The escalating tension between the US and Venezuela has led to the largest military build-up in the Caribbean since the end of the Cold War, reminiscent of the 1989 US removal of Panamanian President Manuel Noriega.
Similarities and Differences to the Panama Invasion
The last time a comparable number of US warships and troops were deployed to the region was in 1989, when Washington removed Panama’s President Manuel Noriega – whom it accused of drug-trafficking – from office. But the similarities between the two moments are outweighed by their differences.
On December 16, 1989, US Marine Lt. Robert Paz was traveling to the Marriott Hotel in Panama City when his vehicle was surrounded by Panamanian Defence Forces at a checkpoint. Following an altercation, the Panamanians opened fire as the car drove away, killing Paz. This event set in motion the US invasion of Panama four days later, on December 20.
The invasion of Panama remains the last major US incursion on foreign soil in the Americas. By the end of what Washington dubbed “Operation Just Cause”, around 30,000 US troops had been mobilized, and Noriega had been forced from power and taken to Miami to face trial on drug-smuggling charges. The UN estimates around 500 Panamanian civilians were killed in the invasion, though US estimates differ, and critics suggest the number was much higher.
The current military build-up in the Caribbean mirrors the scale of the operation in Panama. However, the contexts of the Cold War era and the 21st century are vastly different, as are the leadership styles of George H.W. Bush and Donald Trump.
Allegations of Drug Trafficking
In both instances, an escalating war of words between Washington and a Latin American strongman, following years of enmity, led to a major US military deployment. Both situations involve allegations by Washington of presidential involvement in drug trafficking, increasing internal pressure on the respective leaders.
The US government’s core argument in both cases – with Noriega and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro – centers on accusations that they and their governments were involved in drug trafficking. Both nations also hold significant strategic importance – Panama with its canal and Venezuela with its vast oil reserves – raising the stakes considerably.
Noriega had been a CIA asset for many years and was eventually convicted based on irrefutable evidence, including financial records and testimony from individuals involved in drug flights and money laundering for the Medellín Cartel. Even a top cartel leader implicated Noriega in the illegal trade.
In the case of Maduro, the Trump administration directly links alleged drug-smuggling vessels, targeted in Caribbean air strikes, to Maduro himself. Washington accuses Maduro of leading the “Cartel of the Suns,” a group allegedly comprising members and ex-members of the Venezuelan military.
However, many drug war analysts question whether the Cartel of the Suns is a formal criminal organization or a loose alliance of corrupt officials profiting from smuggling drugs and natural resources through Venezuelan ports. Maduro and his administration deny the cartel’s existence, dismissing it as a fabricated “narrative” disseminated by Washington to justify attempts to remove them from power.
There is evidence of drug-trafficking within Maduro’s family. Two of Maduro’s nephews through marriage were arrested in Haiti in 2015 during a sting operation by the US Drug Enforcement Administration while attempting to smuggle 800kg of cocaine into the US. Known as the “narco-nephews,” Francisco Flores de Freitas and Efrain Antonio Campo Flores spent several years in a US prison before being returned to Venezuela in 2022 as part of a prisoner swap under the Biden administration. The Trump administration has since imposed fresh sanctions on the two nephews, as well as Carlos Erik Malpica Flores.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that the sanctions were imposed because “Nicolás Maduro and his criminal associates in Venezuela are flooding the United States with drugs that are poisoning the American people.” He added, “Treasury is holding the regime and its circle of cronies and companies accountable for its continued crimes.”
The language used – “circle of cronies” – echoes the descriptions of Noriega’s government in the 1980s. A US Senate subcommittee report at the time labeled it “the hemisphere’s first narco-kleptocracy.” The Trump administration’s strategy against Maduro now relies heavily on the term “narco-terrorism,” a controversial designation due to its broad legal definition.
Legal Justification and Escalating Tensions
The US Department of Justice defined narco-terrorism in 1987 as “the involvement of terrorist organisations and insurgent groups in drug trafficking” with “international implications.” The legal basis for Washington’s actions in Venezuela, under international law, remains a point of contention as it pursues its aim of combating “narco-terrorism” in the Americas.
The Trump administration claims it is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels, justifying its strikes on alleged narco-boats in the Caribbean under this definition. The Pentagon maintains that these vessels are valid targets under the rules of engagement. However, questions have been raised regarding a second strike on September 2, in which two survivors from an initial strike were killed.
The Trump administration has defended itself against allegations that the second strike constituted extrajudicial killings. The Pentagon has not yet released video footage of the strike or the legal advice surrounding it, despite initial indications from Trump that he would have “no problem” with its publication. The White House insists the strike was carried out “in accordance with the law of armed conflict.”
US-Venezuela tensions continue to escalate, particularly following the seizure by US forces of a tanker filled with Venezuelan crude oil. Trump has indicated that controlling the airspace and seas around Venezuela is a precursor to controlling the land. While some hope for a negotiated solution, it remains unclear whether one can satisfy both Maduro and the White House.
Drawing from the lessons of Panama, it is clear that this modern conflict, while less conventional than the 1989 invasion, carries a similar potential for escalation, triggered by a single event – much like the killing of Lt. Robert Paz in Panama.
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
