Trump’s narrative about “narcostate” does not hold water, analysts say

The justification used by President Donald Trump to attack the sovereignty of Venezuela this Saturday (3), kidnapping its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, the first lady Cilia Flores, and bombing the country’s facilities, is not supported by facts.

This is what analysts interviewed by the Portal Red. According to them, the characterization of Venezuela as a “narcostate”, used as a pretext to legitimize intervention and appropriate the country’s natural resources, is false.

The main justification presented by Trump and members of his government is that Venezuela would function as a “narcostate”, with Maduro acting as leader or coordinator of drug cartels responsible for supplying the North American market.

“More than 80% of the cocaine consumed in the United States comes from Colombia. What’s the point of Maduro being head of a cartel, if Colombia has an exit through the Pacific and the Atlantic? Why would someone need to use Venezuela to get this drug to the United States? That doesn’t make any sense”, says journalist Rodrigo Vianna.

Vianna works at Liberta Knowledge Institute (ICL) and was in Venezuela at different historical moments, following elections, plebiscites and the death of Bolivarian leader Hugo Chávez. For him, Trump’s insistence on classifying Venezuela as a “narcostate” does not respond to verifiable facts, but to the need to construct a simple and mobilizing justification for the Americans.

“The justification is for the domestic public, Trump’s most extremist voters, the MAGA crowd. If he goes for an international intervention, how can he justify that? He needs to give a justification that resonates with this domestic audience,” he says.

A similar assessment is made by Gabriel Becerra, deputy to the Colombian Chamber of Representatives for the Unión Patriótica.

“Venezuela is not a cocaine-producing country nor does it have large hectares of cultivation. In the worst case, it is considered a transit territory within the drug trafficking chain,” said Becerra.

“It is evident that Nicolás Maduro does not represent leadership as the leader or coordinator of a cartel and, consequently, it is false to conclude that this head of state is an articulator of the drug cartels”, he stated.

When detailing the regional dynamics of drug trafficking, Becerra contrasts the Venezuelan situation with that of countries that effectively concentrate cocaine production in South America.

“We, in Colombia, have on average around 260 thousand hectares of coca cultivation and a potential production of approximately 3 thousand metric tons of cocaine. We are, without a doubt, one of the largest producing countries, along with other Andean countries such as Peru and Bolivia. In no official figure does the Venezuelan State, the geography of Venezuela, come close to these numbers”, stated the parliamentarian.

For Vianna, the allegation of drug trafficking loses its centrality as Trump’s own speech begins to reveal the real objective of the operation.

“This is justification. They want oil, it has nothing to do with drug trafficking. Trump himself made this very clear at the press conference, when he started talking about the Venezuelan administration and oil”, says the journalist.

Becerra, in turn, draws attention to the recurring use of this type of accusation as an instrument of United States foreign policy.

“The category of ‘narcostate’ is a political label used to justify military and interventionist actions against governments that do not align with the imperial logic of the United States,” he stated.

“This type of intervention favors the militarization of borders, reorganizes – and does not eliminate – drug trafficking routes and weakens regional integration processes”, he assessed.

In the opinion of the Colombian deputy, the accusation also unduly shifts responsibility for the drug crisis in the United States, by attributing it to a country that does not play a central role in production or supply to the North American market.

“Venezuela cannot be held responsible for the problem of drug trafficking or drugs in the United States. This is an internal problem, which is not linked to the production of cocaine in Venezuelan territory,” he stated.

When dealing with the practical consequences of this type of intervention, Becerra states that the impact goes far beyond Venezuela and is directly manifested throughout the region, especially in border areas.

“This type of intervention favors the militarization of territory and borders, contributes to humanitarian degradation in these areas and causes a relocation of drug trafficking routes and criminal economies, which do not disappear, but adapt to new circumstances”, he stated.

According to Becerra, interventionism has direct effects on cooperation between countries in the region. The logic adopted, according to him, “breaks with the possibilities of regional integration, does not prioritize diplomacy to resolve conflicts and undermines the peace and security of Our America”.

The parliamentarian also maintains that the offensive led by the United States should not be read as an isolated episode restricted to Venezuela.

“This threat is not just against Venezuela. It is a threat against the entire Latin American region,” he stated, defending the need for a collective response. In his view, in the face of the interventionist escalation, “it is necessary to prepare an articulated regional response” to preserve the sovereignty of Latin American countries.