In the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, U.S. policy in Latin America was defined by the Cold War. Washington poured money into coups, covert operations, and paramilitary forces, all in the name of fighting communism and “protecting democracy.” In reality, it often meant propping up dictators, fueling civil wars, and leaving scars that the region still carries today.
Those actions created long shadows: generations grew up under regimes supported by U.S. intelligence, with repression, torture, and economic devastation justified as part of the struggle against the Soviets. Latin America remembers, even when Americans prefer to forget.
Trump & Rubio’s “New War”
Fast forward to today. According to the New York Times, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is at the forefront of President Trump’s most consequential foreign policy shift: a militarized “war” on Latin American drug cartels and gangs. Already, the U.S. has carried out a lethal strike against a Venezuelan vessel, killing eleven. Naval deployments to the Caribbean are expanding. Criminal groups are being reclassified as “foreign terrorist organizations,” giving the U.S. broad legal cover to use military force.
This is not quiet CIA intrigue. This is overt military escalation, broadcast to the world.
Why It Could Be Worse Than the Cold War Era
-
Visibility and scale
Cold War interventions were often covert, deniable. Today’s actions — airstrikes, naval movements, public designations — are in full view. That raises diplomatic risks and international blowback in ways the old shadow wars sometimes avoided. -
Weaker justifications
In the 20th century, the U.S. cloaked its interventions under the “fight against communism.” Now, the justification is “narco-terrorism.” But treating cartels as military targets blurs the line between law enforcement and war, stretching international law and risking abuse. -
Potential for missteps
Strikes based on shaky intelligence could kill civilians. Whole regions could be destabilized. Once “terrorist” labels are applied, political pressure grows to escalate force — regardless of whether it solves the problem. -
Geopolitical context
Unlike the Cold War, Latin America today is a zone of competing influence — China, Russia, and regional players are active. Heavy-handed U.S. militarization risks driving countries toward those rivals.
The Migration Scapegoat
Rubio has framed this new war partly as a response to migration, arguing that cartels and gangs drive people north. But this framing misses the point. Migration from Central and South America is not primarily about cartels.
It is about:
-
Poverty and inequality that leave families no choice but to seek opportunity abroad.
-
Repression and corruption that make daily life unsafe.
-
Climate change, which devastates crops, worsens floods, and drives people from their homes.
Yes, gangs exploit migrants and profit from their misery. But they are opportunists, not the root cause. By scapegoating cartels, the administration justifies warships and missiles, rather than policies that address why people migrate in the first place.
Lessons We Should Have Learned
America’s past meddling in Latin America left a trail of coups, dictatorships, and failed states. Today’s militarized approach risks repeating those mistakes — only louder, deadlier, and with even less deniability.
The question is whether we are willing to learn from history or condemn ourselves — and our neighbors — to relive it.
Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!
Compiled with aid of ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment