Attempting a structured analysis on the basis of a single episode is always problematic, especially when it unfolds within an already highly polarized international environment. Nevertheless, to avoid the proliferation of superficial interpretations and contingent readings, events such as those concerning the U.S. military operation in Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife must be situated within a broader historical and geopolitical framework. Only in that context is it possible to grasp their deeper significance, in relation with the history of relation between the United States and Latin America as a whole. This article reconstructs, succinctly, the historical roots of U.S. hegemony in the region, examines its evolution, and interprets the Venezuelan coup as part of a wider American strategy aimed at reasserting influence in a context of perceived national decline.
From a geopolitical perspective, U.S. projection in Central and South America has its roots in the well-known Monroe Doctrine, encapsulated in the principle “America for the Americans.” From its very origins, this approach legitimised an increasingly invasive presence of United States in the continental space, gradually assuming distinctly hegemonic characteristics over the course of the nineteenth century, culminating in the Spanish–American War, which heralded the accession of the United States to the club of imperial powers, keeping with its own expansionist colonial vocation.
Throughout the twentieth century, control over the entire Western Hemisphere became a constant objective of U.S. geopolitical, geostrategic, and economic practices, intended to assume a global role. Within this framework, Mesoamerica and the Latin American subcontinent were portrayed in North American rhetoric as a kind of backyard, a space to be monitored and at least indirectly governed, in orderto prevent the emergence of autonomous or hostile actors.
After the end of the Second World War, U.S. hegemonic action in Central and South America took on multiple forms, adapting to different historical junctures. Through coordinated initiatives by the White House, the Pentagon, and intelligence agencies, this action was consistently aimed at foreclosing or limiting any attempt at political, economic, or strategic autonomy from Latin American countries. From this perspective, the history of relations between the United States and Latin America can be read as a long-standing confrontation between Washington’s interference—often motivated with the interests of major North American multinational corporations—and the more or less successful attempts by some governments in the region to assert their own decision-making sovereignty.
The emblematic cases of leaders such as Perón, Castro, Chávez, Morales, or Lula, despite their profound differences, clearly illustrate this underlying dynamic. Similarly, direct or indirect support for coups d’état, authoritarian regimes, and “anti-progressive” dictatorships constituted for decades the backbone of U.S. intervention in Latin America, justified by the fight against communism, the defense of stability, the promotion of democracy, or, as in the current Venezuelan crisis, the struggle against drug trafficking.
However, the endeavour to reassert the sovereignty of Latin American peoples that took shape during one of the most intense phases of globalization, between the end of the last century and the beginning of the current one, should not be overlooked. During that period, countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, and—albeit with more discontinuous trajectories—Chile, though following different national agendas, shared a strategic project of regional integration. This project aimed to overcome national self-interests in view of the broader mission to build the so-called “Patria Grande,” conceived as an instrument of collective emancipation at the political, economic, and symbolic levels.
This phase of relative regional autonomy coincided with a temporary decline in U.S. interest in the Latin American subcontinent, due to Washington’s primary engagement in other strategic areas, such as the so-called Greater Middle East and, subsequently, the “pivot to Asia.” Once the international context changed, Washington gradually redefined a strategy aimed at bringing the entire Latin American space back into its sphere of influence.
This strategy initially manifested itself through the election of governments more closely aligned with U.S. interests, such as Jair Bolsonaro’s in Brazil, and was followed by the rise of political leaders in Argentina and Chile, who, albeit with different featured, brought about a policy reorientation favorable to Washington, because of their shared neoliberal outlook.
In the specific case of Venezuela, these political and strategic dynamics converged due to the United States’ significant interest in controlling the country’s vast energy resources. A leadership not aligned with Washington could use these resources as leverage to strengthen cooperation with non-Western actors, particularly some BRICS+ countries and, above all, China, thereby upsetting the regional energy and geopolitical balance.
In light of this overall framework, it can be reasonably predicted that U.S. pressure will not stop at Venezuela. From a medium-term perspective, the next arena of confrontation, apart from Cuba, could well be Colombia under the leadership of Gustavo Petro, in a context in which the entire Latin American space recovers a central position in global geopolitical competition. The military action lately carried out in Venezuela exemplifies Trump’s strategy to reassert American hegemony at a time when the United States realises that its supremacy is eroding fast. From this point of view, this episode—illustrating the willingness to resort to strong-arm tactics, the old ‘gunboat diplomacy’—amounts to a precedent, a genuine warning addressed not only to alleged enemies, but also to allies that Washington regards as unreliable.
Add comment