🔗 Share this article

When the cityscape of Venezuela was illuminated during a bombardment, analysts saw the troubling signs of a waning empire. It could seem paradoxical. Ultimately, the action of kidnapping a head of state and declaring intentions to administer a country might appear as hubris—a superpower high on its own force.

Yet, a primary trait of this approach, if it can be called that, is frankness. Previous governments draped naked self-interest in the language of “freedom” and “human rights”. The present strategy dispenses with the pretense. During a prior statement, the rationale behind an resource acquisition was articulated clearly.

This viewpoint is outlined in a newly released policy paper. The paper acknowledges something long denied in certain circles: that an era of uncontested international dominance is at an end. It proclaims with thinly veiled scorn that the days of bearing the global system are over. These pronouncements serve as an unceremonious eulogy for a bygone status.

“Subsequent to a period of neglect, an enforcement of a 19th-century policy will reinstate leadership in the Americas.”

This policy, crafted in the nineteenth century, claimed to block European colonialism. Historically, it established the basis for hemispheric control over a continental sphere.

Instability in South and Central America facilitated by external powers is far from unprecedented. Many individuals took in exiles fleeing authoritarian regimes that were established after progressive leaders were toppled in orchestrated upheavals. The reasoning at the time was explicit: halting a state from going socialist due to the will of its population. Parallel logic justified backing brutal governments across the region.

A Shifting Continent

However in the last thirty years, that domination has been questioned. A surge of reformist governments, pioneered by key figures, sought to claim greater regional independence. Most importantly, a primary strategic competitor—the Asian giant—has increased its influence across the continent. Bilateral commerce between this power and Latin America soared dramatically over a few generations. This nation is now the continent's primary trading partner, trailing only one other. Towards the close of a previous global conflict, it did not even rank in the leading group.

This action against a sovereign state is merely the first step in an attempt to roll back all of these changes.

The Metamorphosis of a Regime

The events of a previous administration led several to conclude that the figurehead was mostly talk. Then, an arrangement was reached with the traditional elite. The implicit deal was simple: enact favourable economic policies, and rhetorical outbursts would be tolerated. The current version represents a full-strength nationalist administration.

Whenever threats are issued at the democratically elected leaders of other nations—take it seriously. When statements are made about sovereign states being “on the brink,” pay attention. And whenever claims are made about needing a massive European territory—recognize the seriousness. The goal to seize over two million square miles of foreign soil appears real.

The Repercussions of Acquisition

Should—once such a territorial acquisition occurs, what happens next? The muted global answer to a brazenly illegal attack would not go unremarked. However a annexation of partner state soil would surely spell the demise of a defensive pact, built on the principle of shared security. Sovereignty would be taken no less brazenly than other territorial expansions. Regardless of what muted noises emerged from European cities, the transatlantic partnership would be finished.

Following the fall of a major rival, leaders were certain they were unbeatable in war and that their economic model represented the pinnacle of human development. That arrogance led inexorably to failure in overseas engagements and a global financial crash. Promises of a better world gave way to a succession of setbacks. The resulting mass disillusionment led to a nationalist response. But the “Nation First” reaction to shifting fortunes is to give up on world leadership in favour for a regional hegemony.

The Internal Price

What would that leave the nation itself? Historical precedent offers cautions. Following previous military victories, influential figures established an opposition group. They declared that the policy of imperialism was hostile to freedom and tended toward authoritarianism—an danger from which the nation had remained apart.

“It is claimed that no republic can long survive half republic and half empire, and the prediction is that imperialism abroad will lead directly and unavoidably to repression internally.”

Finally, informal empire supplanted formal rule, and the political system—consistently deeply flawed—survived.

What observer would dismiss such warnings as exaggeration now? Actions internationally cannot be decoupled from trends at home. This is the imperial “boomerang”, as analyzed decades ago by a prominent thinker examining how European colonialism came back to the mainland in the guise of fascism. Society has already watched a “war on terror” boomerang in a similar manner: its terminology and framework recycled for internal control. Rival factions are branded as “subversive” groups. National guard troops are sent into metropolitan areas like {