Caracas shock: The failure of South American leaders paved the way for US intervention in Venezuela

The White House’s updated take on the Monroe Doctrine had its baptism of fire on Saturday, when US forces captured Nicolás 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 pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere—by 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 world-view.

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.

Reactions among the region’s leaders split along predictable ideological lines. Leftist governments in Brazil, Chile and Mexico joined Cuba in condemning the intervention that violated Venezuela’s sovereignty. Right-leaning leaders in Argentina and Ecuador welcomed the departure of the hated moustachioed dictator.

Yet, both positions can be true. Trump acted with evident disregard for international law in pursuing unilateral regime change—but Maduro and his cronies also tempted fate. They had multiple opportunities to negotiate a political transition. Instead, Maduro chose to brazenly steal the 2024 election.

He is now likely to follow the path of Panama’s Manuel Noriega nearly four decades ago: ending his days in an American jail, ruing having overplayed his hand.

Rather than strongly protesting this intervention, the region’s governments might reflect on the many chances they missed to confront the region’s worst political catastrophe of the century. Cynically focused on domestic calculations and commercial ties with Chavismo, leaders from Brazil’s Lula to Argentina’s Fernández and Mexico’s López Obrador were, at a minimum, complicit as a gangster kleptocracy entrenched itself in Venezuela and then metastasized into a destabilizing regional force.

The times Maduro was treated as a peer—as Lula did by rolling out a red carpet for him in Brasília in 2023—or when governments played dumb as millions of Venezuelans fled across borders, should stand as reminders of a region that failed to act in its broader interest.

Some will argue that the US risks losing legitimacy by assuming control of a sovereign nation, echoing its imperialist past. That will depend on Trump’s next steps and on whether he is committed to forcing a democratic transition now that he ‘owns’ the problem. That would require respect for the will of Venezuelan voters and honouring the results of the country’s last election, which showed opposition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia winning roughly 70% of the vote.

Don’t underestimate the regional popularity of Trump’s move. Latin America is shifting decisively to the right and Maduro is deeply despised. While anti-Americanism persists, societies increasingly consumed by insecurity, corruption and narco-trafficking may—at least temporarily—applaud the American cowboy for imposing some order, even on questionable premises.

In this context, Cuba’s derelict dictatorship may loom as the next domino to fall in a region that’s changing at remarkable speed. Latin America’s heavy electoral calendar this year will also test the impact of Trump’s intervention.

Chief among the many unknowns is how Venezuela will be governed in the coming weeks. Latin American governments can redeem themselves by helping to shape a democratic exit that enables recovery, limits Trump’s influence and avoids repeating past US mistakes in the region.

Instead of immolating themselves in defence of a regime that has effectively collapsed, Lula and fellow leftists such as Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum and Colombia’s Gustavo Petro should embrace the historic role they could still play in steering a peaceful and positive transition.

There is much Latin America can do—from supporting economic reconstruction, which will be demanding, to supplying humanitarian aid and facilitating the return of millions forced into exile in the past two decades.

Venezuelans will remember who helped—and who did not. ©Bloomberg

The author is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Latin American business, economic affairs and politics.