By Dr Abdul Samad
The recent abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has cast a long shadow over Latin America, reviving anxieties about the United States’ willingness to intervene militarily in the hemisphere. In an extraordinary and sharply worded statement, US President Donald Trump warned Colombian President Gustavo Petro to remain vigilant, citing the flow of narcotics from Colombia into American territory. The warning, delivered publicly to reporters, was unusual not only for its directness but also for the implicit threat it carried: a reminder that US influence, backed by military might, continues to loom over the region.
President Petro responded firmly, framing Washington’s actions as an infringement on Latin American sovereignty. He warned that such interventions could trigger a humanitarian crisis, one that would affect not just Venezuela or Colombia but the wider region. Petro has long criticized the American military presence in the Caribbean, which the Trump administration defends as a measure to combat drug trafficking. Yet the thin line between legitimate security operations and coercive influence is increasingly blurred, raising concerns that the US is willing to project power in ways that undermine the autonomy of its neighbors.
Trump’s rhetoric extends beyond Venezuela. He has openly asserted that American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will go unchallenged, positioning the United States as both arbiter and guarantor of stability in a region where sovereign nations have historically resisted interference. Venezuela’s energy resources, he emphasized, hold strategic importance for Washington, reinforcing the impression that interventions are driven not solely by security concerns but also by economic and geopolitical calculations. In casting doubt on the leadership potential of Venezuela’s opposition—including prominent figures such as Nobel laureate Maria Corina Machado—Trump signaled scepticism toward the region’s capacity for self-determined governance, implying that the US sees itself as an essential, even corrective, presence.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio added another dimension to the emerging picture, suggesting that Cuba could come under scrutiny. Any government activity in Havana, he implied, might provoke American concern. The historical context cannot be ignored: Cuba’s relationship with the United States has been shaped by decades of intervention and tension, from the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion to the Cold War-era embargo. Rubio’s comments thus carry both symbolic and practical weight, reinforcing fears that historical grievances are being compounded by contemporary assertiveness.
Mexico, too, has been drawn into this web of scrutiny. While Trump acknowledged President Claudia Sheinbaum’s capabilities, he criticized Mexico for its perceived vulnerability to drug cartel influence, lamenting that multiple offers of US assistance had been rejected. This pattern of critique reflects a broader strategy in which Washington positions itself as indispensable to regional security while simultaneously signaling that non-cooperation carries potential consequences. The implication is unmistakable: sovereignty is conditional, subject to the judgment of an external power with both military and economic leverage.
These developments in Latin America are not occurring in isolation. They echo past American interventions in the region, from the Cold War-era incursions in Central America to more recent operations in the Caribbean and South America. What distinguishes the current moment is the open and public manner in which threats and warnings are communicated. The world has watched as Washington’s policies in Venezuela have unsettled the region, from troop deployments to unilateral attempts at regime change, and these interventions continue to reverberate, highlighting the fragility of regional stability.
The consequences of such policies are both immediate and enduring. The threat of military action, even if not executed, imposes political and psychological pressure on governments, influencing domestic decisions and shaping public perception. It undermines the principle of self-determination, which is enshrined in the charters of international law and has long been championed as a foundation of post-colonial Latin American sovereignty. At the same time, it risks provoking unintended humanitarian consequences, as the disruption of governance, markets, and social services can affect millions of civilians.
(The writer is a renowned scholar, researcher, and literary figure in Pakistan, with significant contributions to Islamic Studies and Arabic Literature and can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
