News & Articles

The U.S. has frequently intervened in other countries, usually with disastrous results for our country and the victim country. We have supported military dictators and overthrown democratically elected leaders. We have attacked, invaded and occupied numerous countries – some resulting in decades of conflict. We have destabilized local economies with economic sanctions. Civil wars have been prolonged by our taking sides.

Seldom has our interference brought freedom, democracy or prosperity to the victims of these illegal and destructive actions.

Why do we interfere in other countries?

Often it was to protect business interests or gain access to resources (especially oil). Marine Corps General Smedley Butler (1881-1940) served for 33 years and led many interventions in Latin America. He later wrote, “I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer – a gangster for capitalism.”

During the Cold War our military interventions and covert actions were about opposing Communism. Our paranoid anti-communism extended to any nation that attempted to be neutral. Any country moving toward a more liberal social democracy was unacceptable. We have never tolerated left-leaning governments in Latin America.

Any government that asserted its right to control natural resources, limit foreign business interests or create an economy with less poverty and broader distribution of the wealth was targeted for “regime change.”

Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under President Nixon, explained our thinking in a statement about the election of socialist Salvador Allende in Chile, “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.”

This arrogant belief that we know what is best for the rest of the world has resulted in millions of people being killed. One estimate says the U.S. is responsible for, or contributed to, 20-30 million deaths in 37 countries since 1945.

The current conflict with Venezuela began with the election of President Hugo Chavez in 1998. He was a “socialist” and began trying to improve conditions for the majority of Venezuelans.

Chavez asserted national sovereignty over oil resources. He nationalized oil and steel production and challenged the control of U.S. companies and international banks over the Venezuelan economy. He used oil revenues to fund health, education, housing and other social programs.

Chavez died in 2013 and Nicolas Maduro was elected President. He continued Chavez’s political and economic policies.

“Regime change” in Venezuela began in 2002 with the George W. Bush administration. Bush  supported a coup attempt against Chávez It failed due to local popular support.

Economic sanctions first began in 2005 for alleged lack of cooperation with the U.S. war on drugs. In 2006 more sanctions were imposed for not cooperating fully with our self-proclaimed war on terrorism.

In 2014 the Obama administrations imposed broader sanctions for alleged human rights abuses, undemocratic practices and political corruption. Biden continued most of these sanctions.

In 2018 and 19 the Trump administration  expanded sanctions to include limiting access to U.S. and international credit. U.S. foreign policy has been consistently bi-partisan.

Today Venezuela is experiencing a political and economic crisis. There is political and social unrest. Many of the economic problems come from low oil prices. This has cut national revenue, which funded liberal social policies.

But the Maduro government has also been repressive in trying to impose its agenda. It has alienated much of the upper class and business leaders. And, as is not uncommon everywhere, there has been political corruption. But U.S. economic sanctions have exacerbated all these problems.

Venezuela, like all governments, needs access to international financing for normal government, business and trade activities. The U.S dominated international financial system has denied this help. The U.S.-imposed economic sanctions have been a major factor in creating the current economic crisis in Venezuela.

Whatever Venezuela’s shortcomings and problems, our “regime change” efforts are simply wrong. It is not our place to decide who leads other countries or what their economic and social policies should be. A socialist – or communist – Venezuela is not a threat our country.

Our actions have been illegal under international law and a hypocritical violation of our own, often stated but seldom practiced, support for national sovereignty and self-determination.

In addition to being disastrous for Venezuela, our interference in other countries is counterproductive for our national interests. Many times our military and economic interventions have failed. They have cost trillions of dollars in addition to destroying the lives of many of our own people. The many wars of choice have been unnecessary and only damaged our international reputation.

As our current relationships with Vietnam and China show, we can easily trade and have normal relations with communist nations.

The U.S. would be better off building peaceful relationships, strengthening international law, supporting international institutions and facilitating non-violent conflict resolution rather than engaging in efforts to control other nations.

Today the second Trump administration is again seeking “regime change,” planning CIA covert actions and threatening a military invasion of Venezuela. They are engaged in a totally illegal campaign of extrajudicial killings by bombing boats in international waters of the Caribbean Sea. Even if these boats were running drugs, this is not the way a nation that espouses the rule of law behaves.

During the first Trump administration’s campaign against Venezuela, 70 experts and activists wrote an open letter condemning the threats. They said, “The U.S. and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change. If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability. The U.S. should have learned something from its regime change ventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and its long, violent history of sponsoring regime change in Latin America” (“Open Letter by more Than 70 Scholars and Experts Condemns US-Backed Coup Attempt in Venezuela,” Common Dreams, January 24, 2019).

The open letter called for “negotiations.” But Venezuela has no obligation to negotiate the free exercise of their national sovereignty. The U.S. is clearly the aggressor in this situation and should simply stop its illegal behavior.

The American people have too often been silent when these interventions started. Too often we have believed the lies used to promote the next war, intervention, or “regime change” fiasco.

When will we ever learn?