US in Latin America: Why Venezuela Is Just the Latest Target
US President Donald Trump addresses a press conference after military attacks on Venezuela. (Image White House on X)
From coups to covert operations, a long record of US interventions in Latin America challenges Washington’s claims of defending democracy
By AMIT KUMAR
New Delhi, January 4, 2026 — The latest US pressure campaign against Venezuela has reopened an old and uncomfortable debate. Is Washington defending democracy—or repeating a long pattern of interventionism in Latin America?
Political commentator Peter Murphy wrote on X that “Trump’s attack on Venezuela is the latest in a long history of illegal US interventions in South America,” adding that the United States “does NOT believe in democracy, freedom or international law.” His remarks have struck a chord because history offers ample evidence to support the claim.
For decades, Latin America has been a testing ground for US-backed regime change. From Guatemala in 1954 to Chile in 1973, from Brazil in 1964 to Argentina in 1976, elected governments were overthrown or destabilised with direct or indirect American support. These were not isolated incidents. They formed a consistent strategy shaped by Cold War paranoia and later by geopolitical control.
Even after the Cold War ended, the pattern did not stop. Panama in 1989, Venezuela in 2002, Haiti in 2004, and Honduras in 2009 revealed that interventionism had simply evolved in form, not disappeared in intent. Military coups gave way to sanctions, diplomatic pressure, economic warfare, and selective recognition of leadership.
Venezuela sits squarely in this historical continuum. Successive US administrations—Republican and Democrat alike—have justified intervention through the language of human rights and democracy. Yet the result has often been deeper economic collapse, regional instability, and the suffering of ordinary citizens rather than political reform.
The contradiction is glaring. Washington positions itself as a global defender of democratic values while repeatedly undermining sovereignty across Latin America. Elections are supported only when outcomes align with US strategic interests. Governments that resist are labelled threats, sanctioned, or isolated.
What makes Venezuela particularly sensitive is oil. Control over energy resources has long shaped US policy in the region, from the Caribbean to South America. History shows that ideological arguments often follow economic priorities—not the other way around.
Murphy’s statement resonates because it cuts through diplomatic euphemisms. The issue is not one president or one party. It is a system that views Latin America as a sphere of influence rather than a collection of sovereign nations.
As global power balances shift and the developing world becomes more assertive, such policies face growing resistance. The question is no longer whether the US intervenes—but how long this approach can survive in a multipolar world where historical memory remains sharp.
Deripaska Warns: US Control of Venezuelan Oil Aimed at Russia
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
