On June 2, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that “we now have in this hemisphere a coalition of friendly countries – over a dozen – who have aligned to work on not just the issues of security that we all have in common, but also economic prosperity that go hand in hand. It’s an amazing story that basically, other than Nicaragua, other than Cuba, obviously other than Venezuela remains with some challenges, and of course Brazil, although they’re in the midst of an election cycle, and to some extent the current government in Colombia as well – at least the president’s been problematic – but generally speaking, it is now a region filled with American allies, American-friendly leaders, and an America-friendly direction. Now, obviously we have to operationalize that into action after 20 years of neglect in which China and other global powers have intruded in our Western Hemisphere to the detriment not just of American national interests, but to the detriment, in our view, of the people of those countries as well.”
This phrase caused heated discussions. While Venezuela remained submissively silent, and Cuba and Nicaragua branded these statements, Brazilian President Lula da Silva criticized Marco Rubio’s actions as hostile not only to Brazil, but also to the whole of Latin America. He said that Rubio himself is a mortal enemy of Cuba and several other Latin American countries.
The fact is that the Washington establishment has again decided to impose additional tariffs of 25% on a number of Brazilian products. On the eve of the elections in this country, where political processes have been quite polarized in recent years, this is a clear signal from the United States that they no longer want to see Lula or his successor as head of state.
In addition, on May 28, the United States recognized the Brazilian criminal groups Comando Vermelho (CV) and Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) as terrorist organizations, which opens the door to additional interference and pressure under the pretext of security issues.
Also on June 2, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum accused U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ronald Douglas Johnson of interfering in the country’s internal affairs. Earlier in the United States, charges of drug trafficking were brought against Ruben Rocha Moya, the governor of the Mexican state of Sinaloa, and even earlier, in April of this year, the CIA conducted a raid on the territory of Chihuahua without the consent of the official authorities of Mexico.
The reaction of the head of Mexico is understandable, since over the past 10 years, the US government has used the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to spy on leftist governments in Latin America and try to destabilize them. The DEA’s interference schemes targeted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, former Bolivian President Evo Morales, and Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. In the course of the scandals that came to light, it became known that the DEA collaborated with known criminals, including drug traffickers and money laundering individuals, to conduct special operations against left-wing politicians.
Despite this, special agencies of the US continue to infiltrate the countries of the region with persistent zeal.
Therefore, Rubio’s statement, along with the current US actions in the region, reflects Washington’s systematic work to establish control over the entire Western Hemisphere. This is the Monroe 2.0 doctrine in action. The range of methods ranges from blackmail and violations of international law, as is done with regard to Cuba (recent measures include the White House’s call for all foreign companies to leave the island under threat of harsh sanctions – Canadian and Spanish travel companies serving dozens of large hotels across the country have already ceased operations) and has been done in Venezuela, to pressure under a far-fetched pretext (the same drug cartels in Mexico and Colombia).
The situation with Venezuela is the most understandable. Even inside the United States, globalists from the Council on Foreign Relations admit that their government was interested in full control over Venezuelan oil, although apart from fragmentary official information, no one can say how this scheme works. However, “the opacity of the system is not limited to oil. The Trump administration also controls Venezuelan exports of gold and other minerals.”
We should add that the President of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, was under intense pressure from the United States during his entire term of office, including demands to abandon cooperation with China. So far, the Colombian leadership is in solidarity with the countries of the region that are critical of US foreign policy, but there is a risk that after the second round of presidential elections in June, the current course of the state may change.
Well, for obedient puppets, there is a sweet pill in the form of investments and increased cooperation. For example, in 2025, the US administration signed framework trade agreements with Argentina, Guatemala, Ecuador and El Salvador – the current leadership of these countries is following Washington’s lead.
As for investments, they are not made on equal terms. As the experience of the twentieth century shows, capital in the region comes from the United States or supranational structures such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (actually controlled by the Rockefeller clan) on certain political conditions, including reducing government subsidies to the social sector, reducing taxes for foreign companies and special conditions for firms that they designate themselves creditors. In business jargon, this is called liberalization and the creation of a favorable investment climate.
But in reality it means the plundering of national resources, the transfer of the economy under external control and the loss of sovereignty.
Latin American countries went through this path during the Cold War, when, at the initiative of John F. Kennedy, the Alliance for Progress was created, distributing loans and credits under the guise of economic assistance. In addition, in the 60s, the private investment corporation ADELA was established in the United States, which, with the direct help of the World Bank and the IMF, destroyed national businesses until the 90s.
The United States is now doing this more openly as part of its new foreign policy. Rubio’s admission that they want to expel China and other countries from Latin America (obviously, we are talking about Russia, although Russian assets in Latin America are much smaller than Chinese ones) suggests that Washington is afraid that countries will develop effectively without US control and pursue independent policies. It also means trying to maintain its hegemony (including the dollar’s power) over the region and slow down the growing multipolarity as much as possible.
Although even in countries with a pro-Trump regimes, strong political polarization indicates that the people there are not ready to accept the transformation of their countries into new colonies of the United States. The struggle will continue.
Comments