On Thursday, September 25, 2025, Bolivian President Luis Arce took the stage at the United Nations General Assembly in New York to deliver a blistering critique of the United States, accusing it of orchestrating global suffering and perpetuating violence through militarization, economic blockades, and unilateral sanctions. In a speech that reverberated with indignation, Arce singled out Washington for its role in conflicts and interventions worldwide, particularly in Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Middle East. His remarks painted a vivid picture of a world under siege by what he described as U.S. imperialist ambitions, with a particular focus on the ongoing violence in Gaza, which he labeled a “genocide” driven by the decisions of the U.S. and Israel.
A World in Turmoil: Arce’s Broad Condemnation
President Arce’s address was a clarion call to the international community, urging world leaders to recognize the consequences of unchecked power and militaristic policies. “Today, the echoes of war drums are sounding,” he declared, his voice carrying the weight of decades of perceived injustices inflicted upon the Global South. The Bolivian leader framed his speech around the idea that the United States, driven by what he called an “obsessive desire” to dominate, has been a primary architect of global instability. He argued that this desire manifests in both overt military actions and covert interventions, leaving a trail of pain and death in its wake.
Arce’s speech was not merely a rhetorical flourish but a carefully constructed argument rooted in historical and contemporary grievances. He pointed to the U.S.’s long history of interventionism, from its support for coups in Latin America to its economic sanctions on countries like Cuba and Venezuela. For Arce, these actions are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of imperialism aimed at maintaining U.S. hegemony over the world’s resources and political systems. His remarks resonated with many delegates from developing nations, who have long criticized the disproportionate influence of powerful countries in global affairs.
Latin America and the Caribbean: A Region Under Threat
A significant portion of Arce’s address focused on the U.S.’s activities in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region he described as being under constant threat from Washington’s militaristic ambitions. He specifically called out the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), a military entity responsible for U.S. operations in Central and South America, as well as the Caribbean. According to Arce, SOUTHCOM’s presence in the region is not about maintaining security or combating threats like drug trafficking, as the U.S. claims, but rather about projecting power and securing control over valuable natural resources.
“The U.S. Southern Command has mobilized in our region with war potential,” Arce stated, listing an arsenal that includes missiles, planes, helicopters, and submarines. He argued that this military buildup is a pretext for intervention, particularly in Venezuela, a country rich in oil reserves that has long been a target of U.S. foreign policy. “If the U.S. were truly concerned about drug trafficking and organized crime, it would begin by addressing these issues within its own borders,” Arce quipped, drawing attention to the domestic challenges the U.S. faces, including its opioid crisis and the proliferation of illegal firearms.
Arce’s critique of U.S. intentions in Venezuela was particularly pointed. He accused Washington of using the guise of counter-narcotics operations to justify a military presence that ultimately seeks to destabilize the Venezuelan government and gain access to its vast oil reserves. This narrative aligns with longstanding accusations from leftist governments in Latin America, who view U.S. policies as neo-colonial attempts to control the region’s resources and suppress progressive movements.
The Bolivian president also framed the U.S.’s actions as a broader assault on democracy in the region. He argued that the militarization of Latin America and the Caribbean is part of a strategy to “regain control” of a region that has increasingly asserted its sovereignty in recent decades. From the election of progressive leaders to the formation of regional alliances like the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), Latin America has sought to carve out a path independent of U.S. influence. Arce suggested that Washington’s response has been to undermine these efforts through economic coercion, political interference, and military intimidation.
The Cuban Blockade: A Symbol of Imperialist Aggression
One of the most poignant examples Arce cited in his speech was the U.S. economic blockade against Cuba, which he described as a “prime example” of imperialist aggression. The embargo, in place for over six decades, has caused billions of dollars in economic losses for the island nation, stifling its development and exacerbating hardships for its people. Arce argued that the blockade is not merely an economic policy but a deliberate act of punishment rooted in “imperialism’s rejection of the region’s first socialist revolution.”
The Cuban Revolution of 1959, led by Fidel Castro, marked a turning point in Latin American history, inspiring leftist movements across the continent and challenging U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. responded with a comprehensive embargo, which has since been condemned by the vast majority of UN member states in annual resolutions calling for its end. Arce’s invocation of Cuba’s plight was a reminder of the enduring legacy of U.S. policies that seek to isolate and weaken governments that defy Washington’s ideological preferences.
Arce’s criticism of the Cuban blockade also served to highlight the broader impact of unilateral sanctions, which he argued violate the founding principles of the United Nations. The UN Charter emphasizes sovereignty, self-determination, and international cooperation, principles that Arce believes are undermined by sanctions that disproportionately harm vulnerable populations. By framing the blockade as a form of economic warfare, Arce sought to galvanize support for Cuba and other nations facing similar measures, including Venezuela, Iran, and Syria.
The Middle East: A “Genocide” in Gaza
While much of Arce’s speech focused on Latin America, he also turned his attention to the Middle East, where he accused the U.S. and Israel of perpetrating a “genocide” in the Gaza Strip. “The threat of death also runs through the Middle East,” he said, referring to the ongoing violence that has claimed thousands of lives and displaced countless others. Arce’s use of the term “genocide” was a deliberate and provocative choice, reflecting the growing international outcry over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Arce argued that the violence in Gaza is not an isolated conflict but part of a broader strategy by Israel, with U.S. backing, to “accelerate the displacement of the Palestinian people in the shortest possible time.” This claim echoes the concerns of human rights organizations and some governments that have accused Israel of pursuing policies aimed at altering the demographic and territorial realities of the occupied Palestinian territories. The U.S., as Israel’s primary military and diplomatic ally, has faced increasing scrutiny for its role in enabling these actions through arms sales and vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel.
By linking the situations in Gaza and Latin America, Arce sought to draw parallels between what he sees as imperialist interventions in different parts of the world. He suggested that the same forces driving militarization in Latin America are at work in the Middle East, where powerful nations prioritize geopolitical dominance over human lives. This framing aligns with the Bolivian government’s longstanding support for the Palestinian cause, a position shared by many countries in the Global South.
The Global Consequences of U.S. Policies
Arce’s speech was not limited to specific regions but encompassed a broader critique of the global order. He argued that the world continues to bear the consequences of wars, blockades, and sanctions, which he described as tools of coercion that contradict the UN’s mission to promote peace and cooperation. These policies, he contended, exacerbate poverty, inequality, and instability, particularly in developing nations that lack the resources to withstand external pressures.
The Bolivian president’s remarks were grounded in a worldview that sees the current global system as inherently unequal, with powerful nations like the U.S. wielding disproportionate influence over international institutions and economic systems. He called for a reevaluation of this system, urging the UN to take a more assertive role in addressing the root causes of global conflicts and inequalities. For Arce, the UN General Assembly represents a platform for amplifying the voices of smaller nations, which are often marginalized in global decision-making.
Arce also touched on the environmental and economic dimensions of U.S. policies, noting that interventions and sanctions often disrupt efforts to address pressing global challenges like climate change and sustainable development. In Latin America, for example, resource-rich countries like Bolivia and Venezuela have sought to leverage their natural wealth to fund social programs and infrastructure, only to face economic sabotage through sanctions and market manipulations. Arce argued that these actions not only harm individual nations but also undermine collective efforts to build a more equitable and sustainable world.
The Historical Context of Arce’s Critique
To fully understand Arce’s speech, it is essential to place it within the historical context of Bolivia’s relationship with the United States and the broader trajectory of Latin American resistance to imperialism. Bolivia, under the leadership of Arce and his predecessor Evo Morales, has positioned itself as a staunch defender of sovereignty and anti-imperialism. The Movement for Socialism (MAS), the political party that both leaders represent, emerged from grassroots movements advocating for indigenous rights, economic justice, and resistance to foreign domination.
The U.S. has a long history of intervening in Bolivian affairs, from supporting military dictatorships in the 20th century to backing opposition forces during Morales’s presidency. The 2019 coup that ousted Morales, which many in Bolivia and beyond believe was supported by U.S. interests, remains a fresh wound for Arce’s government. His speech at the UN can be seen as a continuation of Bolivia’s efforts to assert its independence and challenge the narrative that portrays U.S. intervention as benign or necessary.
Arce’s reference to “colonialist tactics” also draws on a deep historical memory of exploitation in Latin America, from the Spanish conquest to the economic dominance of U.S. corporations in the 19th and 20th centuries. By framing contemporary U.S. policies as a continuation of this colonial legacy, Arce tapped into a powerful narrative that resonates with many in the region and beyond.
Reactions and Implications
Arce’s speech elicited a range of reactions from the international community. Representatives from countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran expressed solidarity with his remarks, praising his courage in confronting a global superpower. Others, particularly Western nations aligned with the U.S., were more reserved, with some dismissing his accusations as inflammatory rhetoric. The U.S. delegation did not immediately respond to Arce’s speech, but past statements from U.S. officials have rejected similar criticisms as misrepresentations of American foreign policy.
The speech also sparked discussions about the role of the UN in addressing global inequalities and conflicts. While the General Assembly provides a platform for leaders like Arce to voice their concerns, its ability to effect meaningful change is limited by the veto power of the Security Council’s permanent members, including the U.S. For Arce and like-minded leaders, this structural imbalance underscores the need for reform within the UN to better represent the interests of the Global South.
In Bolivia, Arce’s speech was met with widespread approval from his supporters, who see it as a bold stand against imperialism. However, opposition groups within the country criticized the address as divisive, arguing that it risks further straining Bolivia’s already fragile relationship with the U.S. and other Western powers. For Arce, who faces domestic challenges including economic difficulties and political polarization, the speech may serve as a way to rally his base and project strength on the international stage.
A Call for Global Solidarity
In closing his address, Arce called for global solidarity in resisting imperialism and building a multipolar world order based on mutual respect and cooperation. He urged nations to reject the “war drums” of militarization and instead work toward peace, justice, and sustainability. His vision aligns with the broader aspirations of the Non-Aligned Movement and other coalitions that seek to challenge the dominance of Western powers.
As the world grapples with interconnected crises—from conflicts in the Middle East to economic instability in Latin America—Arce’s speech serves as a reminder of the enduring tensions between powerful nations and those seeking to assert their sovereignty. Whether his words will translate into meaningful action remains to be seen, but they have undoubtedly added fuel to the ongoing debate about the role of the U.S. in global affairs and the future of international relations.
