An attack on Venezuela orchestrated by Donald Trump's administration is the "opening move" to a much larger rival, a political commentator has claimed.
Writing in The Guardian, Owen Jones suggested the strike on Venezuela earlier this week, and subsequent capture of President Nicolás Maduro, is part of a longer game plan which would see Trump stand off against China. The major trade rival has become a growing concern for the Trump administration, with Jones citing a growing trade industry between China and Latin America as a reason the president may be keen to take action in the Western Hemisphere.
Jones wrote, "And, crucially, China – the main US rival – has grown in power across the continent. The two-way goods trade between China and Latin America was 259 times larger in 2023 than it was in 1990."
"China is now the continent’s second largest trading partner, behind only the US. At the end of the cold war, it did not even make the top 10. Trump’s assault on Venezuela is just the opening move in an attempt to reverse all of this."
Jones would also suggest that the "domination" of the US in the last three decades has been challenged as a result of this trade agreement between major rival China and Latin America. It appears Trump is now trying to present himself as someone without "bluster" as was the case for his first term.
"The experience of Trump’s first term has led too many to conclude that the strongman in the White House was all bluster," Jones wrote. "Then, he reached an accommodation with the traditional Republican elite."
"The unwritten bargain was simple: deliver tax cuts and deregulation, and he could vent endlessly on social media. Second-term Trump is a full-fat far-right regime."
The strike on Venezuela could embolden Trump to take further action, with the president reigniting his interest in buying out or taking over Greenland as a US territory. Jones suggested that, should the US seize Greenland, it would be no different from Russia annexing parts of Ukraine.
Jones wrote, "But a US seizure of Danish sovereign territory would surely spell the end of Nato, founded on the principle of collective defence. Denmark’s land would be stolen no less blatantly than Russia’s devouring of Ukraine. Whatever muted noises have emerged from London, Paris or Berlin, the western alliance would be finished."
