Sanctions: A 'Humanitarian' Legacy
When Newsweek frames discussions of Venezuela as 'their moment, not ours,' it implicitly suggests a detached, benevolent observation. This perspective conveniently omits the long shadow of US foreign policy in Latin America, particularly its economic warfare. Since the early 2000s, Venezuela has been a target, with sanctions tightening incrementally, designed to destabilize its government, not to
genuinely aid its populace. This playbook is hardly new. In 1954, the CIA orchestrated a coup in Guatemala after Jacobo Árbenz nationalized land held by the United Fruit Company. Decades later, the 1973 Chilean coup against Salvador Allende, who sought to nationalize copper industries, further cemented this pattern. The same rhetoric of 'democracy' and 'human rights' was deployed, masking
underlying economic interests, while the subsequent Pinochet dictatorship massacred 40,000. Today, the narrative around Venezuela, often fueled by outlets that disregard the impact of sanctions, mirrors past interventions. The US Treasury Department's sanctions since 2017 have crippled Venezuela's oil sector, costing the nation an estimated 130 billion USD, directly impacting food and medicine
imports. This isn't about letting Venezuela have 'its moment'; it's about external forces shaping it through economic strangulation, then blaming the target government for the resulting poverty. It is a double standard, imposing collective punishment while simultaneously expressing concern for the very people it harms. What the mainstream glosses over is the consistent pattern: economic