During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan sold American weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages in Lebanon and then used the funds without authorization to support the Contras in Nicaragua. In a similar vein, can’t you imagine Trump taking the oil in Venezuela and then using the oil sale proceeds to finance a forced purchase of Greenland?
Sure you can.
Nineteenth century American imperialism got off to a bang in 1803 with the Louisiana Purchase. Napoleon initially wanted to revive the French empire in the Western Hemisphere, but the cost of crushing a revolt in Haiti and more pressing needs in Europe persuaded him to abandon the scheme. The Native Americans who actually occupied the land in question were not, of course, consulted in this matter.
One of the American objectives during the War of 1812 was the conquest of Canada. This part of the war was a miserable failure. The war, as a whole, was a draw; the Native Americans, however, were the big losers, as the British quietly gave up on their plan to create a buffer state for Canada that would be controlled by the natives. American campaigns against Native Americans in nominally Spanish areas that are now included in Alabama and Florida also set the stage for the acquisition of these areas after the war.
The Monroe Doctrine was inspired by British efforts to prevent the restored Spanish monarchy from reasserting control over its former colonies. America had no military power to prevent European intervention in South American countries, so it essentially had to rely on the British fleet for that purpose. The Doctrine was not, therefore, an attempt to establish American hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, as no resources existed to make that a reality. It was, in reality, a blow against autocracy and imperialism, not an attempt to assert an American variant.
The highlight, if you could call it that, of American imperialism during the first part of the nineteenth century was the Mexican War, which was provoked by President Polk in an effort to force Mexico to sell, at a minimum, its northern possessions to the United States. The war was strongly opposed by the Whig Party, but it was a huge military success. Politically, it was a disaster; the acquisition of new territory made the Civil War much more likely.
I’ve discussed the likelihood that the United States and the EU could force Ukraine into a bad deal on many occasions. But recent events have raised another possibility-that the need to keep America’s support on Ukraine could result in EU pressure on Denmark to sell Greenland.
That may be Trump’s end game here. It is definitely plausible.
The 18th century in America was marked by two kinds of imperialism: the British, French, and Spanish doing battle with each other; and all of them pushing against the Native Americans who weren’t allied with them. But was the effort to take land from the Native Americans really imperialism? After all, virtually all of it was driven by settlers, not the governments of the mother countries or the colonies, and there was no real attempt by either the British or French colonists to exploit and rule the much-diminished native population, whom the British settlers just wanted to go away, one way or the other. Morally speaking, that may not be an improvement over imperialism, but it doesn’t fit my definition.
Anyway, the British Empire prevailed over the French version in the French and Indian War, and the French relinquished their rights to North America. The British government, far from encouraging the colonists to take Native American land, imposed a limit on it with the Proclamation of 1763. This in turn was one of the most important colonial grievances that resulted in the Revolutionary War.
At the end of the 18th century, both American political parties recognized that settlers would ultimately control all of the land east of the Mississippi. The Federalists were unenthusiastic about the process and wanted to keep it slow and organized; the Republicans were far more bullish about the expansion of “civilization.” The Native Americans, for their part, were in deep trouble, and the American colonies were still bordered by Spanish possessions to the south and west.
The reactionary Iranian regime has sent its thuggish security forces into the street to stop the demonstrations. The regime is determined to intimidate the population and stifle dissent. Thousands of people have been killed to date.
Trump says he supports the Iranian demonstrators. In the meantime, however, he has sent a large force of his thuggish ICE agents into the streets in Minnesota. This has been done primarily to intimidate the population and stifle dissent, not to identify and capture illegal immigrants who represent a genuine danger to the community. One person has been killed by an ICE agent to date.
This is a difference of degree, not kind.
The Chinese economy has never really recovered from the real estate crash. Unemployment for young people is way up. Consumer confidence is in the dumps. National morale, by all accounts, is flagging. The promise of a better life for hundreds of millions of people is gone, it seems.
But China ran a record trade surplus last year. By Trump’s standards, that means the country has never been richer! So cheer up, guys!
If you’re a wokester, you probably think American imperialism started when the English colonists landed at Jamestown in 1607. I don’t agree. The initial efforts at colonization were generated by private actors, and the notion of ruling over vastly numerically superior Native Americans at that time would have seemed ludicrous. The objective at that point was to find adequate land to develop without antagonizing the natives too much.
By about 1650, however, things had changed. European governments were taking more of an interest in the colonies. The Navigation Act was passed, thereby establishing a mother country/colony economic relationship that would continue for over a century. The European colonies were starting to bump into each other. The colonists were no longer grossly outnumbered by the natives. An era of imperialism, albeit one in which the interests of private actors still predominated over those of governments, had begun.
Lindsey Graham is back in the Oval Office to talk about foreign policy.
G: I still can’t get over how gold this place is! It’s blinding me!
T: That’s the point, Linseed. It reminds you of what a winner I am.
G: As in your latest triumph in Venezuela.
T: Right. There was a point when I was worried that the helicopters might not make it. It might be another Jimmy Carter episode. But then I remembered, Jimmy Carter was a loser, and I’m a winner. The helicopters made it because I’m a winner.
G: But what happens now? You’ve always been opposed to regime change.
T: We have a better way of doing regime change. We keep the thugs in place, but we force them to do our bidding. No troops on the ground.
G: MAGA will approve of that, but can you really trust the regime to take orders from you? They’ll probably just slow roll what you want and hope you lose interest.
T: If they start doing that, we’ll make them offers they can’t refuse. Trust me, no one gets away with ignoring my will. I’m the boss. They have to do what I say.
G: But what if they don’t? What if you have to send in the troops and occupy the country?
T: It won’t happen. They know I’m the boss. That’s it.
G: What about Cuba?
T: Cuba doesn’t have oil or minerals. It has a basket case economy and lots of old people who didn’t have the energy to leave and start over. Why would I want it?
G: Don’t you want to free the people from the Marxist yoke?
T: Marco does. I’ll leave it to him. We’re not sending troops there, however. It’s not worth it. It wouldn’t help make us rich.
G: And Greenland? Would you really break up NATO when we have all the rights we need to extract minerals and establish bases?
T: We’re the boss of the hemisphere, Linseed. We have to own it. There’s nothing like ownership. I know from my developer days.
G: So you’re prepared to go to war for it?
T: I hope it won’t be necessary. The Europeans give me everything I want when I push them really hard. We’ll be doing that again. They’re more afraid of China and Putin than they are of me, so they’ll give in when push comes to shove.
G: Well, I hope you’re right. Losing NATO would be a big mistake. (He leaves)
I identified three characteristics of liberalism in a post in 2024. Humility, because every individual and party recognizes that the truth is not self-evident, and the other side could be right; tolerance, because it is stupid to be intolerant of people who may be right; and optimism, because we have the ability to learn by experience. But what is the opposite of liberalism?
Imagine a state in which the leaders believe the truth is on their side, and self-evident, so the opposition is clearly evil. As a result, they have no reason to tolerate dissent. In addition, they see society as being in decline, and view all transactions as being zero-sum, so the nation desperately needs to put up barriers and keep resources out of the hands of others.
Oh, wait. You don’t have to imagine that. It’s here.
We need to start with a definition. What is “imperialism?” In my view, it is a government-supported effort to attain and exercise political, social, and economic dominion over another nation.
The key term here is “government-supported.” A purely private-sector entity trading with representatives of a different nation is not engaged in imperialism. The VOC and the British East India Company, however, were sufficiently intertwined with their respective governments to meet the definition.
How does this relate to American history? I will address that question throughout American history in several posts this week.
The protesters believe the Iranian government is their instrument and is accountable to them. Since it has failed miserably, it should be changed. The leaders of the regime, on the other hand, think the point of government is to please God; they are his instruments, not the people’s. The transient desires of the population are consequently irrelevant and can be ignored or even crushed with impunity.
In a slightly different form, this is the divine right of kings versus the Enlightenment all over again. It is Muhammad against Jefferson.
Japan in the 1930s and early 1940s had a large population, an advanced economy, a powerful military, and very few natural resources. Its leadership thought the solution to the resource problem was obvious–create an empire in China. The Americans ultimately responded to the Japanese aggression and atrocities by imposing an oil embargo. The Japanese consequently had a choice: give up their dreams of empire in China or go for broke, attack the Americans, and seize as many resources as possible in the process.
As we know only too well, they decided to launch surprise attacks against a variety of targets in the Pacific and Asia in order to establish dominion over their neighborhood and solve their resource issues. Is this ringing any bells for you?
The Israelis attacked a notorious Tehran prison during last year’s war in an apparent effort to encourage regime dissidents. In those terms, the attack was a miserable failure; it killed lots of innocent Iranians, angered the dissidents, and increased support for the regime, at least temporarily.
Trump is now talking in public about providing military assistance to the protesters. He is clearly high on imperialism at the moment, so notwithstanding my previous post on this subject, it is not altogether impossible that he would try something. If he does, what should he do?
He needs to avoid the Bibi precedent. Airstrikes should be off the table. Instead, he should tell the Iranian nation that the creation of a new regime which no longer threatens its neighbors will result in an end to sanctions, the possibility of economic assistance, and hope for a better life in the future. In other words, it’s time for well-placed carrots, not sticks.
Trump doesn’t appear to have any qualms about attacking Greenland and blowing up NATO. What that proves, of course, is that NATO only exists today as a formality. The Euros, as they usually do, are responding cautiously; they insist that nothing is wrong with America and the alliance while supporting Greenland’s right of self-determination. Is this reliance on the power of wishful thinking likely to work?
No. It reminds me of what happens when you feed alligators. They lose the idea of boundaries and demand more and more. It never ends well.
Trump is a predator, just like Putin. He openly says he doesn’t feel bound by treaties or international law. If he has the power, he is going to use it. At some point, the rest of the world needs to take him at his word.
Dissent in Iran is starting to look dangerous to the regime, which has no answers for the economic problems for which it is responsible. Businessmen and students alike are demanding fundamental change. Some people are even calling for the return of the Shah. Is this, at long last, the beginning of the end for the theocracy?
I don’t think so; it won’t happen until important elements of the regime lose their faith in its legitimacy and refuse to support repression. I don’t see any evidence of that yet. But the situation definitely bears watching.