Consistent with the National Security Strategy 2025[1], his administration's strategic document, in which Latin America assumes an unexpected centrality, on January 3, Trump ordered and carried out the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Maduro. The action followed the deployment of a US Navy naval squadron that, cruising off the coast of Venezuela, sank vessels in transit, without even bothering to verify who was actually occupying them, claiming they were drug traffickers.
This renewed interest of the United States administration in Latin America is not only the result of the US retreating within the continent's borders to better manage the many scenarios in which the country is engaged to defend its empire, but also certifies the acknowledgement and recognition of the inadequacy of the human and strategic resources available and necessary to keep the global empire under control. The belief is that the resources of Latin and Central America are strategically indispensable to the United States to maintain its primacy and ensure its strategic security against potential aggression from other international actors in a world that has become multipolar.In addition to this belief, there is a growing awareness in Washington circles of the dangers to which US hegemony is exposed. This is deriving from the actions other international actors are taking to challenge it, allying with certain South and Central American countries within the BRICS umbrella. These countries are strategically located on the continent and aspire to free themselves from US exploitation, to achieve better living conditions for their people and retain at home the wealth that the North Americans would once again like to plunder.
The strategic role of the Caribbean countries
The first immediate projection of the US economy is towards Canada and especially Mexico, countries to which much of the production activities that once took place in the US have been relocated. Furthermore, to facilitate trade, the United States needed control of the sea routes, especially in the areas bordering its coasts.
Hence the interest in the Panama Canal.
Simon Bolivar, who commissioned the first study, recognized the canal's economic and strategic importance. This initial initiative was followed by various attempts by planners and speculators to build the canal. In 1901, the United States obtained authorization to begin construction, as the territory on which the canal was to be built then belonged to Colombia. Faced with the Colombian government's refusal to ratify the agreement, the United States staged a coup d'état in 1903, which created the state of Panama, which was immediately placed under its tutelage.
Thus, construction was able to proceed; The canal was inaugurated in 1906. Since then, the United States has maintained control of the waterway, reaping immense profits from the collection of rights of passage and from its trade, and seamlessly connecting the country's two shores: the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans.
In 1997, the Hong Kong group CK Hutchinson acquired the license to manage the ports of Balboa and Cristobal in Panama, located at either end of the canal. In an effort to regain control of this strategic asset, Trump effectively forced the US group Blackrock to take over its management, paying the Hong Kong group $19 billion. Although the canal's operation has recently been strengthened, expanded, and modernized to accommodate increasingly larger vessels, Blackrock shares fell more than 3% on Wall Street following the announcement, while CK Hutchinson shares soared 6%. Yet, undoubtedly, US control diminishes Chinese influence in Central America.
The fact is that markets often don't base their thinking on geopolitical interests, but on profits. Investors are well aware that China has long been preparing an extremely viable alternative to the Panama Canal, acting on two fronts simultaneously. On the one hand, taking advantage of its good relations with Colombian President Gustavo Pedro, it is building and financing the construction of the railway between Buenaventura, on the Pacific Ocean, and Barranquilla, on the Atlantic, a mere 222 km long. The project will be built by Chinese workers and with Chinese capital, but it is not the only infrastructure intended to bypass the canal, considering that the investments include other major projects such as roads, railways, ports, airports, oil pipelines, and electricity and telecommunications networks, all of which are part of Colombia's participation in the Belt and Road Initiative, also known as the "Silk Road." The new railway infrastructure will not be subject to US blackmail, freeing Colombia from dependence on the North American giant. Nor is this the only Chinese initiative in the area, as a railway will be built simultaneously, connecting the Brazilian port of Ihéus, on the Atlantic Ocean, with the enormous port of Chancay, in Peru, on the Pacific Ocean. This railway, built by the Chinese and operated by the Chinese state-owned company Cosco Shipping, will be the so-called "bio-oceanic railway." The project is expected to be 4,500 kilometers long and will cross Cusco, Pucallpa, and the Peruvian Amazon, as well as the Brazilian states of Acre, Rondônia, Mato Grosso, Goiás, and Bahia. The project is considered one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects in the world, capable of reducing the transportation time of Brazilian products to Asian markets by as much as 10 days, and vice versa, considering that Brazil already counts China as its main trading partner, with annual trade of $350 billion. The Brazilian company Infra will coordinate the preliminary activities, while the China Railway Economic and Planning Research Institute will manage the technical aspects of the work.
As if that weren't enough, another alternative to the Panama Canal is the canal that Nicaragua intends to build on its territory. This interoceanic canal, capable of connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, will rival the Panama Canal. The projected cost is approximately $65 billion and will boost the local economy and attract investment from China and Russia. The project envisions a 445-kilometer route, more than five times the length of the Panama Canal, and promises to transform the country into a new strategic hub for global maritime trade.
However, the plan faces environmental criticism, financial uncertainty, and international mistrust regarding its feasibility.
This brief overview of the current situation allows us to better understand the strategic rationale behind Trump's initiatives. In light of these facts, the US president's actions are less extemporaneous than they may appear at first glance and provide the rationale for the determination with which the Venezuelan issue has been addressed: pursuing the strategic objective of countering Chinese influence.
The US strategy in managing the post-coup period
That said, in relation to the underlying issues motivating the US intervention, it is necessary to carefully examine the tactics chosen by the White House in managing the post-Maduro era. Many inattentive and ignorant observers and political scientists have publicly shown their astonishment and dismay at the marginalization of Corinna Machado from the future political management of Venezuela and have launched their cry of pain, in the face of the fact that such an "important and glorious freedom fighter", even if with a coup past (2002)[2], who was and is ready to sell Venezuela to the highest bidder, or rather to the President of the United States, is excluded from power. Evidently, awarding her the Nobel Prize was not enough to give her the prestige that she does not have. It's worth reminding everyone that this sordid character belongs to a party bound by a pact of unity of action with Netanyahu's Licud, an expression of the sordid and filthy circles of the South American far right, the fruit of a mix between the heirs of Nazi exiles in Latin America and the byproduct of "Prosperity Theology," crafted by the CIA to counter liberation theology and which today characterizes the evangelical movement and is also a component of Trump's supporters.
Machado believed herself strong, counting on the support she enjoys among evangelical circles and her preferential relationship with Marco Rubio. But more likely, what blocked her path was the lesson learned by the United States in Iraq with the dissolution of the Baath Party and the destruction of the entire Iraqi administrative and military apparatus. Overthrowing the Venezuelan government and fighting Chavismo is not in Trump's interest, as doing so would risk creating a new Vietnam, which is certainly unmanageable today. It's also possible that Vance, who remained uninvolved in the Venezuelan affair, may have been involved. He fears that Rubio might exploit the success of the Venezuela operation to boost his bid to succeed Trump.
It's also possible that someone explained to Trump that a political leader who proposes selling his country to a population like Venezuela's, which has historically developed a deep aversion to US colonialism, even among its right-wing supporters, isn't exactly the kind of leader capable of garnering a majority of support. Others should be told that embracing Machado's fate in order to oppose the country's white European minority against the Indian and Creole population is a surefire way to fail in a country that hosts endemic guerrilla forces and is largely covered by forests.
The Venezuelan Lesson and the Western Narrative
When it happened in Venezuela, it undermined the Western narrative on respect for international law, creating extreme embarrassment among supporters of the West and its values, and fundamentally debunking the chatter spread by mainstream journalists about the West's moral superiority, now thrown to the winds by a US President who claims to be guided only by his conscience. The Western narrative about Russia's violation of international law with the launch of the special operation is now devoid of any credibility, if it ever had any, in Ukraine, and the US President's decisions effectively pave the way for major international actors to do whatever they wish, appropriate and convenient for their country, provided they have the strength to do so.
When it happened in Venezuela, it sounded the death knell for international institutions, and especially for the United Nations, now hollowed out and on the verge of abandonment by the United States. Incidentally, it is worth remembering that the dissolution of the League of Nations was a precursor to World War II.
G. L.
[1]National Security Strategy, The National Security Strategy, https://italiaeilmondo.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy-it.pdf?
[2]The Ignoble Prize, Newsletter Crescita Politica, No. 201, September/October 2025
https://www.ucadi.org/2026/01/31/il-sequestro-maduro-e-la-fine-del-diritto-internazionale/
_________________________________________
Link: (en) Italy, UCADI, #204 - The Maduro Kidnapping and the End of International Law (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten