Latin

Over the weekend, the United States carried out a large-scale military strike against Venezuela and abducted President Nicolas Maduro in a major escalation that sent shockwaves across Latin America.

On Monday morning, US President Donald Trump doubled down, threatening action against the governments of Colombia, Cuba and Mexico unless they “get their act together”, claiming he is countering drug trafficking and securing US interests in the Western Hemisphere.

The remarks revive deep tensions over US interference in Latin America. Many of the governments targeted by Trump have little appetite for Washington’s involvement, but their armed forces lack the capacity to keep the US at arm’s length.

Latin America’s military capabilities

The US has the strongest military in the world and spends more on its military than the total budgets of the next 10 largest military spenders combined. In 2025, the US defence budget was $895bn, roughly 3.1 percent of its gross domestic product.

According to the 2025 Global Firepower rankings, Brazil has the most powerful military in Latin America and is ranked 11th globally.

Mexico ranks 32nd globally, Colombia 46th, Venezuela 50th and Cuba 67th. All of these countries are significantly below the US military in all metrics, including the number of active personnel, military aircraft, combat tanks, naval assets and their military budgets.

In a standard war involving tanks, planes and naval power, the US maintains overwhelming superiority.

The only notable metric that these countries have over the US is their paramilitary forces, which operate alongside the regular armed forces, often using asymmetrical warfare and unconventional tactics against conventional military strategies.

Paramilitaries across Latin America

Several Latin American countries have long histories of paramilitary and irregular armed groups that have often played a role in the internal security of these countries. These groups are typically armed, organised and politically influential but operate outside the regular military chain of command.

Cuba has the world’s third largest paramilitary force, made up of more than 1.14 million members, as reported by Global Firepower. These groups include state-controlled militias and neighbourhood defence committees. The largest of these, the Territorial Troops Militia, serves as a civilian reserve aimed at assisting the regular army against external threats or during internal crises.

In Venezuela, members of pro-government armed civilian groups known as “colectivos” have been accused of enforcing political control and intimidating opponents. Although not formally part of the armed forces, they are widely seen as operating with state tolerance or support, particularly during periods of unrest under Maduro.

In Colombia, right-wing paramilitary groups emerged in the 1980s to fight left-wing rebels. Although officially demobilised in the mid-2000s, many later re-emerged as criminal or neo-paramilitary organisations, remaining active in rural areas. The earliest groups were organised with the involvement of the Colombian military following guidance from US counterinsurgency advisers during the Cold War.

In Mexico, heavily armed drug cartels function as de facto paramilitary forces. Groups such as the Zetas, originally formed by former soldiers, possess military-grade weapons and exercise territorial control, often outgunning local police and challenging the state’s authority. The Mexican military has increasingly been deployed in law enforcement roles in response.

History of US interference in Latin America

Over the past two centuries, the US has repeatedly interfered in Latin America.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the so-called Banana Wars saw US forces deployed across Central America to protect corporate interests.

In 1934, President Franklin D Roosevelt introduced the “Good Neighbor Policy”, pledging nonintervention.

Yet during the Cold War, the US financed operations to overthrow elected governments, often coordinated by the CIA, founded in 1947.

Panama is the only Latin American country the US has formally invaded, which occurred in 1989 under President George HW Bush. “Operation Just Cause” ostensibly was aimed at removing President Manuel Noriega, who was later convicted of drug trafficking and other offences.

Caracas, January 4, 2025 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The governments of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, and Spain issued a joint statement Sunday rejecting “unilateral US actions in Venezuelan territory.”

“These actions contravene basic principles of international law and represent a very dangerous precedent for peace and regional security,” the communique read.

The joint statement followed widespread regional and global condemnation of Washington’s January 3 strikes against Venezuelan military sites and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

The countries went on to issue calls for dialogue and urged the United Nations secretary general and member states to help “de-escalate tensions and preserve peace.” 

In response to US President Donald Trump’s claim that he would “run” Venezuela, the signatories expressed concern over “attempts at foreign government control or seizure of natural resources.” However, the declaration made no mention of Maduro nor called for his release.

The diplomatic response to the US attacks also included an emergency summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean nations (CELAC), held on Sunday, January 4. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil decried the US actions as blatant violations of international law and the United Nations Charter.

“The US has violated the personal immunity of a sitting head of state,” Gil told regional leaders in the conference call. “Kidnapping a president is kidnapping a people’s sovereignty.”

Venezuela’s top diplomat urged CELAC member-states to “take a step forward,” warning that silence would amount to acceptance of Washington’s unilateral acts.

A number of countries, including Venezuelan allies Russia and China, have forcefully denounced the US military operation. In a Sunday statement, Beijing charged Washington with a “clear violation of international law” and called for Maduro and Flores’ “immediate release.”

The UN Security Council is scheduled to hold an emergency session on Monday.

For her part, Venezuela Vice President and now acting Interim President Delcy Rodríguez reiterated demands for Maduro’s release and vowed that the country would not submit “to any empire.” Rodríguez held a press conference Saturday afternoon and confirmed the enactment of a decree establishing a “state of external commotion.” The instrument grants the executive additional tools, including the ability to mobilize troops or restrict civil liberties, for a period of 90 days that can be extended.

On Saturday night, the Venezuelan Supreme Court ruled that Maduro’s kidnapping and rendition to US soil constituted a temporary absence and that Rodríguez was mandated to take over the presidency on an interim basis.

Footage surfaced Saturday evening showing Maduro being walked out of an airplane in New York. He was later taken to a DEA facility before being moved, along with Flores, to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He made no statements but greeted DEA officers and appeared upbeat in photos, making a peace sign and holding his thumbs up.

The Venezuelan president was indicted by a New York district court on Saturday, with charges including “narcoterrorism conspiracy” and “possession of machine guns.” A hearing is reportedly scheduled for Monday.

For their part, Venezuela’s National BolivarianArmed Forces (FANB) likewise issued a communique on Sunday, rejecting the “cowardly kidnapping” of Maduro and Flores and reiterating its mission to “confront imperial aggression.”

The FANB voiced support for Rodríguez taking over the presidency on an acting basis and vowed to maintain readiness to preserve “peace and internal order.” 

The Defense Ministry has yet to provide a report on damages and casualties from the US strikes, though Sunday’s communiqué condemned the “cold-blooded murder” of members of Maduro’s security detail. Unconfirmed reports have put forward a figure of 80 deaths.

Venezuelan popular movements and political parties took to the streets for a second consecutive day on Sunday, holding marches and rallies in Caracas and other cities. Public transportation and retail functioned to a greater degree than on Saturday.

The US attacks also spurred numerous international solidarity demonstrations over the weekend. Crowds gathered in dozens of Latin American, European and US cities. A demonstration was called for Sunday outside the Brooklyn detention center where Maduro is being held.

The January 3 operation came on the heels of the largest ever US Caribbean military build-up, with Trump having previously ordered dozebs of strikes against small boats accused of carrying drugs, killing over 100 civilians. The US president has repeatedly expressed intentions of using military threats to extract favorable oil deals for US corporations.

In a Sunday interview, Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned the acting government in Caracas to “make the right decisions” and affirmed that the US retained “leverage” mechanisms, including a naval blockade stopping oil exports.

Within hours of a massive operation of regime change in Venezuela, United States President Donald Trump revelled in his “success”. He posted a photo of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in handcuffs and then addressed the American public.

He praised the military for launching “one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might” in US history, allegedly rendering Venezuelan forces “powerless”. He announced that Maduro and his wife would be indicted in New York for “narcoterrorism” and claimed – without evidence – that US operations have reduced maritime drug trafficking by 97 percent.

Trump went further, declaring that the US would “run the country” until an unspecified transition could be arranged, while openly threatening a “second and much larger attack”. Crucially, he framed these claims within a broader assertion of US “domination over the Western Hemisphere”, explicitly invoking the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.

The US military intervention in Venezuela represents something far more dangerous than a single act of aggression. It is the latest manifestation of a centuries-old pattern of US interference that has left Latin America scarred. The regime change operation in Caracas is a clear sign the Trump administration is embracing this old policy of interventionism with renewed fervour. And that bodes ill for the region.

That this attack targeted Maduro’s repressive and corrupt government, which was responsible for the immense suffering of many Venezuelans, makes the situation no less catastrophic. Washington’s long history of supporting brutal dictatorships across the region strips away any pretence of moral authority. Trump himself can hardly claim any moral high ground given that he is himself embroiled in a major political scandal due to his close ties with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and has maintained unconditional support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The Trump administration’s attack on Venezuela solidifies a catastrophic pattern of violations of international law. If the US can unilaterally launch military strikes against sovereign nations at a whim, then the entire framework of international law becomes meaningless. This tells every nation that might and power trump legality and sovereignty.

For Latin America specifically, the implications are chilling. To understand why this attack reverberates so painfully across the region, one must take a quick look at its history. The US has orchestrated or supported coups and military dictatorships throughout the region with disturbing regularity.

In Guatemala in 1954, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz. In Chile in 1973, the US backed the coup that brought Augusto Pinochet to power and ushered in an era of unchecked political violence. In 1983, the US invaded and occupied the island of Grenada to overthrow its socialist government. In Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and throughout Central America, Washington provided training, funding and political cover for military regimes that tortured dissidents and murdered civilians.

The new question now is, if the US carried out regime change in Venezuela so easily, who is next? Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, who has been at odds with the Trump administration, was quick to react – and is right to be concerned, as in December, Trump threatened an intervention, saying “he’ll be next“. Others in the region are also nervous.

Beyond the looming threat of US intervention, Latin America now also faces the potential regional instability that a regime change in Caracas is likely to create. The political crisis under Maduro had already spilled beyond its borders into neighbouring Colombia and Brazil, where Venezuelans fled poverty and repression. One can only imagine the ripple effect the US-enacted regime change will have.

There are probably many Venezuelans who are celebrating Maduro’s ouster. However, the US intervention directly undermines the political opposition in Venezuela. It would allow the regime, which appears to retain power, to paint all opposition as foreign agents, eroding its legitimacy.

The Venezuelan people deserve democracy, but they have to achieve it themselves with international support, not to have it imposed at gunpoint by a foreign power with a documented history of caring more about resources and geopolitical dominance than human rights.

Latin Americans deserve better than to choose between homegrown authoritarianism and imported violence. What they need is not American bombs but genuine respect for self-determination.

The US has no moral authority to attack Venezuela, regardless of Maduro’s authoritarian nature. Both can be true: Maduro is a dictator who caused immense harm to his people, and US military intervention is an illegal act of aggression that will not resolve the crisis of democracy in Venezuela.

The region’s future must be determined by people themselves, free from the shadow of empire.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

SANTIAGO, Chile, Dec. 19 (UPI) — After nearly two decades of relative stability, the advance of organized crime has reshaped security across Latin America.

The expansion of illicit economies, armed disputes over territorial control and rising violence triggered new migration flows and partly explain the region’s political shift toward right-wing governments in 2025.

According to a report by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, 39 organized crime groups are operating across Latin America.

The report said these groups have become more interconnected and sophisticated, “coordinating operations not only at the local level but also across borders and even continents.”

One of the main factors behind the expansion of criminal structures is business diversification, said organized crime specialist Hugo Contreras, who holds a doctorate in social complexity sciences and is a researcher at the School of Government at Universidad del Desarrollo.

“Organized groups stopped being just traffickers and adopted a portfolio of activities such as extortion, contract killings, smuggling, arms trafficking and human trafficking,” Contreras told UPI. “That has multiplied and diversified their sources of illicit income, as well as their territorial control and disputes.”

He said the trend has been compounded by institutional weakness, including collapsed prison systems that have turned into logistical hubs for criminal groups and judicial systems ill-prepared to confront the phenomenon.

“There has been an emergence of more aggressive and sophisticated transnational criminal gangs, with international networks, greater financial capacity and increased firepower,” Contreras said.

He added that the situation has been reinforced by “massive migration flows from different conflict regions, which these groups have exploited to conceal their members, recruit new people and expand their criminal activities into other countries.”

Pablo Carvacho, director of research and development at the Center for Justice and Society at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, shared that assessment, noting that organized crime is especially dynamic and adaptable.

“Migratory processes created space for the development of transnational illicit activities such as human trafficking and sexual or labor exploitation, particularly affecting a highly vulnerable group like migrants,” Carvacho told UPI.

“These flows served as an entry point for countries such as Chile, where criminal activity was not as developed as what we are seeing today,” he said.

The new scenario has deeply transformed internal security dynamics across the region, turning local problems into international threats that are more violent and more damaging to social and political stability, Contreras said.

Criminal organizations manage and contest territory, impose their own rules, control prisons and challenge state authority.

“This forces governments to move beyond traditional crime-control strategies and adopt comprehensive responses that combine financial intelligence, border security, international cooperation and prison reform,” he said.

Contreras said the impact varies widely across the region depending on how deeply organized crime has taken root in each country.

In 2025, Mexico, Ecuador, Brazil and Haiti ranked among the world’s 10 most dangerous countries based on indicators such as mortality, risk to civilians, geographic spread of conflict and the number of armed groups, according to a conflict index published by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, a nongovernmental organization known as ACLED.

The report said rising violence has been a common trend across Latin America this year. However, the sharpest deterioration was recorded in those four countries.

In Mexico, the organization linked the surge in violence to factors including an internal war within the Sinaloa cartel following the July 2024 arrest in the United States of Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, one of the group’s historic leaders.

In Ecuador, ACLED warned that violence levels are on track to reach record highs in 2025. It said the homicide rate could be the highest in Latin America for a third consecutive year and that gang-related violence has caused more than 3,600 deaths.

In Haiti, gangs have taken advantage of the political instability the country has faced since 2021, expanding their operations from the capital, Port-au-Prince, to other areas.

In a different political context, criminal gangs in Brazil have also fueled major clashes as they fought for territorial control in cities such as Rio de Janeiro. A large-scale police operation in that city targeting the Comando Vermelho, one of the country’s main criminal groups, left 121 people dead.

The rise in violence and organized crime has contributed to at least 10 countries in the region electing right-wing governments in the 2024-2025 period.

Carvacho said more conservative platforms “place greater emphasis on public order and the intensive use of coercive tools, with strategies based on police force, military deployment, harsher criminal penalties and territorial control.”

He said these approaches often rely on emergency measures under states of exception, with rapid executive decisions and reforms, as well as a greater willingness to strengthen ties with foreign intelligence agencies, including those of the United States.

In Carvacho’s view, containing transnational organized crime requires coordination among countries because “emergency policies alone will not stop its advance.”

He said what can truly weaken these organizations is targeting their financial assets and reducing the pool of people, including children and adolescents, vulnerable to recruitment.

“Everything else is treating the symptoms of a disease,” Carvacho said. “It is arriving late to a problem that is not about criminal law but about vulnerability and the lack of opportunities in communities excluded from society. That is where the state must act.”

The United States is reviving a policy first set out in the 1800s that treats Latin America as its strategic sphere of influence. As Washington expands maritime operations in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, critics warn of legal violations and rising regional instability.

Uruguay’s Foreign Minister Mario Lubetkin joins Talk to Al Jazeera to discuss US strikes, Venezuela, migration pressures, and China’s growing role in the region — and whether diplomacy can still prevent escalation in a hemisphere shaped once again by power politics.