logo
Trump's cartel order revives ‘bitter' memories in Latin America

Trump's cartel order revives ‘bitter' memories in Latin America

Boston Globea day ago
But up and down much of Latin America, any whisper of reviving such actions could also unleash a chain reaction resulting in a surge in anti-American sentiment. The news of Trump's order has already intensified a wariness against intervention from abroad, even in Ecuador and other countries plagued by violent drug wars in recent years.
'I'm a right-wing conservative, so I want armed citizens and the military actually shooting,' said Patricio Endara, 46, a businessperson in Quito, the Ecuadorian capital. 'But I wouldn't agree with having foreign soldiers in Ecuador.'
Advertisement
That skepticism draws from the bitter memories left by the long record of US military interventions in the region, whether through direct or indirect action, as during Colombia's long internal war.
'Those are formulas that have shown, to the point of exhaustion, their failure,' Iván Cepeda, a Colombian senator, said in an interview.
These kinds of interventions 'inflict immense damage,' said Fernando González Davidson, a Guatemalan scholar, pointing to how such actions often strove for regime change. 'The U.S. leaves power in the hands of a corrupt and criminal class aligned with its own interests.'
Advertisement
A United States-backed coup in 1954 in Guatemala ousted a democratically elected leader over concerns that a land reform project threatened United Fruit Co., a powerful American corporation with large tracts of land there.
In the decades that followed, that Guatemalan coup became a rallying cry across the region by exposing US Cold War policy as a tool for protecting US interests over democratic principles and national sovereignty.
Long before the US military's involvement in the region became so contentious, President James Monroe's assertion in 1823 that the United States could use its military in Latin America had more bark than bite, historians say.
But in the 1840s, President James K. Polk invoked the doctrine to justify the Mexican-American War, which produced the United States conquest of Mexican lands now comprising states such as California, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico.
That humiliating outcome, and other US military interventions in Mexico in the 1910s, profoundly shaped Mexico's political identity, fostering a strong sense of nationalism that is often in opposition to the United States.
President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico tapped into such sentiment Friday when she rejected the use of US military forces in her country. She made it explicitly clear that Mexico has ruled out any kind of 'invasion.'
'Unilateral US military action inside Mexico would be disastrous for bilateral cooperation on issues like migration and security,' said Arturo Santa-Cruz, an expert on US-Mexico relations at the University of Guadalajara.
Advertisement
Territorial expansion came into play again during the Spanish-American War in 1898, solidifying the United States' emergence as a global power when it took Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines from Spain.
President Theodore Roosevelt followed in 1903 by sending warships to support a revolt by separatists in Colombia. They formed Panama and gave the United States control over the Canal Zone, which Panama fully regained only in 1999.
Roosevelt created his own corollary to the Monroe Doctrine the next year, claiming that the United States should exert 'police power' in the Americas when it found cases of flagrant 'wrongdoing.'
This pivot turbocharged US interventions, and protecting American property often was the justification. In Cuba alone, US forces intervened on three occasions from 1906 to 1922.
During the Cold War, the United States found new ways to intervene. This included supporting coups that ousted democratically elected leaders in Guatemala, Brazil, and Chile.
US forces also kept intervening with boots on the ground in places including the Dominican Republic and Grenada, driven by concerns about communists in these countries.
So many interventions had the effect of unifying much of Latin America around the issue of sovereignty. Such positioning was on display when Latin American countries recently closed ranks to oppose Trump's threats to regain the Panama Canal.
'There's been an iron will among Latin Americans to define one of their core values as national sovereignty and nonintervention,' said Alan McPherson, a historian at Temple University in Philadelphia.
Even as the Cold War was easing in 1989, the United States once again intervened in Panama to depose its de facto leader, Manuel Noriega, who was wanted by US authorities on drug trafficking charges.
Advertisement
For the Americans, it was 'Operation Just Cause,' said Efraín Guerrero, a community leader who gives walking tours in Panama City to keep alive the memory of the US invasion. 'But for us, it became 'Forgetting Forbidden,' because we have to remember all those who died.'
That intervention could provide a template for a similar action in a country like Venezuela, where the United States has doubled a reward, to $50 million, for information leading to the arrest of its leader, Nicolás Maduro, whom US officials accuse of links to gangs such as Tren de Aragua and the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico.
Since the news of Trump's move appeared Friday, some critics of the Venezuelan regime have called for the US military to do just that, asking the US president to order US troops to go after Maduro, just as they targeted Panama's president in 1989.
'Let's hope he does it,' said a Venezuelan woman in the city of Maracaibo, who asked that her name not appear for fear of Maduro. 'This is what we have been waiting for, for years -- for Maduro to leave or for Trump to take him. We Venezuelans would happily give him away.'
'This move or threat by the Trump administration,' said Christopher Sabatini, a Latin America expert at the London-based Chatham House, 'is going to really touch that historic and deeply felt popular nerve' about US interventions in Latin America. However, he said, throughout history there was also, often, 'a particular sort of partisan faction that was lobbying the United States to get involved.'
This article originally appeared in
Advertisement
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sidelined from Trump-Putin talks, Ukraine warns the world not to trust Russia
Sidelined from Trump-Putin talks, Ukraine warns the world not to trust Russia

CNBC

time20 minutes ago

  • CNBC

Sidelined from Trump-Putin talks, Ukraine warns the world not to trust Russia

Sidelined from forthcoming talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump to negotiate an end to the war, Ukraine has warned the world that Moscow is not to be trusted and is planning new offensives. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said intelligence and military officials had briefed him on Monday "on what Putin is counting on and what he is actually preparing for," saying "this includes military preparations." "He is certainly not preparing to cease fire or end the war," Zelenskyy said in his nightly address. "There is not a single sign that the Russians have been told to prepare for a post-war situation – not yet. On the contrary, they are moving their troops and forces in ways that indicate they plan to launch new offensive operations. No one preparing for peace acts this way," he added. "Putin's sole aim is to present a meeting with America as his personal victory and then continue acting as before, putting pressure on Ukraine as before," the president warned. CNBC has contacted the Kremlin for a response to Zelenskyy's claims and is awaiting a response. The problem for Ukraine is whether anyone is listening. Neither Zelenskyy nor European officials are invited to the Trump-Putin talks in Alaska on Friday, much to their consternation. Ukraine has vehemently stated that no deal about its future can be struck in its absence, amid fears that it could be forced to cede Russian-occupied territory to Moscow as part of a peace deal. European leaders, meanwhile, are pushing strongly for Ukraine's involvement in the talks. The U.S., for its part, has said it is considering inviting Zelenskyy, NBC News reported. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz invited Trump to join Zelenskyy and European leaders when they hold an emergency call on Tuesday afternoon in anticipation of Friday's talks. The virtual summit will reportedly focus on ways to pressure Russia, the fate of Ukrainian territories seized by Russia and possible security guarantees for Kyiv. Trump suggested on Monday that there could "some swapping" of territory as part of a peace deal though he insisted the U.S. "would try to get some of that territory back for Ukraine." "There'll be some swapping, there'll be some changes in land," Trump told reporters at the White House, although he downplayed any expectations of what could come of the talks, describing them as a "feel-out meeting." "We're going to see what he has in mind and if it's a fair deal, I'll reveal it to the European Union leaders and to NATO leaders and also to President Zelensky," Trump said. Geopolitical analysts agree that the talks are unlikely to yield a comprehensive and long-lasting solution to the more-than-three year conflict between Russia and Ukraine, given the complexity of the war, its underlying causes and the number of stakeholders involved. Instead, the talks "should be seen as the Trump administration's attempt to assess whether there is space for a mutually acceptable compromise — at least on select issues," Andrius Tursa, Central and Eastern Europe advisor at risk consultancy Teneo, said in emailed comments Monday. "Even in a best-case scenario, any high-level agreement would require multiple rounds of difficult follow-up talks to resolve implementation issues. This would be another option for Moscow to draw out the talks, hoping to capitalize on its gradually increasing advantage on the frontlines," he noted. The Kremlin may seek to exploit growing exhaustion in Ukraine by proposing a temporary or partial de-escalation in the war, Tursa said. "Such a move would offer the Trump administration a symbolic diplomatic success while placing pressure on Kyiv to make substantial concessions. Should Ukraine fail to respond in a way deemed acceptable by Moscow, the Kremlin would likely portray Kyiv as the main obstacle to peace and count on Washington to increase pressure on Zelenskyy." Tursa said this latter scenario underscores the risks inherent in any potential Trump-Putin agreement that's reached without the direct involvement of Ukraine and its European allies. "Despite Ukraine's reliance on U.S. support, neither Zelensky nor Ukraine's parliament could be expected to endorse an agreement perceived as unfavorable and lacking public backing. Zelensky's administration has already publicly rejected the idea of territorial concessions floated ahead of the summit, clearly signaling Kyiv's red lines."

How public health — not handcuffs — can heal Mass. and Cass
How public health — not handcuffs — can heal Mass. and Cass

Boston Globe

time21 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

How public health — not handcuffs — can heal Mass. and Cass

I am deeply familiar with the challenges at Mass. and Cass and do not dismiss their severity. I am a lifelong Bostonian who experienced street homelessness and substance-use disorder. As an adolescent, I spent time in juvenile detention because of my substance use, and I was court-ordered into involuntary treatment for nearly a year. As an adult, I began working in the substance-use field, serving as policy director for the City of Boston's Office of Recovery Services for five years. Advertisement In the years since I left my city role, I have been Advertisement Many South End residents — along with This shift is mirrored nationally. President Trump recently signed an executive order, Some local leaders have been eerily silent about how much federal interference they would support at Mass. and Cass. When More criminalization will not improve Mass. and Cass, however. We cannot simply lock complicated social issues away. America has a long history of political decisions creating harmful and inhumane policies. Before the 1960s, involuntary commitment was the only way Americans dealt with mental health and substance-use disorders. The threshold for Advertisement People were most often institutionalized by police. By the 1930s, police officers were responsible for Public opinion started to turn against involuntary commitment in the 1950s. Americans rightly considered it to be cruel and ineffective. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson both facilitated changes to involuntary commitment through landmark civil rights and health care legislation. In 1967, California's Ronald Reagan was the These days, an incarcerated person is 40 to 129 times as likely as the general public Advertisement Growing economic inequality, soaring housing costs, and dwindling living-wage jobs have led to Americans must prioritize public health policies that have caused a Boston should replicate the Boston has a much lower rate of unsheltered people compared to the national average, but there is more work to do. The city should expand congregate housing options that allow residents to cohabitate with a partner or pet; Victory Programs' Advertisement If locking people up for using drugs or being unhoused were effective, it would have worked by now. Americans can only address homelessness and problematic drug use by following public health data and investing accordingly. A Band-Aid is not enough to treat a bullet wound. If we spend less time and money criminalizing poor people and more on proven public health measures, we'd all be healthier and safer.

Mark Cuban is lauding Trump for how the POTUS has handled China and Nvidia
Mark Cuban is lauding Trump for how the POTUS has handled China and Nvidia

Business Insider

time22 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

Mark Cuban is lauding Trump for how the POTUS has handled China and Nvidia

Mark Cuban said on Monday that it's a good move to have Nvidia and AMD pay the US government 15% of their China chip sales revenues. "This is a 'billionaire's tax' structured as a royalty or sales tax on semiconductors from the most valuable company in the world, sold to China," Cuban wrote on X, after the Financial Times first reported that President Donald Trump had imposed the requirement on the two chipmakers. Cuban — who spent the 2024 election campaigning for Vice President Kamala Harris — said Trump deserves praise if the government does get a cut from Nvidia and AMD's China chip sales. "Everyone knows how I feel about POTUS, but he doesn't get everything wrong," Cuban said on Monday, referencing his past criticisms of Trump's tariff policies. "Will this make up for the explosion of the deficits we face? Not as it stands now. Not close. But give him credit for knowing how those CEOs approach problems and opportunities, and using his leverage to generate tax revenues," Cuban added. Cuban and the White House did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider. "POTUS is more progressive when it comes to taxation than anyone in the progressive wing of the Dems has ever been. The Dems should be celebrating just how progressive it is. The irony," Cuban wrote on X. Cuban said on Monday that progressive Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts should have floated the 15% requirement. "They are so intent on income and wealth taxes on 'oligarchs,' they have no concept of leverage in business. Trump does," Cuban said. "He took 15% of equity from a company. That is the ULTIMATE wealth tax. He diluted every shareholder, upfront, regardless of their net worth. Lol. A progressive dream!" Cuban added. Representatives for Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, and Warren did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider. Last month, Nvidia said it would start selling its H20 chips in China again. The H20 chip is a China-specific product that was designed to be less advanced than Nvidia's other offerings. AMD made a similar announcement as well. In April, Nvidia said the Trump administration wanted them to apply for special licenses to sell their chips to China. Nvidia said those restrictions would have resulted in a $5.5 billion charge. In July, David Sacks, the White House's AI and crypto czar, said the administration's volte-face targeted Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant. Letting Nvidia sell a "deprecated, less capable chip" to the Chinese will "deprive Huawei of basically having this giant market share in China," Sacks told Bloomberg's Ed Ludlow.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store