Latin American countries divided over Trump’s war on “drug boats”

Given the messy history of US involvement in Latin America and the Caribbean, it is assumed that the countries and peoples of the region are uniformly opposed to the Trump administration’s escalating war on alleged drug boats and the prospect of regime change in Venezuela. But the reality is much more complex and detailed.

Regional reactions to the military campaign, and the possibility of a US military operation against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, have been mixed, despite the cascading consequences of the boat strikes and the wide-ranging geopolitical implications of the situation.

This can partly be explained by ideological divisions in the region. Left leaders in Colombia, Mexico and Brazil were the most vocal critics of the strikes, but to varying degrees. Meanwhile, countries led by right-wing leaders, such as Paraguay, Argentina and Ecuador, have generally sided with the Trump administration’s approach to drug trafficking and Maduro, including following Washington’s lead and designating the Venezuela-based Cartel de los Solis as a terrorist organization.

However, even the Trump administration’s closest right-wing allies in the region, such as El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukela, have made little effort to publicly support the boat strikes, although reports indicate that the Central American country may host US aircraft participating in the operation.

Juan Gabriel Tocatlian, professor of international relations and dean of the Torcuato de Tella University in Buenos Aires, said, “The level of division we are witnessing today among Latin American countries is the most dramatic in the past half century.”

Political composition

This does not mean that Latin American countries have always agreed or that the political composition of the region tends to be homogeneous. Even a quick look at the history of the region shows that this is far from the truth, but Tokatlian said:

“There were times in the past when Latin American countries joined forces against various measures taken by the United States.”

He referred to the “Contadora” group, which was formed by Mexico, Panama, Colombia and Venezuela in the early 1980s in response to the crisis in Central America that the administration of former US President Ronald Reagan played a major role in provoking through its support for right-wing governments and anti-communist forces.

“But today there is no main arena in which Latin America can cooperate,” Tokatlian added. The Union of South American Nations has been “destroyed,” and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Nations has become “useless.”

The Organization of American States appears concerned that criticism of the US operation will lead to economic sanctions by President Trump, according to Tokatlyan.

In fact, concern about Trump’s tendency to use American economic power as a diplomatic weapon, especially as he continues to criticize Latin America over immigration, appears to be one of the biggest factors driving leaders’ response to the situation.

Some leaders did not hesitate to take a strong stance against the American operation. Colombian President, Gustavo Petro, strongly condemned the raids, accusing the Trump administration of committing murders. Mexican President, Claudia Sheinbaum, and Brazilian President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, also condemned the strikes and the US military presence in the Caribbean.

However, DaSilva and Sheinbaum, who have had to be cautious in their dealings with Trump amid disputes over trade and tariffs, were more restrained in their criticism than Petro, in what may be an attempt to avoid Trump’s economic wrath.

Reducing aid

Trump responded to Petro’s condemnation of the boat strikes by reducing aid to Colombia, which is traditionally considered a major ally of the United States in South America. But Petro, whom Trump also referred to as the “illegal drug lord,” did not back down from his sharp criticism of the US president.

For his part, Will Freeman, a fellow for Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that Petro’s approach “is not surprising.” Freeman added that a conflict like this is “Pietro’s bread and butter,” stressing that the Colombian leader built his political career by being “the kind of provocateur who is willing to take fire for saying things that are unpopular, but are often true.”

“The fact that he is burning all his bridges with the United States, and that he is completely impractical, but he is trying to turn that into political rhetoric in his country, is not a surprise,” Freeman said, adding that leaders like Sheinbaum and Lula are “more cautious and realistic.”

On the other hand, the Prime Minister of Trinidad, Kamla Persad, emerged with her enthusiastic support for the operation and her welcome of strengthening the American military presence in the region. It did not support the declaration of the Caribbean countries, last month, which called for reaffirming the principle of the region remaining a “peace zone.” The declaration stated that the Caribbean Community remained committed to combating drug traffickers, but stressed that efforts to address these challenges must be facilitated through global cooperation and respect for international law.

Persad was perhaps the most vocal leader in the region in her support of the American operation. Regarding drug traffickers, she said that “the United States must kill them all mercilessly.” The President of Trinidad also recently allowed an American warship to dock in the country’s capital, despite clear concerns from the public about the recent strikes and protests outside the American embassy in Port of Spain, the country’s capital.

About “Foreign Policy”

---

Laws of war

The US military is increasing its presence in the Caribbean, including the deployment of guided-missile destroyers, F-35 fighter jets, a nuclear submarine, and thousands of soldiers.

In addition to the latest strike, the United States carried out 10 attacks on suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, killing nearly 40 people. The Pentagon provided little information, but Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says some of those attacks were against ships near Venezuela.

The attacks have raised concerns among some legal experts and Democratic lawmakers, who are raising questions about whether these attacks comply with the laws of war. Reuters was the first to report that two people – believed to be drug smugglers – survived a US military attack in the Caribbean Sea last week. They were rescued and transferred to a US Navy warship before being returned to their countries of Colombia and Ecuador.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro says the United States hopes to remove him from power. In August, Washington increased its reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million, accusing him of links to drug trafficking and criminal gangs, which the Venezuelan president denies.

. Concern about Trump’s tendency to use American economic power as a diplomatic weapon, especially as he continues to criticize Latin America over immigration, appears to be one of the biggest factors motivating leaders’ response to the situation.