Removing Venezuela’s dictator introduced “Trump’s corollary” in Latin America with an exclamation point.
The White House’s updated take on the Monroe Doctrine had its baptism of fire on Saturday, when US forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro at his Caracas stronghold, decapitating the Chavista regime responsible for bankrupting one of the world’s richest oil nations. Less than a month after Washington unveiled a new National Security Strategy pledging to restore US pre-eminence in the western hemisphere — by force if necessary — Maduro and his wife were on their way to New York to face “narco-terrorism” charges.
Capped by US President Donald Trump’s subsequent vow to temporarily run Venezuela outright, this day will feature in history books for decades.
Illustration: Mountain People
For Latin America, the episode is a blunt reminder: When divided regional leaders fail to produce homegrown solutions to their gravest crises, the risk that the US will step in — and act alone — is ever present. That risk is heightened by the return of great-power competition and Trump’s transactional, spheres-of-influence worldview. The region now faces the uncomfortable prospect of the US remotely administering a mid-sized South American country bordering Brazil and holding the world’s largest oil reserves, with little regional input.
Reactions among Latin American leaders split along predictable ideological lines. Left-wing governments in Brazil, Chile and Mexico joined Cuba in condemning an intervention that violated Venezuela’s sovereignty. Right-leaning leaders in Argentina and Ecuador welcomed the departure of the hated mustachioed dictator.
Yet both positions can be true at once. Trump acted with evident disregard for international law in pursuing unilateral regime change — but Maduro and his cronies also tempted fate far beyond the odds. They had multiple opportunities to negotiate a political transition. Instead, Maduro chose to steal the 2024 election so brazenly that even his closest allies withheld support in his final days.
He is now likely to follow the path of Panama’s Manuel Noriega nearly four decades ago: ending his days in a jail in the US, rueing having overplayed his hand.
Rather than strongly protesting a historic US intervention on South American soil, Latin American governments might pause to reflect on the many chances they missed to confront the region’s worst political catastrophe of the century. Cynically focused on domestic calculations and commercial ties with Chavismo, leaders from Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to former Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and former Mexican president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador were, at a minimum, complicit as a gangster kleptocracy entrenched itself in Venezuela and metastasized into a destabilizing regional force. The moments when Maduro was treated as a peer — as Lula did by rolling out the red carpet in Brasilia in 2023 — or when governments played dumb as millions of Venezuelans fled across borders should stand as reminders of a region that failed to act in its broader interest.
Some will argue that the US risks losing legitimacy by assuming control of a sovereign nation, echoing its imperialist past. That judgement will depend on Trump’s next steps — and on whether he is committed to forcing a democratic transition now that he “owns” the problem. That would require respecting the will of Venezuelan voters and honoring the results of the last election, which showed opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia winning roughly 70 percent of the vote.
Do not underestimate the regional popularity of Trump’s move. Latin America is shifting decisively to the right and Maduro is deeply despised. Driving through Buenos Aires this morning, I spotted a young man riding his bike, Venezuelan flag fluttering behind him. Millions share that sentiment. While anti-Americanism persists, societies increasingly consumed by insecurity, corruption and narcotrafficking might — at least temporarily — applaud the American cowboy for imposing some order, even under questionable premises.
In this context, Cuba’s derelict dictatorship might loom as the next domino to fall in a region changing at remarkable speed.
Latin America’s heavy electoral calendar this year will also test the impact of Trump’s interventionist move.
Chief among the many unknowns is how Venezuela will be governed in the coming weeks. Latin American governments retain a chance to redeem themselves by helping to shape a democratic exit that enables recovery, limits Trump’s influence and avoids repeating US mistakes in the region. Instead of immolating themselves in defense of a regime that has effectively collapsed, Lula and fellow leftists such as Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Colombian President Gustavo Petro should embrace the historic role they could still play in steering a peaceful and positive transition.
There is much that Latin America can do — from supporting economic reconstruction, which will be demanding, to supplying humanitarian aid and facilitating the return of millions forced into exile in the past two decades.
The Venezuelan people will remember who helped — and who did not.
J.P. Spinetto is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Latin American business, economic affairs and politics. He was previously Bloomberg News’ managing editor for economics and government in the region. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In late January, Taiwan’s first indigenous submarine, the Hai Kun (海鯤, or Narwhal), completed its first submerged dive, reaching a depth of roughly 50m during trials in the waters off Kaohsiung. By March, it had managed a fifth dive, still well short of the deep-water and endurance tests required before the navy could accept the vessel. The original delivery deadline of November last year passed months ago. CSBC Corp, Taiwan, the lead contractor, now targets June and the Ministry of National Defense is levying daily penalties for every day the submarine remains unfinished. The Hai Kun was supposed to be
Reports about Elon Musk planning his own semiconductor fab have sparked anxiety, with some warning that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) could lose key customers to vertical integration. A closer reading suggests a more measured conclusion: Musk is advancing a strategic vision of in-house chip manufacturing, but remains far from replacing the existing foundry ecosystem. For TSMC, the short-term impact is limited; the medium-term challenge lies in supply diversification and pricing pressure, only in the long term could it evolve into a structural threat. The clearest signal is Musk’s announcement that Tesla and SpaceX plan to develop a fab project dubbed “Terafab”
Most schoolchildren learn that the circumference of the Earth is about 40,000km. They do not learn that the global economy depends on just 160 of those kilometers. Blocking two narrow waterways — the Strait of Hormuz and the Taiwan Strait — could send the economy back in time, if not to the Stone Age that US President Donald Trump has been threatening to bomb Iran back to, then at least to the mid-20th century, before the Rolling Stones first hit the airwaves. Over the past month and a half, Iran has turned the Strait of Hormuz, which is about 39km wide at
The ongoing Middle East crisis has reinforced an uncomfortable truth for Taiwan: In an increasingly interconnected and volatile world, distant wars rarely remain distant. What began as a regional confrontation between the US, Israel and Iran has evolved into a strategic shock wave reverberating far beyond the Persian Gulf. For Taiwan, the consequences are immediate, material and deeply unsettling. From Taipei’s perspective, the conflict has exposed two vulnerabilities — Taiwan’s dependence on imported energy and the risks created when Washington’s military attention is diverted. Together, they offer a preview of the pressures Taiwan might increasingly face in an era of overlapping geopolitical
RSS