By Carlos Aznárez. On December 23, 2025
image: Al Mayadeen
When the now much-quoted James Monroe uttered that famous phrase “America for Americans” in 1823, he could not have imagined that this sincere statement would run through the entire subsequent history of US foreign policy, much less that 200 years later one of his compatriots—as arrogant and ambitious as he was—would raise the stakes.
The former warned the European colonizers that their license to do as they pleased on the continent stretching from south of the Rio Grande to the confines of Tierra del Fuego had expired, not because he was a vigilante, but because the aforementioned phrase meant that “those lands are ours, the Americans.”
His current imitator is not to be outdone. In addition to proclaiming himself owner of Venezuelan lands and riches that do not belong to him, appealing to the usual arrogance that characterizes him, he expands the same colonizing desire when he thinks of Europe, Africa, or Asia. And just as Monroe thought of putting a stop to the Europeans’ expropriatory zeal on the continent, Trump now appeals to the National Security Strategy to enforce his regional dominance, by hook or by crook, leaving his competitors Russia and China out of the game.
Donald Trump feels more like Monroe than Monroe himself, and just as he longs for a Nobel Peace Prize, he must imagine that his name will be used to label future streets and avenues in the countries that “belong to him,” as is already the case with his predecessor from the early 1800s.
Two centuries ago, the hypocrisy so carefully crafted by the gringos, who tend to give their misdeeds grandiose aliases, named the period during which Monroe governed the “era of good feelings,” so it is easy to imagine that the current “Trump Doctrine,” of plunder, interference in sovereign countries, and warmongering threats, will be given a similar label, which will be repeated obediently by all his accomplices in the long list of abuses committed.
In this sense, when Trump recently claimed, with a grim expression, that he was ordering a total maritime blockade of Bolivarian Venezuela until “they return to the US the oil and land they stole from us,” he was doing nothing more than obeying the imperial mandate that all presidents who have passed through the White House have religiously followed. It is no surprise that a large part of the US leadership truly believes that Latin America and the Caribbean belong to them (that is what the “backyard” theory is all about) and every so often, they are not only content to intervene in the economies of each of the countries, but also show that this or that territory, including its natural resources, is part of what they need for their future survival.
Some time ago, during Trump’s first term, it was common to find in study manuals or maps used in the United States that the Amazon was no longer Brazilian or belonging to neighboring countries, but rather a “universal heritage.” Following this definition, Washington promoted private investment in carbon credits with technology companies such as Microsoft and Google, generated USAID assistance with resources for climate control, and many of these actions led to more deforestation, a succession of massive fires whose perpetrators were never identified, and illegal gold laundering. If it is “universal,” then it is also ours, surely thought the billionaire friend of Zionist pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Now, this twist in the “Trump Doctrine” has decided to increase the pressure and is no longer content with maneuvers to co-opt political leaders or hand-picked leaders (Javier Milei and Tito Asfura, for example), but, taking advantage of the climate of right-wing and even fascist tendencies that reigns on the continent and in the world, it has left behind any kind of subtlety and is moving decisively against countries such as Venezuela, which not only ideologically oppose the “manifest destiny” of US usurpation and abuse, but also, among other common goods, have enough oil reserves to supply themselves for a hundred years.
It can be said, without a doubt, that just as they did (and continue to do) with Cuba for 66 years, they have tried everything with Venezuela in the last quarter century, during which a popular, revolutionary, and Chavista government has ruled the Caribbean country.
Added to all this is an economic blockade that has lasted several years, the blatant intervention in airspace, and a sustained campaign of foreign aggression with the complicity of Europe (subordinate to everything the United States orders), the OAS, the DEA, the CIA, and several Latin American leaders, including some who dare to call themselves “progressives.”
In the face of all these actions, the Bolivarian government and people responded with fierce resistance and sustained progress in deepening the Revolution. This is not the result of a miracle but of a strong, coherent, and disciplined political will, which has enabled the country to recover economically, just when the peoples of neighboring countries, even with imperial support, are suffering from almost everything, and day after day the gap between a small core of ultra-millionaires and a gigantic mass of impoverished population widens.
Venezuela is an example, as Cuba always was, but it also has all the elements to become a great power in the region. Hence the resentment and visceral hatred it generates in characters like Trump, accustomed to everyone kneeling before their proposals of submission.
Unlike other countries, mired in intrinsic weaknesses and overt complicity with the policies imposed by Washington, the Bolivarian revolutionary government has always responded with dignity and courage to any kind of pressure, including the brazen military blockade that Trump has imposed.
Carlos Aznares is a founding editor of the Resumen Latinoamericano
Source: Cuba en Resumen