Senate Limits Trump's Venezuela Ambition, Not US Interventionism
The Independent reports the Senate advanced a resolution to limit Donald Trump's ability to attack Venezuela, framing it as a 'note of disapproval for his expanding ambitions.' (Apparently, only some ambitions are frowned upon.) This carefully worded concern for presidential overreach conveniently sidesteps the long, bipartisan tradition of US intervention in Latin America. From CIA-backed coups
in Chile to the Iran-Contra affair in Nicaragua, congressional 'disapproval' rarely translates to a hands-off policy when the 'national interest' (or corporate interest) is perceived to be at stake. One might wonder if this sudden apprehension stems from a genuine concern for sovereignty, or merely a preference for a more 'acceptable' (read: less publicly volatile) form of regime change. The
resolution, while seemingly reining in Trump, implicitly reaffirms the underlying premise: that the US has an inherent right to dictate the political future of its neighbors, a right exercised by administrations left and right, with or without Senate 'resolutions.' The question isn't if the US interferes, but how and who leads the charge.