In Latin America, the US Is Showing What the Future World-Order Might Look Like

Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s president, has called for an emergency meeting of Latin American countries to respond to a “threat” by the United States. He is referring to the executive order supposedly signed by Trump and reported by The New York Times, which asks the Pentagon to ready the army for military interventions against drug cartels in the region.

This order was reported the day after Pam Bondi announced a reward of $50 million for information leading to the arrest of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro. She accused him of being “one of the largest drug traffickers in the world and a threat to U.S. national security” and the leader of the supposed “Cartel de los Soles” with ties to the Tren de Aragua and the Sinaloa Cartel.

This makes Maduro a legitimate target for the army, since Trump had previously labeled these drug cartels as terrorist organizations. Both Petro and Maduro had accused Marco Rubio of plotting “terrorist attacks” against Venezuela. Of course, it could be argued that both were trying to deflect attention from internal problems and that the U.S. is an easy target.

It is no secret that the United States has aimed at regime change in Venezuela since at least Hugo Chávez came to power, who survived a coup in 2002. After the 2018 election, the U.S. tried to push Juan Guaidó as president, while after the 2024 election it tried to push the frontman of Corina Machado, Edmundo González. Marco Rubio confirmed that the Trump administration’s designation of the Cartel de los Soles, which it claims is led by Maduro, as a terrorist organization would legitimize U.S. military operations in Venezuela

If the U.S. wanted to intervene militarily in Venezuela, it has already built up the case. However, as Nick has elaborated in this post, Venezuela might not be the country to which Trump’s order is directed—at least not in the short term—but rather Mexico. Nick argues that full-blown military action against Mexico is not probable, but that the threat of a U.S. unilateral military action against drug cartels is growing and perhaps “imminent”.

A full military action against Venezuela or Mexico is not expected in the short term, but perhaps that is not the purpose of Trump’s order. The combination of labeling drug cartels as terrorist organizations and ordering the army to be ready for a possible intervention against them could be used, in due course, against most countries in Latin America. That’s why Petro is calling for a regional meeting to respond to what he says is a threat to all.

This meeting will probably not happen, and if it does, it will only be attended by Petro’s ideological allies, which are growing thin in the continent as the U.S., under Trump, redirects its attention to the applicability of the Monroe Doctrine in the region. It is not that it has ever abandoned it, but the need for it and the justification is changing. An example of this is the recently released U.S. State Department Human Rights report.

In the report, the Trump administration asked to soften the critique of partners in the region, such as El Salvador, about which the report says that there are “no credible reports of significant human rights abuses.” On the other hand, it has ramped up criticism of Brazil, with whom the U.S. is currently involved in an escalating spiral of diplomatic conflict.

Trump wants Brazil to drop the charge against ex-President Bolsonaro, who is accused of leading a coup conspiracy after losing elections. Lula has defied the U.S. and vowed not to submit to Trump’s designs, which has led the U.S. president to impose 50% tariffs (with notable exceptions) and to apply sanctions on members of the judiciary. But the case is larger than Brazil.

The Trump administration is seeking to ward off Chinese and Russian influence in the region and is doing so by lending full support to allies such as El Salvador, Argentina and Ecuador—where U.S. military bases might stage a comeback—and going strong against countries that do not bow to its will, such as Petro’s Colombia, Venezuela, or Brazil.

Brazil is a founding member of BRICS, and Lula has openly called for de-dollarization. For the U.S., making Brazil fall in line would serve as an example to others against defying U.S. hegemony in a region that it considers its sphere of influence.

In asserting its influence, Trump is taking a different approach than previous administrations. Instead of using human rights and democratic measurements to justify its interventionism, he is returning to threats to national security from drug cartels and immigration. It is also readopting the policy of backing up authoritarian governments in the region—such as El Salvador or Ecuador—as long as they are servile to U.S. interests.

Both policies have had terrible results in the past. As Nick points out, “further militarizing the war on drugs is unlikely to hamper the flow of drugs; it just creates yet more cycles of violence. We have already seen this play out in Colombia and Mexico, and is currently playing out in Ecuador.” And many of the past U.S.-backed dictatorial regimes in Latin America, such as Chile, Argentina or Brazil, were particularly brutal.

This focus and change of attitude towards the region is driven by what Foreign Affairs magazine titled “The Return of Sphere of Influence” and argues that the concept of “sphere of influence” has been gaining traction since 1999, but especially after the economic crisis of 2008–09 and the Ukraine war, which could be argued marks the end of U.S. hegemony.

The authors define “spheres of influence” as larger countries “using their advantages in military force, economic leverage, and diplomacy to secure spheres of influence—that is, geographic areas over which a state exerts economic, military, and political control without necessarily exercising formal sovereignty.”

The subtitle of this article—“Will Negotiations Over Ukraine Be a New Yalta Conference That Carves Up the World?”—becomes even more relevant with the upcoming Trump–Putin meeting in Alaska. The result of this meeting could herald what geopolitical analyst Alfredo Jalife calls the new “tripolar order”. The “tripolar order” is a G3 composed of China, Russia and the U.S. each with a “sphere of influence”.

Although there are other analysts, such as Andrew Korybko, who argue that Russia is trying to beat China to what he calls a “New Détente” with the U.S., which would normalise their relationships, would lessen Russia’s dependence on China and would allow the U.S. to “pivot back to Asia” to contain China.

Regardless of the outcome, what seems to be emerging is that the end of the “rules-based order”, which is digging its own grave in Gaza, will be followed by a return to one based on different powers exerting influence over their regions. China, Russia and the U.S. are the obvious ones, but others, such as Turkey, Israel, India or Ethiopia are following suit.

This development in international relations is, I suppose, expected after a hegemonic power loses grip. The power vacuum is filled by other actors. What remains to be seen is if these actors will behave in their “spheres of influence” similarly to how the U.S. does. I, personally, hold some hope that there will be some differences as China’s way, for example, is less confrontational and more diplomatic, for now.

However, I don’t discard the possibility that this return to a world governed by regional powers, now aided by surveillance technology and control tools never experienced before, is not the previous stage before a further concentration and consolidation of power in fewer global actors. The U.S. has already signed agreements with Chile, Ecuador and Colombia to share biometric data.

PS: Since writing this article, I have come across a few interesting developments. The GOP Ohio Senator endorsed by Trump has changed his discourse, stating that “Maduro’s reign of terror is over” and claiming that he will be out by the end of the year. At the same time, Edmundo González has returned to the spotlight, claiming Venezuela’s presidency from Spain, and Ecuador’s President Noboa, following the U.S.’s lead, has declared the alleged “Clan de los Soles” a terrorist organization. I still don’t think a full-fledged U.S. military operation against Venezuela is likely, but a new attempt at regime change might be on the horizon.

Another interesting development in the region—unrelated to Venezuela but involving the U.S.—is that Vectus Global, Erik Prince’s security company, has signed a deal with Haiti’s economic elite to take over security in the country and collect taxes. I believe this deserves a separate article.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

12 comments

  1. DG2

    You should take India off the list – it has not been successful in exerting its influence in its neighborhood! Even Bangladesh, Nepal and Maldives are pretty much in the US/Chinese camp.

    Re: “…will be followed by a return to one based on different powers exerting influence over their regions. China, Russia and the U.S. are the obvious ones, but others, such as Turkey, Israel, India or Ethiopia are following suit…”

    1. Catchymango

      The abysmal failure of Indian “minilateralism” in the form of the essentially defunct SAARC regional grouping imo has more to do with the US unipolar period, where India’s newly minted embrace of the US effectively transformed regional politics into a contest between India and Pakistan for the affections of the US. It was left to countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal to guard the project of economic integration, which given the existing structural linkages with India (India remains a big energy upgrading hub for Bangladesh in particular, and is a key stakeholder in Afghanistan) would necessarily mean deals with China.

      The ensuing Cold War in Asia since the Kargil War has ensured that any sense of rapproachment and cooperation has been in fits and starts. I feel like things are coming to a head however, based on what Trump is doing as well as the recent intrigue John Helmer alluded to: re the Pakistani army chief’s recent visits to Washington, as well as the growing anti-Indian Pak-Bangladesh axis that MK Bhadrakumar has warned seems to be blossoming under the watchful eye of the Americans. Both countries are economic basket cases right now, and once it’s exhausted, their revanchism will make it easier for the opposition to eventually move in the opposite direction.

      It’s not flashy stuff that grabs the attention of some multipolaristas, but India’s structural power is not some relic from the 1970s. A pipeline with Bangladesh was opened in 2023, and a hydroelectric deal was signed a couple months ago too. The recently elected government in Sri Lanka signed an intelligence sharing and military cooperation deal with India, while an indian SOE has commenced work on the largest solar project in the country this year.

      Imran Khan is still sitting in jail, someone with a democratic mandate who I sincerely believe wants to see Pakistan thrive far more than he might want to see India fail. Their military might see India as a scapegoat for its own corruption and self-aggrandizement (and I would say the same about Indian elites), but at the end of the day there is enormous potential for an integrated South Asia, potential that is almost entirely unrealized due to the scars of history. I think a figure like Khan understood this, and I am somewhat hopeful now that events will force the Indian side, whether that’s an opportunist like Modi or someone else, to understand that too. In that case, we might see SAARC or some equivalent format be revived with new momentum.

  2. Fazal Majid

    The US never abandoned its big stick in South America. Even the much-eulogized Carter waged an incredibly dirty campaign in El Salvador, all the way to the murder of St Oscar Romero. In comparison, Trump thus far has been relatively restrained in Latin America, but of course the recklessness and disregard for the rule of law of his administration does not bode well.

  3. Nat Wilson Turner

    Good piece. Pretty clear that Trump learned absolutely nothing from the 2018 Guaidó debacle. I shudder to think what’s coming next.
    Any kind of U.S. military escalation in Mexico will be an absolute disaster unless you’re in a drug cartel or the U.S. military and are looking for lucrative side hustles working for the cartels.

  4. Carolinian

    Sounds like the Guaido farce, a low point of Trump 1, was a preview of coming attractions. Maybe he can also declare a new president for Brazil–or at least he certainly would like to do that. Then on to Greenland.

  5. The Rev Kev

    We’ve all seen how the US views its spheres of influence-

    https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoon?searchID=EC108463

    The US is not to be listened too in its claims. They just make up ****. It say that through the Monroe Doctrine, that it’s influence in South America runs all the way down to Tierra del Fuego. On the other hand, they say that the Russian Federation must have no say in countries on their actual border. Who can take their words seriously?

    The US may want to take over countries in South America but I don’t think that their military is up to it anymore. Who needs a Vietnam repeat in the jungles of Venezuela? So they use local agents and financial forces. That is why Trump wants Bolsanaro sprung – so that he can be used to take over Brazil again in a second coup attempt. Probably why so many countries in South America are turning to China. They don’t do this sort of stuff in South America but are interested in building up the infrastructure in those countries unlike the US that only even wants to build military bases and train up local “security” forces for purposes of local repression. Who needs that crap?

  6. AG

    Still thinking back to my conversation 15 years ago with that German advisor of Chavez who told me he had been urging Chavez to build an SSBN… that continent is cursed being located next to the US of A. And yet – they still stick to the nuke-free treaty!

    1. Yaiyen

      I heard many leftwing economy’s have advice Maduro but he have decline to follow these policys to help the currency, i could never understand Venezuela and Iran even if west is coming down with hammer they still push neoliberal policys.

      1. AG

        I haven´t had time to follow Venezuela any more. All I hear are contradictory news. A lot happening on the ground while some criticism of Maduro. But Maduro cannot act as if there were no neoliberals on this planet. I assume he has to juggle them all…🙄

  7. Eclair

    Re: the end note.
    Vectus Global, Eric Prince’s private army, is setting up as a ‘tax farm’ in Haiti. And I thought tax farming had gone out with the French Revolution. Silly me. And, yes, that does deserve a separate article, Curro!

Comments are closed.