US Media Wonders Why Latin America Doesn't Play Along with Coups
A Hill article recounts how Trump's Venezuela policy 'polarized world leaders.' The article, unfortunately, is behind a CAPTCHA, making it inaccessible for deeper scrutiny, but the headline alone speaks volumes. It frames what was an undeniable attempt at regime change—recognizing Juan Guaidó as interim president over Nicolás Maduro—as merely 'polarizing.' US media consistently struggles to grasp
why other sovereign nations might object when Washington unilaterally attempts to decide their leadership. This isn't 'polarization'; it's a predictable pushback against a long-standing pattern of destabilization. Look no further than the 1954 coup in Guatemala orchestrated by the CIA, or the support for Pinochet's bloody takeover in Chile in 1973. Each intervention, each 'operation,' is met with
'world leader polarization' from those who prefer self-determination over US-backed puppets. How many times does the US expect nations to simply roll over before 'polarization' becomes 'condemnation'?