An anti-colonial statement is Trump’s legitimization for unilateral military power

An anti-colonial statement is Trump’s legitimization for unilateral military power.

As I am passionate about factual information, history and see it as one of my tasks to inform SMEs in Spanish America about our (European) point of view regarding recent developments in the South American region, in the Dutch Financieele Dagblad a nice history lesson from historian Eline van Ommen, associate professor of International History at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. She argues that the gross and illegal U.S. violation of Venezuela's sovereignty and arrest of Maduro is unprecedented — even in the history of U.S. interventions in Latin America.

• The previous intervention in the region was in 1989, when the United States invaded Panama, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths.
• The Monroe Doctrine of 1823, when the United States had been in existence for less than 50 years, was a declaration of solidarity, a political speech in which the fifth U.S. President James Monroe called for cooperation between like-minded and sovereign American republics – including Venezuela, which in 1821 became definitively independent from Spain – to keep European monarchies with colonial ambitions at bay. An anti-colonial statement that focused on European colonial interference in the Western Hemisphere being unacceptable. At that time, there were many more powerful European powers.
• In 2026 , however, Trump is using the Monroe Doctrine as a unilateral American declaration of power. Latin America is said to be the 'backyard' of the US, in which the rest of the world has no business interfering. It is Trump's legitimization for unilateral military intervention.

More on this: https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-western-hemisphere-americas-tariffs-panama-canal/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication

• In 1904,  the transformation of the Monroe Doctrine into an explicit instrument of power began. President Theodore Roosevelt then added the Roosevelt Corollary, giving the U.S. the right to intervene in Latin American countries that were economically or politically "unstable." During the last century, this 'right' was regularly used – the US intervened dozens of times in the region, sometimes openly militarily, but often through covert operations or political pressure.

While the U.S. has certainly tried to exert influence in South America in the past, this has always been in collaboration with local elites and military regimes, such as Pinochet in Chile and the Argentine junta. In official statements, American interests were invariably denied.

Imperialism

In Venezuela it is different. References to the Monroe Doctrine or to the Roosevelt Corollary conceal the fact that the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and Trump's claim that the US is now "running" Venezuela are completely unprecedented: 

This is the first time that the US has intervened militarily in a South American country.

Previous interventions took place in the Caribbean or in Central America. It is also unclear how the US could govern the country remotely, and what the local consequences will be.

The Venezuelans think they have been liberated and have hope for a better future. However, they are cut off from information and have been for years. How can they properly analyze what happens when it is already a full-time job for people with access to information? According to the BBC, armed police are currently patrolling the streets of Caracas. Many Maduro supporters are still in power. Intimidation and fear are unchanged.

Sources:

in Dutch: https://fd.nl/opinie/1582765/ingrijpen-in-venezuela-ondermijnt-trumps-macht

Engels:  https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cwy1x9vwn3dt

About the Donald Eres un pendejo campaign: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/18/mexico-brands-advertising-donald-trump

What Venezuelans should know is that Trump is openly speculating about Venezuela's oil reserves and no U.S.-backed opposition leader has come to power. 

This intervention clearly breaks with the old pattern of regional cooperation and subtle diplomacy, in which Washington places itself above the entire region.

No understanding of power

Eline van Ommen concludes that in addition to poor historical knowledge, Trump's approach is also a fundamental misconception about what power means in international politics. Power – certainly in the longer term – is not only about military capacity, but rather about the ability to build alliances, promote norms and values and exert influence through financial incentives, such as development aid. 

The result will be more anti-Americanism and the further isolation of the US in the Western Hemisphere. Latin American governments that value national sovereignty will coordinate their foreign policies more, especially in international forums such as the United Nations and the Organization of American States.

In the past, Latin American states have often responded collectively and forcefully to unilateral American actions in the region. For example, Ronald Reagan's aggressive foreign policy in Central America in the 1980s led Mexico, Colombia, Panama and Venezuela to cooperate in the Contadora process to promote peace in the region – against the wishes of the US, and, with European support.