By Dr. Fernando Esteche / Oscar Rotundo / Tadeo Catiglione
Trump’s arrival at the White House constitutes a revitalization of the doctrine of the founding fathers.
Historical review of imperialist development in the region
We can say that there is a kind of revival of the Monroe Doctrine, which was born with John Quincy Adams and James Monroe in 1823, to delimit the space of influence of the region of North America, in relation to European influence, an issue that resulted in a confrontation that was reflected in Monroe’s opposing positions with respect to Canning, chancellor of the British crown.
Definitely, the development of the mentioned doctrine not only involved the criterion that America should be for the Americans, but also extended to Western Asia for the Americans, Central Asia for the Americans, Eastern Europe for the Americans, becoming an imperialist doctrine.
The articulation of this doctrine has had various forms of implementation such as the purchase of territories or annexation.
From the thirteen colonies in the east, to being the third largest country in the world, its expansionist conception was always present.
More than 55% of the North American territory (5.5 million square kilometers) was purchased by the different North American governments, adding to that what was conquered from the indigenous people in the expansion towards the West, through genocide.
Thomas Jefferson was one of the driving forces behind the purchase of territories, arriving in Paris to try to buy the colony that France had in the north of the American continent. After the defeat in Haiti, Napoleon agreed to the sale of Louisiana for 15 million dollars (420 million dollars in today’s money), thus the United States received a territory of 2.14 million square kilometers (21.8% of the current territory), 15 states are located in the acquired territory, totally or partially, including Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Colorado and Louisiana.
In the southeast, there was the Spanish colony of Florida (Florida and part of the territory of Mississippi and Alabama), for which the American government also offered to buy, but after Spain rejected it, the United States went to war with the Seminole indigenous tribes who took refuge in that region and over time and faced with the impossibility of defending these possessions, Spain ceded these territories for the payment of compensation of 5 million dollars (125 million dollars in today’s money).
In 1848 the United States undertook another large-scale expansion, acquiring 1.36 million square kilometers of Mexican land, making up more than half of its territory at the time.
This acquisition was preceded by the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848, which was a terrible humiliation for that country.
By means of war and extortion for a profitable purchase of other vast territories now occupied by the states of Utah, Nevada, California and Colorado, for only 15 million dollars (600 million of today’s value) the United States consolidated its territorial power.
In this way, this attitude of buying or conquering is not new and the threats of the current Trump administration towards Panama, Greenland and even the proposal regarding the occupied Palestinian territories in Gaza have a historical correlation that speaks of its unwavering tendency of imperialist politics.
In this sense, we can say that Trump represents a kind of aggiornamento of the Monroe Doctrine, while at the same time having a very important anchor in the Farewell Address of George Washington, where the first American president intervened in the contradiction between Hamilton and Jefferson regarding pre-existing agreements with France.
This kind of revisionism regarding the founding fathers, not only of North America, but of imperialism on the part of Trump, aims to reconstruct the old idea of continental insularity, that is, not having neighbors who bother us.
Just as it bought Alaska from Russia, it now wants to acquire Greenland, not only in terms of wealth, but also in terms of the Arctic dispute with China and Russia. We find the same in the attempt to assimilate Canada to the United States.
Deployment in Latin America
The first foray of American foreign policy had three targets in its sights: Venezuela, Panama and Mexico. For that, Trump entrusted official Richard Grenell and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
In Venezuela, to ensure the supply of hydrocarbons. In Panama, to force an advantageous instrumentation over the rest of the countries regarding transit in the interoceanic Canal and with Mexico, to condition its position regarding the migratory phenomenon and, through tariffs, to condition the North American companies that produce in that country to return to the United States.
In Venezuela, Richard Grenell guaranteed that the cost of deportations would be assumed by Venezuela, sending planes from its fleet to repatriate the deportees. He also recovered six mercenaries convicted of participating in the coup operation called Gedeón and cleared up any doubts that might exist about the concessions to companies such as Chevron for the exploitation of oil in the Orinoco oil belt.
The tour of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a notorious gangster lobbyist linked to anti-Castro Cuban migration, reveals a plausible offensive where he collected concrete results on his trip to Panama, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic.
With the president of Panama, José Raúl Mulino, he obtained the breaking of the relationship of that country with China, making it desist from participating in the Silk Road, he also left the door open to review the concession of the two ports that have been operated for decades on both sides of the Canal by a company based in Hong Kong, CJ Hutchison Holdings, in addition he laid the foundations for the establishment of an airport and settlement of American troops in the Darién Gap and he advanced the discussion so that the transit of American ships, mainly warships, would be exempt from paying for canal services.
In El Salvador with President Nayib Bukele agreed that the government of that country would receive in its prisons foreigners convicted of serious crimes who would be deported, articulating this policy with the sending of prisoners with the same characteristics to the illegal Guantanamo base in Cuban territory.
Bukele offered the possibility of “outsourcing parts of the U.S. prison system” by receiving “imprisoned criminals” in the mega prison he ordered built two years ago to house “high-ranking” members of MS-13 and Barrio 18, in exchange for a “relatively low” fee.
Bukele ‘s rethinking of crypto assets as legal tender, which conditioned his relationship with the IMF for granting the loans that the country urgently needs to solve its economic situation.
In the Dominican Republic, he got the re-elected lackey in the executive, Luis Abinader , to hand over the Dassault Falcon 200 aircraft owned by the Venezuelan government, the second stolen abroad from the Bolivarian government, the first having occurred in Argentina during the government of Alberto Fernández. Abinader obtained from the North American official concrete support for his repressive policy with the displaced Haitians and the permissive silence of the United States for his xenophobic policies, which also include an increase in raids, the militarization of the common border and the construction of a 165 km wall between both countries.
With Arévalo in Guatemala, he strengthened the colonial status of the country, which also offered its territory as a space to receive undesirable deportees and agreed to strengthen security on the 300 kilometers of border that his country shares with Mexico, through which those who aspire to reach the United States transit.
Rubio also got Guatemala to join Belize and Paraguay in recognizing Taiwan.
In Costa Rica, with Rodrigo Chaves, he secured a very important position for the process of destabilization and subversion against the Sandinista revolution led by Daniel Ortega.
Costa Rica will receive support from the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) and the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) to work under their security teams against organized crime and drug trafficking
Relationship of the US government with Mexico
In the case of Mexico, since they coexist with the NAFTA and T-MEC agreements, the Treaty between Mexico, the United States and Canada (T-MEC) is a trade agreement that modernized the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or NAFTA. The T-MEC came into force on July 1, 2020, being a complementary, subordinate economy, which feeds North American production through maquila and cheap labor, probably, also being the country that guarantees border gendarme with respect to immigration policies, there is a permanent situation of constant agitation, which President Sheinbaum has handled with great decorum, assuming the condition of subordination that the country historically has , but without losing dignity, and trying to defend Mexican interests, both those who live on their land and those who live in the United States.
Argentina in the Trump era
Regarding Argentina, we must mention that with the government of Javier Milei the country’s neocolonial relationship with the United States has deepened, taking on grotesque characteristics when Donald Trump took office, since, in order to be seen as an ally of his government, he has taken measures out of sympathy such as withdrawing Argentina from the WHO.
But President Trump has reiterated that there will be no exception for Argentina regarding the 25% tariffs, because as he said, “we have a small deficit with Argentina” and this will fundamentally impact steel and aluminum exports, which will affect foreign exchange earnings and could represent a hard blow for local companies.
The consulting firm Analytica warned that “In 2024, the steel industry registered a cumulative year-on-year drop of 22.6% according to Indec (National Institute of Statistics and Censuses) while metal smelting contracted by 17.6%. The aluminum industry, mainly Aluar, fell by 1.8%, thanks to the fact that it exports most of its production and has less links with the domestic market, so it will suffer a deeper impact from this measure. Downstream, metal product manufacturers suffered a 13.2% decline in 2024.”
Mercosur and Brazil in the spotlight
Trump’s protectionist measures through tariffs also target regional blocs such as Mercosur because it has very high tariffs due to the fact that it was created as a bloc that prioritized the relationship between four countries, which had dynamic economies and sought to strengthen integration without taking the world into account, when tariffs fell from an average of 15% to an average of 3%.
Brazil, with the largest economy in the region, one of the founders of the BRICS, and one of the top 10 economies in the world, could consider imposing tariffs on US technology companies such as Amazon, Google, Meta and Spotify in reciprocity to the 25% tariffs that Trump would apply from March to its steel and aluminum producing companies, since it is the second largest supplier of steel and iron to the US, in 2024, they exported both products to the United States worth $4.677 billion.
Conclusion
Faced with an obvious American counteroffensive led by President Trump to recover spaces that generate economic advantages, political supremacy and overdetermination with respect to its neighbors, the region is not in a good position to repel such a movement. That is a conclusion and a concept.
In any case, just as at the time when the establishment of neoliberalism in the region began back in the 1970s, which required years of redeployment by the North American elites, in the same way those decades of redeployment also served as experience for the resistance of the people, who in the long run managed to defeat that model.
With this redeployment of Trumpism in the region, we can probably foresee a similar situation in the medium term, predicting a new process of popular resistance that will defeat the hegemonic and expansionist aspirations of the unipolar North American empire.