Click to see the full-size image
Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher
The revelation in the American media that the White House had authorized the use of military force against drug cartels in Latin America unleashed a wave of reactions across the region and revived long-standing fears about Washington’s interventionist doctrine. The measure, framed under the narrative of “surgical operations” to combat drug trafficking, raises questions about its operating mechanisms, its impact on sovereignty, and the risks of a renewed militarization of the region.
The New York Times first reported that United States President Donald Trump had signed a directive ordering the Pentagon to prepare military options against the cartels. The Pentagon referred all questions to the White House, which told ABC News that “President Trump’s top priority is protecting the homeland, which is why he took the bold step to designate several cartels and gangs as foreign terrorist organizations.”
When pressed by a reporter on August 8 if he would send US forces to Latin America to take on the cartels, Trump said: “Latin America’s got a lot of cartels and they’ve got a lot of drugs flowing. So, you know, we want to protect our country. We have to protect our country. We haven’t been doing it for four years. And we love this country like they love their countries.”
“So, you know, we’re playing a tough game, but we’ll have more to say about that soon,” he added.
Trump seeks to legitimize, at least internally before the American public, any military, paramilitary, mercenary, or covert intelligence agency action against Latin American countries, under the guise of attacking the cartels and their leaders. Under international law, such a measure constitutes a flagrant violation of national sovereignty. However, it is worth recalling that the US has historically prioritized its legislation and interests over international law.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro expressed concern, stating that “national sovereignty exists” and called for dialogue rather than the imposition of mechanisms that could be considered “interventionist.”
On his X account, the Colombian president admitted to being “in agreement” with the White House policy against drug traffickers, as long as “the independence of governments” is respected.
“Undoubtedly, we must double or triple the fight against drug trafficking organizations, starting with their bosses, their finances, and the massive seizure of their illicit merchandise,” he added.
For her part, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum dismissed the idea, stating, “The United States is not going to come to Mexico with the military. We cooperate, we coordinate but there won’t be an invasion… that is ruled out.”
Understandably, Mexico, Colombia, and other sovereign governments in Latin America reject Trump’s ambition. Nonetheless, other countries in the region are likely to endorse this model of intervention, even against the will of their people. The immediate consequence would be greater diplomatic fragmentation for the region.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told EWTN that Trump’s order will allow the administration to use various means against the cartels, which he described as being armed like terrorists.
“I don’t know if it’s changed their behavior yet, but their behavior is going to have to change one way or another,” Rubio said in an interview when asked if the terrorist designation had changed the behavior of cartels. “But it allows us to now target what they’re operating and to use other elements of American power, intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense, whatever… to target these groups if we have an opportunity to do it.”
“We have to start treating them as armed terrorist organizations, not simply drug-dealing organizations,” Rubio continued. “Drug dealing is the kind of terrorism they’re doing.”
The argument of the transnational fight against narcoterrorism has been used as it equates cartels with terrorist entities to allow the US to advance its objectives in the region. This approach sets a dangerous precedent where the US claims the right to unilaterally intervene in any country if it declares a ‘threat to its national security,’ even without a United Nations mandate. The endorsement or opinion of the UN has been something that Washington has stopped caring about since the unipolar moment, in which they believe the world is still experiencing.
Equating cartels with terrorist organizations opens the door for this policy to be inserted into the global narrative of the ‘War on Terror’ that Washington has promoted since September 11, 2001. Therefore, this should serve as a massive warning for Latin America when considering what happened to Afghanistan and Iraq, and since the current international context could make the US more unpredictable.
Rising powers are challenging US hegemony, and that precisely makes it more unpredictable, irascible, and potentially violent. While the global situation keeps the US busy in many parts of the world, it still maintains the long-held view that Latin America is ‘its backyard.’
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
everybody is a terrorist now. drug pushers are terrorists. people who protest against genocide are terrorists. 90 year old disabled pensioners are terrorists. we are all terrorists now.
no they’re not terrorists. they’re allowed to push drugs, they get rewarded with free kiddies to pedophile, they get first class health care banking everything for their crimes against humanity.
dopo un secolo di guerra alla russia è saggio che gli stati uniti la smettano e stabiliscono una pace con la russia dove nessuno è vincitore ma giusto, la russia non vuole più l’europa decadente e priva di significato la russia guarda all’oriente chi ha perso è l’europa non la russia, stati uniti, cina, iran.
it’ll be interesting to see how south american governments react.
you mean having their cash crops and their black market anerican dollars stopped? you know all those billions they can only hide offshore in panama? and cry poor can’t provide el sociaolo services you all have to run away to the north, cause we don’t want you loser s here?
and way too late almost too i’ve said for 30 years america needs to send in the troops to stop the south using an opium wars repeat from england on china as a war tactic to demoralise the youth and rip off the currency into the black markets causing economic destruction
really they should have bombed the south into total submission. imo
drugs will find a way into the lucrative american market, one way or another because of the insatiable demand. most crystal meth is produced in the us, not mexico. unfortunately, most western citizens have a huge emptiness and generally dissatisfaction that was caused when their economies were destroyed and made into consumer societies. the addiction to materialism, food, porn, alcohol, & drugs is a byproduct of this decay. you have to address the underlying causes.
don’t forget uncle sam was involved in a huge drug trade… sending hundreds of thousands of tons of opium to china in the 1800s.
this “new” development has been vastly underreported. trump started amassing significant levels of military hardware in the mexican border since the beginning of his second term.
i cartelli hanno le mani lunghe non sono un esercito ma una piovra ben strutturata. gli usa perdono è già scritto.
this is typical jewish and american behavior. not solving root causes like why is drug demand so high in the ussa, but bombing the suppliers who sell to depressed, dumb and poor americans