By Shao Jingyi and Yan Jin

The Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, led by the world's  largest aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CNV 78), has entered the Caribbean Sea to form Joint Task Force "Southern Spear" with the joint forces already in the Caribbean Sea, including the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group and its marine expeditionary unit, according to a statement by the U.S. Navy on November 16. This is the largest U.S. military deployment in the region since 1994. Although the U.S. claims the operation aims to "enhance and augment existing capabilities to disrupt narcotics trafficking and degrade and dismantle Transnational Criminal Organizations," the international community views it as another dangerous signal of the U.S.' strategic control over Latin America.

The so-called "counter-narcotics operations" are utterly far-fetched. According to recent reports by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Venezuela is not a major source of drugs flowing into the U.S.. Since early September this year, the U.S. military has sunk approximately 20 so-called "drug trafficking boats" in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, causing at least 83 deaths. Clearly, such heavy military pressure from the U.S. is not just a simple law-enforcement operation, or rather, it is a form of "gunboat diplomacy" targeting Venezuela and the wider region--an attempt to proclaim to the world that the U.S. still has the capacity to enforce "rules" within its own "backyard."

Under the guise of "counter-narcotics operations," Washington's strategic intentions in Latin America are self-evident. First, it aims to use military deterrence to push for regime change and seize Venezuela's energy resources, whose proven oil reserves rank first in the world. Second, it attempts to control the Caribbean Sea through military deployments, choke off key shipping lanes in Latin America, and coerce regional countries into compromising with the U.S. on trade and economic issues. Third, it intends to obstruct the efforts to advance regional integration by Latin American countries.

The U.S. "counter-narcotics operations" clearly lack legitimate basis. The U.S. has never provided evidence that the targeted vessels were carrying drugs, nor has it disclosed information about the people or cargo aboard them. Using lethal force in international waters without legal justification is undeniably an act of extrajudicial violence. The U.S.' unilateral and excessive "law enforcement" against foreign vessels in so-called "international waters" violates the basic human rights of those involved, including the right to life, and poses a potential threat to freedom of navigation and safety in those waters. Furthermore, its preparation for covert or direct military action against another sovereign state is a serious violation of the UN Charter.

In the face of extreme U.S. pressure, Venezuela has taken a firm stance, strongly condemning the U.S. for practicing "Monroe Doctrine," attempting to overthrow the Venezuelan government, and plundering its oil and other natural resources. The Venezuelan government has launched a nationwide defense mobilization, initiating the first phase of militia activation in early September. So far, it has mobilized several million militia members. It has also launched the "Independence Plan 200," deploying troops to strategic locations and conducting military exercises. Recently, Venezuela passed a law on comprehensive defense commands  to confront potential U.S. military aggression.

For a long time, the U.S. has regarded Latin America as its "backyard," meddling in the internal affairs of Latin American countries through such means as military operations and economic sanctions. Today, its pressure on Venezuela in the name of "counter-narcotics operations" has sparked strong opposition across the region and the wider international community. What Latin America needs is respect, dialogue, and cooperation, not coercion and military confrontation. The U.S.' military bullying and disruption of regional peace will only lead to its isolation.

(The authors are from China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.)