blockade that have caused decades of hardship for their nation.
While the US pursues oil and regime change under the guise of narcotrafficking and terrorism, it is the Cubans who have worked with the US Coastguard to prevent real drug trafficking, unlike the invented cartels used by the Trump administration to justify intervention in Venezuela.
This is a complex and controversial issue, and it's important to consider the perspectives of those directly affected. What are your thoughts on the US's role in Latin America? Do you think the Monroe Doctrine is still relevant today, or has it outlived its purpose?
