U.S. interference in Latin America: nothing new there

CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.—It appears that the United States is at it again in Latin America—interfering in the internal affairs of governments in which it vehemently disapproves. This latest incident reinforces the point that the U.S. often fails to remember the painful lessons from the past. In the post-1945 period, Washington frequently inserted itself, typically deploying substantial military force or orchestrating secretive CIA black ops, in countries like Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua and Panama. Today’s target is the left-leaning and crisis-riddled Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro. From the little we know so far, the whole sordid affair—codenamed “Operation Gideon”—looks remarkably similar to the disastrous April 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Fidel Castro’s Cuba. That failed adventure ended up costing the U.S. considerable diplomatic standing in the region and only served to strengthen Castro’s rule in Cuba. Interestingly, the Venezuelan “invasion” involved a Miami-based private security contractor engaged in training retired Venezuelan military defectors in neighbouring Colombia, a botched beach landing in a fishing village and mostly uncooperative, captured intruders. And like the doomed Bay of Pigs fiasco, Operation Gideon went terribly sideways from the get-go. Evidently, a rag-tag group of 60 rebel troops trained by former U.S. Army special forces soldiers were supposed to capture the capital city of Venezuela, Caracas, and the nearby military airport. As one of the captured U.S. special forces soldiers acknowledged: “I was helping Venezuelans take back control of their country.” But they were met by a number of military units and local Venezuelans who quashed the ill-considered operation before it actually got off the ground. Venezuelan officials have been adamant that the armed incursion was a blatant attempt by the U.S. to overthrow a sitting government at odds with Washington. “The United States government is fully and completely involved in this defeated raid,” Maduro remarked, and maintained that the plan was orchestrated by a group of U.S.-trained “mercenaries” and “terrorists.” Eight people were reportedly killed in what Maduro claimed was a plot to assassinate him and other members of his government. Like U.S. president John F. Kennedy in the early 1960s, U.S. President Donald Trump was quick to deny any U.S. knowledge or involvement in the failed incursion. “We’ll find out. We just heard about it. But it has nothing to do with our government,” he said perfunctorily. U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, maintained that the U.S. government was not “directly involved” in the incursion. For good measure, though, he noted unapologetically: “If we’d have been involved, it would have gone differently.” One of the critical questions swirling around all of this is the participation, if any, of Venezuelan opposition leader, or legitimate president to many, Juan Guaidó. There is some speculation that Guaidó, though he has denied it, was informed of the plot beforehand and was strongly backing it. One needs to remember here that there is considerable pressure on him to change the political landscape in Venezuela. If an incontrovertible connection can be made, Guaidó will most assuredly have a great deal to answer for. And the Lima Group, of which Canada is a key player, may wish to revisit its unconditional support for him. What does seem clear is that Trump was growing increasingly impatient with the ongoing stalemate in Venezuela. (There have also been whispers that he has turned sour on Guaidó as his man in Caracas). It also seems likely that Trump was trying to take advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to pull a fast one in the oil-rich South American country. Rumours have been circulating for months that Washington was looking for a way to remove Maduro from power. The punishing U.S. sanctions on Venezuela have had a devastating impact on the country and its people, but Maduro still has the firm backing of the all-powerful Venezuelan armed forces. Of course, it is possible that the fingerprints of the Trump administration are not on the Operation Gideon file. It could be that this failed operation was simply motivated by the US$15-million bounty that Washington has put on Maduro’s capture. I’m less convinced of that. I obviously don’t know for sure. But I have to admit that this debacle has a certain Trumpian feel to it—namely, thoroughly ad hoc, ill-conceived and poorly executed. Indeed, it seems totally consistent with Trump’s way of conducting foreign policy based on his gut instincts. But like past U.S. administrations, he forgot to properly connect the objective of the mission (to remove Maduro) to the means required for its success. It also displayed a gross misunderstanding of the situation on the ground in Venezuela and the loyalty of the Venezuelan military to Maduro. In some ways, then, it looks a lot like April 1961 all over again. Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown. The Hill Times