🔗 Share this article

When the horizon of the South American nation flashed during a assault, analysts saw the morbid symptoms of a declining hegemony. That might appear contradictory. In the end, the act of seizing a foreign leader and proclaiming plans to run a nation might appear as hubris—a dominant force high on its own might.

However, a primary characteristic of this stance, if it can be called that, is candour. Previous administrations cloaked naked self-interest in the rhetoric of “democracy” and “civil liberties”. This new posture dispenses with the pretense. In a prior statement, the rationale behind an energy seizure was stated clearly.

This perspective is outlined in a freshly issued strategic document. The paper accepts something long ignored in powerful corridors: that an era of absolute international dominance is at an end. It declares with scarcely hidden disdain that the period of supporting the entire world order are finished. These words serve as an blunt obituary for a former standing.

“Subsequent to a period of inattention, an enforcement of a historic principle will reestablish preeminence in the Western Hemisphere.”

That principle, crafted in the nineteenth century, professed to deter foreign colonization. Historically, it laid the foundations for local supremacy over a southern neighbor.

Conflict in Latin America backed by foreign actors is hardly new. Countless citizens took in displaced persons fleeing military juntas that were established after socialist administrations were overthrown in orchestrated upheavals. The logic at the time was explicit: halting a country from going communist due to the choices of its population. Comparable rationale underpinned backing murderous regimes across the continent.

An Evolving Continent

However in the last thirty years, that domination has been challenged. A tide of left-leaning administrations, pioneered by influential leaders, sought to assert greater regional independence. Most importantly, a primary international adversary—the Eastern power—has grown its footprint across the landmass. Mutual economic exchange between China and the region multiplied immensely over a few decades. China is now the region's primary trading partner, trailing only one other. Towards the close of a prior era, it did not even rank in the major players.

The current assault against Venezuela is only the opening move in an effort to undo all of these changes.

The Transformation of a Presidency

The experience of a previous administration led numerous to assume that the figurehead was all bluster. Then, an accommodation was reached with the political class. The unwritten bargain was simple: deliver tax cuts and deregulation, and social media tirades would be allowed. The current version represents a full-strength far-right regime.

Whenever warnings are issued at the popularly voted presidents of regional powers—believe him. If declarations are made about countries being “ripe for change,” believe him. And whenever claims are made about needing a enormous Arctic landmass—believe him. The goal to annex over two million square miles of another nation's land appears genuine.

The Repercussions of Acquisition

Assuming—when such a seizure occurs, what follows? The tepid global answer to a brazenly illegal attack would not go unremarked. But a seizure of fellow state soil would surely spell the end of a key alliance, established on the doctrine of collective defence. Land would be appropriated no less openly than recent territorial expansions. Regardless of what diplomatic murmurs emerged from European cities, the transatlantic partnership would be irreparably damaged.

Following the fall of a superpower adversary, elites were certain they were unbeatable in war and that their system represented the final stage of social progress. That overconfidence led directly to failure in several wars and a economic meltdown. Assurances of endless prosperity gave way to a series of disasters. The resulting widespread anger gave rise to a populist surge. And the “Nation First” solution to shifting fortunes is to give up on international commitments in exchange for a regional hegemony.

The Internal Price

What would that do to the nation itself? History offers cautions. Following 19th-century imperial expansions, influential thinkers founded an political society. They argued that the course of colonialism was antithetical to freedom and encouraged repression—an danger from which the country had been free.

“The warning was that no nation can long survive partly democratic and partly imperial, and the caution is that expansion overseas will lead directly and unavoidably to repression internally.”

Finally, economic influence supplanted outright occupation, and the political system—consistently deeply flawed—survived.

Who would reject such admonitions as hyperbole in the present climate? What happens overseas cannot be separated from trends domestically. This is the overseas blowback, as described decades ago by a critical author examining how foreign domination returned to the mainland in the guise of authoritarianism. Society has already watched a “war on terror” rebound in such a fashion: its terminology and logic reused for internal control. Rival factions are described as “subversive” entities. National guard troops are deployed into urban centers like {