The Trump administration would have us believe that the crises in Venezuela is simply one of tyranny versus democracy, but the reality is much more complex. Often ignored by the American media is the long history of U.S. relations with Latin America — the foreign policy “backyard.”

COUNTERPOINT: Venezuelan opposition offers an alternative to crisis

For more than a century, the United States has engaged in numerous interventions in Latin America, many of them through outright violence, destroying democratically elected leaders and replacing them with repressive military dictators. Most notable among these were the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala in 1954 and Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973. The U.S. intent in those interventions was not to protect or defend democracy but instead to establish, maintain or increase corporate profit by removing leaders who would limit the exploitation of land, people and resources.

The United States has not only supported repressive regimes in the past — in Brazil, Chile and Guatemala — but also in the present. The murderous monarchies of the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, still receive robust U.S. support.

This intervention isn’t always violent. The United States has also engaged in bloodless political coups to remove democratically-elected presidents such as Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti in 2004 and José Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in 2009 because corporate interests were threatened by their proposed social and economic reforms.

Given the capitalist nature of the U.S. foreign policy, reformist and especially socialist regimes are routinely targeted for political, economic and sometimes even military intervention regardless of whether the governments were established through the ballot or the bullet.

It is through this lens that the crises in Venezuela can best be understood. I’m no admirer of the late Hugo Chávez , nor of his militarist mentality and cult of personality. Nevertheless, his administration did finally direct a large portion of Venezuela’s enormous petroleum-based wealth to help the poor and destitute by funding education, housing, health and other benefits long denied to them. For decades this wealth had gone only to the elite, who were roundly and fairly defeated in the polls when Chávez won his democratic election. Nevertheless, the George W. Bush administration supported a failed military coup in 2002 that further served to divide the Venezuelan people and harden their resolve.

Under internal and external attacks, media misinformation and harsh economic sanctions and sabotage, the Chávez government became more paranoid and repressive. These problems were compounded by internal mismanagement, which spawned a host of economic hardships, leading to severe shortages of food and medicine and plummeting of oil prices.

This is the climate into which Nicolás Maduro took the reins of power. Whether or not you believe he won in a completely free and fair election, it is important to note the Trump administration routinely supports undemocratic regimes across the globe yet refrains from calling for their overthrow.

More to the point, the Trump administration and its allies have no right to declare who the president of Venezuela is, much less to name their designated choice — National Assembly President Juan Guaidó, who did not even run for president or receive a single vote for that office. The United States is entering into volatile territory by supporting a coup in Venezuela, which will inevitably lead to more repression, violence and bloodshed.

There are more alternative means to resolving this crisis. Uruguay, Mexico and the Vatican have pushed for negotiations. Intervention by the U.S. will only make a peaceful resolution more difficult while working to divide Latin America.

Don’t be fooled by rhetoric about democracy and liberating the Venezuelan people. The U.S. has its eyes on all those incredible petroleum reserves that are under Venezuelan soil. The Trump administration cares little for the lives of poor and destitute Central Americans seeking asylum. .Are we to believe that Trump really cares about the plight of Venezuelans?

The best way out of this conundrum is through dialogue, yet the Trump administration has refused to enter into negotiations with Maduro despite repeated invitations. The White House seems unilaterally focused on regime change to achieve its objectives and has no intent on pursuing peaceful solutions. We can only hope that the efforts at dialogue are realized and that another struggling Latin American nation can avoid the devastation of civil war brought about by the greed of their own elite and of the United States.

Noboa is a retired assistant professor of social studies from the University of Texas at El Paso now living in Costa Rica.