Prophetic misery: US attack on Venezuela and erosion of international law

In 1829, the revolutionary independence leader Simon Bolivar wrote that the United States seemed "destined by Providence to plague the Americas with misery in the name of Freedom." His fears first materialized when Washington supported a coup in Panama to secure the canal, justifying the intervention through the rhetoric of freedom. But Bolivar couldn’t predict that this "misery in the name of freedom" would expand globally, justifying violations of international law from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to the destabilization of Libya under the guise of protecting civilians.

Now it’s Venezuela and its "narcoterrorism" under Nicolas Maduro’s dictatorship, which threatens U.S. security with fentanyl traffic. Never mind that Venezuela doesn’t produce the synthetic opioid, that Colombia, Bolivia and Peru are the largest cocaine sources, or that Mexico is the largest fentanyl supplier. The Trump administration’s concern for drug trafficking is demonstrably selective, as he recently pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, Honduras' former president convicted of drug trafficking and linked to El Chapo’s cartel.

Democracy isn’t U.S. foreign policy’s primary driver. Latin America bears the scars of U.S.-backed brutal dictatorships. In Brazil, the U.S. directly supported the 1964 military coup and planned Operation Brother Sam, ushering in a 21-year dictatorship marked by torture, disappearances and assassinations. Similar U.S. backing empowered Augusto Pinochet in Chile and the military junta in Argentina via Operation Condor.

This inconsistency is evident today: while the U.S. intervenes in Venezuela, it ignores the authoritarianism of Nayib Bukele in El Salvador. Despite Bukele’s unconstitutional seizure of power and human rights violations — the same dictatorial actions taken by Chávez and Maduro — he remains a Trump ally, turning El Salvador into a holding ground for migrants unlawfully deported by the U.S.

Current U.S. aggression marks a reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine. But beyond that, Trump has threatened democratically elected leaders like Colombia’s Gustavo Petro and Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, proving that in the U.S.’ hegemonic decline, international law can be trumped by force. While European powers like the U.K. and Germany bow their heads to this illegal "complex legality," condemnations remain mere ink on paper if U.S. deeds go unpunished. Indeed, condemning nations face significant risks if these attacks bear no consequences. France and Denmark hold territories in the region, while Latin American nations lack the economic and military strength to eventually oppose the U.S. It is no surprise that polls in South American countries show more positive views about China (most Latin American nations' largest trading partner) than the U.S. Furthermore, China stands to lose billions if the Monroe Doctrine is reestablished.

The attacks present dangerous precedents. China could justify actions in Taiwan and arrest its president (with a legal argument, once Taiwan is not a legal subject under international law). Likewise, Russia could cite them to justify actions in Ukraine. For South Korea, a U.S. ally, Venezuela reveals an uncomfortable truth: international law’s selective enforcement undermines the order Seoul depends on.

Apparently, the U.S. is fulfilling its destiny to ravage Latin America, as Bolivar foresaw almost 200 years ago, for the same reason it invaded Iraq and attacked Libya, a reason that Trump transparently revealed: sweet, sweet oil.

Matheus Cordeiro is a former political adviser and is currently a Global Korea Scholarship (GKS) scholar pursuing a Master's in International Relations at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.