By Kurt Nimmo at Global Research. Reposted with permission.
On October 19, President Donald Trump added Colombia to the target list of Latin American countries he insists are behind drug production.
“President Gustavo Petro, of Columbia, is an illegal drug leader strongly encouraging the massive production of drugs, in big and small fields, all over Columbia,” Trump posted on X. “The purpose of this drug production is the sale of massive amounts of product into the United States, causing death, destruction, and havoc.”
Not only did Trump cancel “large scale payments and subsidies from the USA” slated for Colombia, he also ordered his War Department to destroy, in violation of international law and the US Constitution, what he described as a drug-carrying submarine “navigating towards the United States on a well known narcotrafficking transit route.”
He said US intelligence “confirmed this vessel was loaded up with mostly Fentanyl, and other illegal narcotics,” and two of four “terrorists” were killed, while two survivors were returned to Ecuador and Colombia “for detention and prosecution.”
The day after a million or more Americans took to the streets to protest the policies of the Trump administration, including that of his foreign policy, Trump posted from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida that Colombian President Gustavo Petro “better close up” alleged drug operations “or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely.”
Pedro Sánchez, the Colombian defense minister, refuted Trump’s unverified remarks.
“If there’s a country that has used all its capabilities and also lost men and women fighting drug trafficking … it’s Colombia,” he said. The baseless allegations are “disrespect from Trump to Colombia,” Sánchez added.
Petro weighed in on the claim Colombia is a narcoterrorist state.
“I ask President Trump to contain his oil greed, to think about humanity, to think about the effectiveness of a greater America,” he said.
After the War Department targeted a fishing boat in Colombian territorial waters on September 15, Petro accused the US president of murdering fisherman Alejandro Carranza and two crew members from Trinidad and Tobago.
“The boat was adrift and had its distress signal up due to an engine failure,” he explained.
Petro said Carranza did not have a connection with drug traffickers.
“His daily job is just fishing. Colombia is waiting for an official explanation from the US side.”
The elected government of Gustavo Petro (he won 50.44% of the popular vote), like that of Nicolás Maduro in neighboring Venezuela, is the target of US regime change actions. In January, Petro refused to allow a US military aircraft carrying deported Colombian nationals to land in Colombia. In response, Trump threatened to impose a 50% tariff on the country and implement travel bans and visa revocations for Colombian government officials. In response, Colombia backed down and allowed the deportees to return.
The Pink Tide vs. The Monroe Doctrine
The Trump administration is targeting Colombia and other Latin American countries in response to a so-called “pink tide” (marea rosa) or “turn to the left” (giro a la izquierda). Latin American countries have rejected the “Washington Consensus” of economic “policy prescriptions” (trade liberalization, privatization, and finance liberalization) imposed by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the US Treasury. The austerity of these “prescriptions” resulted in social mobilization and a turn toward leftist government.
“The U.S. Government’s aggressive push to expand free trade in Latin America,” writes Nadia Martinez, “helped catapult… new leaders into the presidential palaces,” most notably Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, and Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva in Brazil. The rise of socialism in Latin America drew a sharp response from the United States.
As of 2006, approximately 300 million of Latin America’s 520 million citizens lived under governments that wanted out from under the Washington Consensus that produced “staggering levels of poverty and inequality.” The landslide victory of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela in 1998 resulted in a move to the left by a number of Latin American countries.
“Latin America’s new leftists have produced over the last couple of years their own consensus, a common project to use the centrifugal forces of globalization to loosen Washington’s unipolar grip,” writes Greg Grandin.
Soon after Trump was elected for a second term, Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and the Dominican Republic. Although the administration said the primary reason for the visit was related to immigration and security arrangements, the primary reason was economic: China is the number one trading partner for South America.
“For more than two decades, China has developed close economic and security ties with many Latin American countries, including Brazil, Peru, and Venezuela,” notes the Council on Foreign Relations. “But Beijing’s increasing sway in the region continues to raise concerns in Washington, prompting greater U.S. engagement.”
For Trump, that engagement is murdering fishermen in the territorial waters of Venezuela and Colombia, illegal acts designed to elicit a response.
“While U.S. President Joe Biden saw China as a ‘strategic competitor’ in the region, the reelection of Donald Trump has marked a shift in U.S. policy toward Latin America, characterized by assertive economic measures that experts say could push countries further toward China.”
Image: Official portrait of Kash Patel, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Public Domain)
In response to the “threat” of China in Latin America, the Trump administration has tried to implicate it in its drug trafficking scenario. In June, FBI Director Kash Patel accused China of intentionally exacerbating the fentanyl crisis in the United States as part of a scheme to weaken America by targeting its youth. Patel went on the Joe Rogan podcast and said China is engaged in “chemical warfare” against America. “This isn’t accidental poisoning. This is strategic lethality,” he said. On October 19, Trump told reporters he wants China “to stop with the fentanyl.”
For decades, the so-called “war on drugs” has served as a justification to intervene in Latin America, most notably through Plan Colombia and the Mérida Initiative.
“Bolivian President Luis Arce became the latest regional leader to denounce the United States’ actions, accusing it of disguising geopolitical ambitions under the cloak of narcotics enforcement,” Damsana Ranadhiran wrote in August.
“We know that behind this failed international war on drugs lies the real objective to geopolitically control Latin America for its natural resources and to dismantle organized peoples, so that we cannot follow our own sovereign path,” declared Arce.
On October 19, Trump called Petro a “lunatic” and the “worst president [Colombia] ever had.” The president said Colombia has “no fight against drugs, and I’m stopping all payments to Colombia because they don’t have anything to do with their fight against drugs.”
“President Gustavo Petro, of Columbia (sic)… a low rated and very unpopular leader, with a fresh mouth toward America, better close up these killing fields immediately, or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely,” Trump tweeted.
In response to Trump’s caustic remarks, Colombia recalled its ambassador to the United States, Daniel Garcia-Pena. Trump’s response came the day after Petro accused the United States of murdering fishermen in the Caribbean.
Trump has made no secret of his support of autocrats in Latin America, most notably the disgraced former president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, in addition to Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, and the “libertarian” president of Argentina, Javier Milei.
“Donald Trump’s authoritarian style and policies have energized the right and the far right across the hemisphere,” writes Jeff Abbott. The United States “has revived the Monroe Doctrine, which holds that the United States has the right to intervene in Latin America to prevent other countries from gaining influence.”
Trump Sends the CIA to Undermine Venezuela
The Trump administration continues to increase pressure on Venezuela. In an unprecedented move, Trump publicly stated that he has ordered the CIA to conduct subversive operations in the country.
“I authorized for two reasons really,” Trump told reporters. “Number one, they have emptied their prisons into the United States of America… they came in through the border. The other thing are drugs.” In addition to CIA subversion, Trump floated the idea of “land strikes” in Venezuela. Asked for clarification, the president said “we are certainly looking at land now because we’ve got the sea very well under control.”
The CIA has worked to undermine governments in Latin America since the early 1950s. It organized coups and terror operations in Guatemala, Guyana, Cuba, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua, Honduras, Grenada, El Salvador, Haiti, Panama, and Venezuela.
“The clandestine operations, espionage, secret missions, covert funding, psychological warfare and regime change tactics the U.S. has employed in Latin America for decades, continue today overtly and covertly,” writes Eva Golinger.
Trump has taken this sordid history of subversion and murder to the next level. His maritime strikes likely serve as a precursor of things to come, possibly including a full blown invasion of Venezuela. The US buildup of guided-missile destroyers, F-35B jet fighters, MQ-9 Reaper drones, P-8 Poseidon spy planes, assault ships and a secretive special operations ship, in addition to more than 10,000 troops, may be nothing more than an expensive show of force in an attempt to intimidate Maduro.
However, considering Trump’s aggressive rhetoric and a military buildup that rivals the firepower the US committed to the Battle of Midway during World War II, an invasion is a distinct possibility, if not a foregone conclusion.
