This is coercion. This is criminality dressed in the language of statecraft.
Em um encontro de think tanks das Américas no Rio de Janeiro, o economista Jeffrey Sachs lançou uma acusação grave: os Estados Unidos não apenas se beneficiam de crises financeiras alheias, mas as fabricam deliberadamente como instrumento de controle geopolítico. Sua fala convida a uma reflexão mais ampla sobre a natureza do poder moderno — onde a ruína econômica substituiu o canhão como ferramenta de dominação. Para a América Latina, a mensagem carrega um peso histórico particular: a fragmentação regional é, ela mesma, uma forma de vulnerabilidade cultivada.
- Sachs afirma que Washington usa o colapso econômico como interruptor — ligando e desligando crises em Venezuela, Cuba e Irã para dobrar governos à sua vontade.
- Trump teria descrito abertamente a desvalorização da moeda iraniana como 'diplomacia econômica', uma confissão que Sachs classifica como coerção disfarçada de política externa.
- A América Latina permanece exposta porque seus países negociam isoladamente com o FMI, sem redes regionais de proteção que possam amortecer choques externos.
- A proposta de saída passa por linhas de swap cambial geridas dentro da própria região, com o CAF como possível âncora de uma arquitetura financeira latino-americana independente.
- Líderes do encontro evocaram Bolívar e o Congresso do Panamá como lembrança de que a integração já foi um sonho possível — e que sua ausência tem custado caro por dois séculos.
Na segunda-feira, Jeffrey Sachs tomou a palavra no Centro Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais, no Rio de Janeiro, diante de representantes de think tanks de todo o continente, e fez uma afirmação que não deixou espaço para ambiguidade: os Estados Unidos fabricam crises financeiras intencionalmente, usando o colapso econômico como mecanismo de pressão sobre governos que resistem à sua influência.
O economista da Universidade Columbia argumentou que o império moderno não se constrói com exércitos, mas com o controle das economias alheias. Venezuela, Cuba e Irã, disse ele, não são casos de má gestão que resultaram em crise — são crises arquitetadas. Como evidência, citou declarações do próprio Donald Trump no Fórum Econômico Mundial de Davos, nas quais o presidente descreveu a desvalorização da moeda iraniana como 'diplomacia econômica'. Para Sachs, o termo correto é coerção — ou, mais diretamente, criminalidade revestida de linguagem diplomática.
A vulnerabilidade da América Latina a esse tipo de pressão, argumentou Sachs, é estrutural: os países da região enfrentam crises de forma isolada, recorrendo individualmente ao FMI em vez de contar com mecanismos regionais de proteção. Sua proposta foi concreta — linhas de swap cambial coordenadas dentro da própria América Latina, com o Banco de Desenvolvimento da América Latina e do Caribe (CAF) como possível modelo institucional.
O ex-ministro das Finanças do Chile Felipe Larraín aprofundou o diagnóstico, evocando o Congresso do Panamá convocado por Simón Bolívar quase dois séculos atrás. Se aquela visão de unidade tivesse se concretizado, sugeriu, a região não estaria hoje tão exposta. José Pio Borges, presidente do centro brasileiro, reforçou que a América Latina precisa de vontade política para falar com uma só voz num mundo em reconfiguração. O encontro encerrou com a presidência rotativa da rede passando do Chile para a Argentina — mas a questão central permanece aberta: até quando a região continuará dependendo da benevolência de instituições distantes?
Jeffrey Sachs stood before an audience at Brazil's Center for International Relations in Rio de Janeiro on Monday and made a stark accusation: the United States manufactures financial crises on purpose, wielding economic collapse as casually as a switch that can be flipped on and off whenever Washington wants to pressure a government or reshape foreign policy outcomes.
The Columbia University economist, speaking at a gathering of think tanks from across the Americas, framed the American approach to global economics as fundamentally extractive. Building an empire through direct military force has become expensive, he argued, so the modern method is cheaper: seize control of other nations' economies, and their governments follow. The mechanism is straightforward. When the U.S. wants a regime to fall, a policy to change, or leverage over a nation's decisions, it threatens financial catastrophe—and sometimes executes that threat. Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, Sachs said, are not examples of countries that stumbled into crisis. They are examples of crises that were deliberately constructed.
Sachs cited a recent interview in which President Donald Trump, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, described the administration's approach to Iran with striking candor. Trump had said the U.S. devalued Iran's currency, pushed its people into the streets, and called this "economic diplomacy." Sachs rejected the framing entirely. This is not diplomacy, he said. This is coercion. This is criminality dressed in the language of statecraft, and it has become the defining character of American economic policy.
The vulnerability of Latin America to these kinds of shocks, Sachs suggested, flows directly from the region's fragmentation. Individual countries remain isolated, dependent on institutions like the International Monetary Fund for financial rescue when crises hit. The solution, he proposed, is regional integration—specifically, currency swap arrangements managed within Latin America itself, rather than by distant multilateral bodies answerable to Washington. The Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean, known as CAF, could serve as a model for how such coordination might work. Sachs acknowledged the difficulty of building such systems, but insisted the effort was worth exploring.
The event was part of a broader gathering of the Network of Think Tanks of the Americas, a coalition that brings together research institutions from the United States, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, and Spain. José Pio Borges, president of the Brazilian center, echoed Sachs's emphasis on regional strategy, arguing that Latin America must think deliberately about its role in a shifting global order. That requires coordination, he said, and the political will to speak with one voice.
Felipe Larraín, a former Chilean finance minister and current chair of the network, went further, lamenting the region's persistent failure to integrate. He invoked the Congress of Panama, convened by Simón Bolívar nearly two centuries ago, which had envisioned a unified Latin America. Had those ambitions been realized, Larraín suggested, the region might not face the economic fragmentation that leaves it perpetually exposed to external pressure. A region where many remain marginalized, he warned, is a region destined for conflict.
The meeting also marked a transition in the network's leadership, with the rotating presidency moving from Chile to Argentina, now under the direction of Francisco de Santibañes. The conversation about regional financial independence, however, will likely persist—a recognition that Latin America's economic future depends less on the benevolence of distant institutions and more on the strength of its own internal bonds.
Citações Notáveis
The U.S. creates financial crises deliberately, very frequently, because they can turn the switch on and off. When they want to overthrow a government, pressure it, or achieve a foreign policy outcome, they threaten and sometimes execute that threat.— Jeffrey Sachs
A region where many remain marginalized is a region destined for conflict.— Felipe Larraín, former Chilean finance minister
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
When Sachs says the U.S. "creates" financial crises, does he mean deliberate sabotage, or is he describing the predictable consequences of policy choices?
He's describing something more calculated than mere consequence. He's saying the U.S. knows exactly what will happen when it cuts off a country's access to currency markets or foreign exchange—it's not an accident, it's the point. The switch metaphor matters. You don't accidentally flip a switch.
But how would that actually work in practice? How does a financial crisis get "created"?
Through control of the dollar system, through sanctions that freeze assets, through pressure on banks not to do business with certain countries. When Trump talks about devaluing Iran's currency, he's describing the mechanics. You restrict their ability to trade, their currency collapses, people can't buy food or medicine, the government destabilizes. It's cause and effect, but the cause is deliberate.
Sachs seems to be arguing that Latin America needs to build its own financial system to escape this. Is that realistic?
It's ambitious, but the logic is sound. If countries can swap currencies with each other instead of always going to the IMF or the Federal Reserve, they're less dependent on whoever controls the global financial plumbing. That's real autonomy. Whether they can actually build it is another question—it requires trust and coordination that doesn't exist yet.
What's the human cost of what he's describing?
Millions of people. Venezuela's crisis has displaced millions. Cuba has endured decades of economic strangulation. Iran's currency collapse means ordinary people can't afford basics. Sachs is saying these aren't natural disasters or policy failures—they're engineered. That changes how you think about who bears responsibility.
Is this a fringe view among economists?
Not entirely. Plenty of economists acknowledge that sanctions and financial pressure are tools of foreign policy. What Sachs is doing is naming it directly, refusing the euphemism. He's saying what others might think but won't say out loud.