from WILL COOPER in New York, US
Special contributor
NEW YORK, (CAJ News) – REPORTS of increasing United States (US) military activity near Venezuela have sparked international concern, with experts warning that the American government’s actions may constitute extrajudicial killings and a veiled strategy for regime change.
While Washington publicly frames its Caribbean buildup as an effort to combat drug trafficking, analysts and human rights observers argue that the claims are baseless and that Venezuela, a country struggling under economic sanctions and internal challenges, is not a primary source of narcotics to the United States.
Steve Ellner, a retired professor from the Universidad de Oriente and associate managing editor of Latin American Perspectives, has closely examined U.S. operations in the Caribbean.
He highlighted recent reports of U.S. attacks on Venezuelan boats, noting that in several cases “the intent appears to be to kill all the men in them… amounting to extrajudicial killing without any legal justification.”
Ellner emphasized that these attacks should be opposed “on ethical and humanitarian grounds, not just legal ones.”
According to his analysis, roughly 80 men have been killed in small boats in the Caribbean in operations that appear more cold-blooded than previously acknowledged.
Ellner’s commentary follows reports in Fortune magazine that President Donald Trump recently pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, convicted in 2024 on drug trafficking and weapons charges.
Observers suggest the juxtaposition of such pardons with threats against Venezuela highlights inconsistencies in U.S. policy and raises questions about the real motivations behind the Caribbean military buildup.
Matthew Hoh, associate director of the Eisenhower Media Network, former U.S. Marine Corps captain, and a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, warned that U.S. declarations of a no-fly zone over Venezuelan airspace effectively “give them an excuse to shoot down a Venezuelan aircraft” and provide a potential casus belli—a justification for war.
Hoh draws parallels with U.S.-led interventions in Libya and Syria, where airstrikes and special operations forces supported local opposition groups in attempts to topple governments.
He notes, “The idea is that the United States would provide airstrikes, special operations, cyber-attacks, and logistical support, but Venezuelan opposition groups would execute the main ground effort to remove the government.”
Critics argue that such a strategy risks repeating the mistakes of past proxy conflicts.
In Libya, for example, U.S.-backed operations contributed to regime change but ultimately left the country in a state of chaos, with ongoing violence and fragmentation.
Hoh cautions that a similar approach in Venezuela could have destabilizing regional consequences, particularly in a nation already facing severe economic hardships exacerbated by years of sanctions.
Venezuela’s drug production and trafficking levels are a point of contention. Analysts worldwide note that the country is not a major supplier of illicit drugs to the United States.
Colombia, Mexico, and Central American countries remain the primary sources of cocaine and other narcotics entering the U.S. market.
International commentators have criticized Washington’s claims as “unfounded” and “politically motivated,” arguing that the narrative of Venezuelan drug trafficking is being used to justify military intervention rather than address genuine drug enforcement priorities.
Global human rights groups have condemned U.S. threats toward Venezuela. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both called for restraint, emphasizing that aggressive military posturing and extrajudicial killings violate international law.
Experts stress that targeting a smaller, economically weakened nation with military force sets a dangerous precedent for international norms and undermines the credibility of global institutions designed to prevent conflict.
Beyond the immediate humanitarian concerns, some analysts suggest that Washington’s real issue lies in Venezuela’s political independence and its opposition to U.S.-backed regional policies.
The country has pursued alliances with non-U.S. actors, including Russia, China, and Iran, and has resisted participation in certain trade and political arrangements favored by Washington.
By framing Venezuela as a “drug threat,” critics argue, the U.S. is attempting to manufacture a justification for intervention that aligns with broader geopolitical goals, including control over regional resources and influence over Latin American governance.
The Caribbean military buildup, including naval and aerial maneuvers, raises particular concern for maritime law experts.
Ellner and other observers point to reports of attacks on Venezuelan vessels in international waters, actions that could constitute war crimes under the Geneva Conventions.
“These operations appear less about drug interdiction and more about intimidating the Venezuelan government and signaling power projection in the region,” Ellner notes.
While U.S. officials insist that the operations are part of legitimate anti-narcotics efforts, independent analyses suggest otherwise. According to data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Venezuela’s role in global drug flows is minimal compared with its neighbors.
International criticism underscores that the U.S. strategy risks creating unnecessary conflict, destabilizing a region already vulnerable to political and economic shocks, and further isolating Venezuela without addressing the true sources of narcotics.
In conclusion, experts warn that Washington’s military maneuvers toward Venezuela reflect a continuation of interventionist policies in Latin America under the guise of drug enforcement.
Critics emphasize that the purported rationale—combating narcotics trafficking—is unsubstantiated, and that the consequences of escalation could be catastrophic for the Venezuelan population and regional stability.
As global voices call for restraint, human rights advocates and political analysts alike insist that diplomacy, not military force, is the only legitimate path forward.
– CAJ News