🔗 Share this article

While the horizon of the South American nation lit up during a assault, commentators witnessed the troubling signs of a waning global power. It could sound paradoxical. In the end, the action of seizing a foreign leader and announcing intentions to run a country might appear as hubris—a dominant force high on its own might.

But, a key characteristic of this stance, if it can be called that, is frankness. Previous presidencies veiled overt national interest in the language of “freedom” and “fundamental freedoms”. The current strategy dispenses with the pretense. During a recent remark, the logic behind an oil grab was articulated clearly.

This perspective is outlined in a recently published policy paper. The document acknowledges something long denied in powerful corridors: that an era of total international dominance is finished. It proclaims with thinly veiled contempt that the time of supporting the global system are done. These pronouncements serve as an blunt eulogy for a previous position.

“Subsequent to a period of disregard, a reassertion of a longstanding doctrine will reinstate dominance in the Americas.”

This doctrine, articulated in the 1800s, professed to deter Old World imperialism. In practice, it established the basis for local supremacy over a Latin American back yard.

Violence in Latin America backed by outside forces is far from unprecedented. Many citizens sheltered displaced persons fleeing authoritarian regimes that were established after socialist administrations were toppled in orchestrated overthrows. The justification at the time was clear: stopping a country from going socialist due to the will of its citizens. Similar thinking justified support for murderous regimes across the hemisphere.

A Shifting Continent

But in the last thirty years, that control has been challenged. A surge of progressive administrations, spearheaded by key figures, sought to establish greater sovereign agency. Significantly, a key global rival—the Eastern power—has increased its footprint across the region. Two-way economic exchange between China and Latin America multiplied dramatically over a few generations. This nation is now the continent's second largest trading partner, trailing only one other. By the conclusion of a prior era, it did not even place in the top 10.

The recent assault against a sovereign state is only the opening move in an attempt to roll back all of this progress.

The Transformation of a Regime

The experience of a prior four years led many to conclude that the strongman was full of hot air. At that time, an accommodation was reached with the traditional elite. The implicit deal was straightforward: pass tax cuts and deregulation, and public venting would be overlooked. This new incarnation represents a unadulterated far-right regime.

When menaces are issued at the popularly voted heads of state of other nations—believe him. Whenever statements are made about countries being “on the brink,” believe him. And if assertions are made about needing a massive European territory—recognize the seriousness. The intention to seize over two million square kilometers of foreign soil appears sincere.

The Consequences of Aggression

If—when such a territorial acquisition occurs, what follows? The weak European response to a flagrantly unlawful assault would not go unremarked. Yet a annexation of fellow sovereign territory would almost certainly spell the end of a military organization, built on the doctrine of shared security. Territory would be appropriated no less openly than recent acts of aggression. No matter the diplomatic murmurs emerged from European cities, the western alliance would be irreparably damaged.

After the dissolution of a Cold War foe, elites believed they were militarily invincible and that their way of life represented the final stage of human development. That hubris led inexorably to catastrophe in multiple conflicts and a economic meltdown. Visions of utopian dreams gave way to a succession of setbacks. The resulting popular discontent gave rise to a populist surge. And the “Homeland First” solution to shifting fortunes is to give up on international commitments in favour for a continental sphere of control.

The Homefront Cost

What does that do to the domestic society? Historical precedent offers warnings. After past overseas conquests, prominent thinkers established an anti-imperialist league. They declared that the doctrine of imperialism was opposed to liberty and tended toward repression—an threat from which the country had remained apart.

“It is claimed that no country can long survive half republic and half empire, and we warn that foreign adventures will lead quickly and inevitably to repression internally.”

In the end, economic influence supplanted outright occupation, and democratic institutions—consistently fractured—persisted.

Which analyst would discount such warnings as exaggeration in the present climate? What happens abroad cannot be divorced from developments domestically. This is the colonial backlash, as analyzed decades ago by a critical author examining how European colonialism boomeranged to the continent in the shape of totalitarianism. We have already watched a “war on terror” boomerang in such a fashion: its language and rationale reused for homefront surveillance. Rival factions are branded as “terrorist” groups. Security forces are deployed into urban centers like {