Jeffrey Sachs: U.S. regime-change operations create chaos, not stability

Prominent economist and political analyst Jeffrey Sachs, in a video interview with China Global Television Network (CGTN), told that developments around Venezuela should be seen not as an isolated episode, but as part of a deeply entrenched tradition in U.S. foreign policy in which regime change is treated as a normalized instrument of power rather than an exceptional measure, News.Az reports.

According to Sachs, Washington’s approach has historically been driven less by international law or democratic ideals and more by strategic and economic calculations, particularly control over energy resources. From this perspective, contemporary rhetoric about “restoring democracy” in Venezuela appears unconvincing when set against the country’s vast oil reserves and the long record of U.S. attempts to shape political outcomes abroad through overt and covert intervention.

Sachs places the Venezuela case within a broader historical continuum that stretches back to the Cold War and beyond, arguing that regime-change operations have repeatedly failed to deliver the stable, pro-U.S. political orders promised by policymakers in Washington. Instead, such interventions tend to produce prolonged instability, internal conflict, and humanitarian crises, weakening targeted states without generating lasting strategic clarity or security.

A central element of Sachs’ critique is his skepticism toward claims of U.S. control or imminent success. Drawing on historical precedent, he notes that external pressure rarely translates into durable political transformation. On the contrary, it often deepens social fragmentation and entrenches confrontation, making reconciliation and recovery more difficult.

Equally important, Sachs draws a sharp distinction between the U.S. government and the American public. He emphasizes that major foreign-policy decisions are frequently disconnected from popular will and are instead shaped by entrenched institutional interests, the national security bureaucracy, and corporate and financial lobbies. In this sense, Venezuela becomes another example of how U.S. global power operates through structures largely insulated from democratic accountability.

Turning to the wider region, Sachs frames recent U.S. actions in Latin America and the Caribbean as evidence of an effort to reassert hegemonic dominance over the Western Hemisphere. He argues that pressure, intimidation, and intervention are increasingly being used to shape political outcomes in countries that refuse to align fully with U.S. preferences.

Sachs points to a growing backlash from African and Caribbean states, as well as from parts of Latin America itself, where governments have openly condemned what they view as violations of sovereignty and international law. This resistance, he suggests, reflects a deeper transformation in global politics, as many states are no longer willing to accept unilateral U.S. assertions of authority.

At the core of his assessment is the claim that the Trump administration openly embraces a doctrine of dominance. Public threats against Mexico, Panama, Colombia, Cuba, and other countries, along with allegations of interference in contested elections such as in Honduras, are cited by Sachs as indications that Washington views regime installation as a legitimate tool of statecraft. Under this logic, political independence is tolerated only when it aligns with U.S. strategic interests.

Sachs characterizes this approach as fundamentally incompatible with constitutional governance and international legal norms. Rather than operating within a rules-based international system, he argues, the current posture reflects a turn toward raw power politics—a willingness to coerce, destabilize, or unseat governments that resist U.S. influence.

Cuba, in Sachs’ account, remains the most enduring symbol of this confrontation. More than six decades after its revolution, the country continues to face punishment not for any single contemporary action, but for the original “offense” of asserting sovereign independence. The long history of invasion attempts, sanctions, and covert operations illustrates how deeply rooted the logic of regime change remains in U.S. policy toward the region.

Ultimately, Sachs warns that this strategy is unlikely to produce stability or prosperity in the Americas. Instead, it risks accelerating regional polarization, encouraging broader resistance to U.S. leadership, and further eroding the credibility of international law. For Sachs, the danger extends beyond individual countries: the normalization of coercion as a primary instrument of foreign policy threatens the foundations of the global order itself.

News.Az