The failure of Latin American leaders led to US intervention

Regional leaders should have confronted Venezuela’ dictatorship

- JUAN PABLO SPINETTO

Removing Venezuela’s dictator introduced ‘Trump's Corollary’ in Latin America with an exclamation point.

The White House's updated take on the Monroe Doctrine had its baptism of fire on Saturday, when US forces captured Nicolas Maduro at his Caracas stronghold, decapitating the Chavista regime responsible for bankrupting one of the world’s richest oil nations. Less than a month after Washington unveiled a new National Security Strategy pledging to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere—if force if necessary—Maduro and his wife were on their way to New York to face “narco-terrorism” charges. Capped by Donald Trump's subsequent vow to temporarily run Venezuela outright, that day will feature in history books for decades.

For Latin America, this is a blunt reminder: When divided regional leaders fail to produce homegrown solutions to their gravest crises, the risk that the US will step in—and act alone—is ever present. That risk is heightened by the return of great-power competition and Trump’s transactional, spheres-of-influence worldview. The region now faces the uncomfortable prospect of the US remotely administering a mid-sized South American country bordering Brazil and holding the world’s largest oil reserves, with little regional input.