Pope Leo: Not So Far-Fetched When You Recall US History
Yes, 'Pope Leo' is a typo for Pope Francis, as The Independent 's own article (if you actually read it) eventually clarified. But the slip-up unintentionally highlights a persistent historical amnesia. The Pope, or any global leader, warning the US against military force in Latin America isn't a novel concept, it’s a broken record. From the 1898 invasion of Cuba and Puerto Rico, to the 1954 coup
in Guatemala, the 1973 coup in Chile, or the multiple invasions of Nicaragua, Panama, and the Dominican Republic, the US has a well-documented habit of 'regime change' south of its border. Venezuela, with significant oil reserves, has been a US target for decades, with sanctions crippling its economy long before any 'Pope' weighed in. So, Washington heeds calls for 'dialogue' in Venezuela, but
only after years of sanctions designed to collapse the economy first. (Where's the Papal intervention for the starving Venezuelan populace?) The real news isn't the Pope's reasonable suggestion, but the way mainstream media consistently frames US interference as a new moral dilemma rather than a century-old, resource-driven foreign policy staple. 'Dialogue or economic sanctions!' the Pope
advises—as if the latter aren't themselves an act of war, devastating civilian populations while conveniently avoiding direct military costs for the aggressor. How many euphemisms does state-sponsored economic warfare get these days?