Impossible in some things, not in all, of course. The radical return to protectionism is not only possible but necessary for an empire facing an undeniable decline, denounced not only by critical analysts but certified by no less than leading intellectuals of the American establishment such as Zbigniew Brzezinski in a 2012 text and, subsequently, by several documents of the Rand Corporation. (1) Decline or dissolution, as you prefer, which came hand in hand with critical domestic factors: the slow growth of the economy, the loss of competitiveness in global markets and the gigantic indebtedness of the federal government, among many others. If in 1980 the Federal Government debt to GDP ratio was 34.54%; today reached an astronomical level: 122.55%. To this must be added the intractable balance of trade deficit, which continues to grow and in the year 2024 amounted to 131.4 billion dollars, roughly representing 3.5 % of the U.S. GDP. Because America consumes more than it produces. (2) To this constellation of domestic factors of imperial weakening it should be added the deterioration of democratic legitimacy highlighted by the January 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol and by the widespread pardon granted by Trump in favor of some 1,500 attackers who had been convicted by the U.S. judiciary. Instead of bipartisan consensus today there is a huge rift undermining the political system, of which Trumpism is but one of its expressions.

RELATED:

Trump Threatens To Bomb Iran if No Nuclear Deal Is Reached, Iran Respond

To this already challenging picture must be added the epochal changes in the external environment of the United States, transformations that have irreversibly modified the morphology of the international system and its geopolitical imperatives. The phenomenal economic growth of China and the significant advances of other countries of the Global South such as India and several Asian nations became objective obstacles to the pretensions of Washington, accustomed during decades to impose its conditions worldwide without stumbling against too many obstacles. However much Trump may regret it, that “golden era” is gone forever; it is already part of the past because the economic strengthening as well as the advance of the countries of the Global South in new technologies have created a planetary landscape where yesterday’s bravados no longer have the same effect. Much less the commercial wars, where the aggressor ends up being the victim of its own decisions. As if the above were not enough, the “world chessboard” is further complicated by the unexpected “return” of Russia as a global power contender. This took by surprise the ideologized experts of the empire, fervent believers in the exceptionalism of the United States as “the indispensable nation”,  who because of their ideological blinders  were led to believe that after the implosion of the Soviet Union Russia had been condemned per secula seculorum to be a passive bystander of world affairs, without any capacity to exercise the slightest protagonist role. If we add to this picture the greater military response capacity of these countries -especially Russia, as proved in the Ukrainian war- as well as their achievements in the diplomatic field and in the formation of broad alliances -the BRICS for example- we will understand the reasons why the world geopolitical balance has tipped in a direction contrary to U.S. interests. Multipolarism has arrived and is here to stay.

It should come as no surprise that in the face of these threatening changes (that had been manifest since the beginning of the frustrated “new American century”) some scholars, pundits and government advisors have made emphatic calls for the American leadership to exercise naked power, leaving aside all conventionalisms or adherence to international legality. One of them, Robert Kagan, substantiated this advise in a long and highly influential article published the year after the 9/11 attacks. Unlike Europe, he said, the U.S. leadership must be aware that “we live in an anarchic, Hobbesian world in which international laws and norms are insecure and uncertain. In such a scenario true security, defense and promotion of a liberal order depend on the possession and use of military force.” For Kagan, the world’s need for a “global gendarme” – an updated version of Hobbes’ Leviathan- was indisputable, and Washington was the only one with the will and capacity to fulfill that critical role. Hence the doctrine of “Preventive War” proclaimed by George W. Bush (Jr.) shortly after 9/11, which established that countries or governments that according to the White House standards are outside the law – namely, those that do not accept the lying “rules-based world order” designed to favor the United States and its vassals – must be neutralized or destroyed.(3) Kagan tops off his proposal by appealing to the vicious reasoning of a senior  British diplomat, Robert Cooper, who argued that in dealing with the world outside Europe  (or the “Anglosphere”, or the receding West) “we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era – force, pre-emptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the nineteenth century world of every state for itself. Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle.” (4) The jungle is obviously all the rest of the planet outside the North Atlantic and most especially the outlying regions of the empire. Exactly twenty years later Josep Borrell, High Representative for Foreign Policy of the supremely immoral European Union, would be inspired by Cooper’s writing when he compared with unequalled arrogance the “European garden” with the rest of the world, which he characterized as a “jungle” and which, as such, must be treated with the brutal methods of the jungle. (5)

Yet, a few years before the publication of Kagan and Cooper’s texts, a cunning exponent of American conservatism such as Samuel P. Huntington warned about the limits of the United States as “lone sheriff” and, in general, about the sustainability of the unipolarism that some thought would last throughout the 21st century. According to this author, the turbulence of the international landscape after the collapse of the Soviet Union forced Washington, now the lonely superpower,  to exercise international power ruthlessly given that in a Hobbesian world only the strongest prevails. However, he warned that with the passage of time this behavior was likely to precipitate the formation of a very broad anti-U.S. coalition that would include not only Russia and China but also many other countries, what we now call the Global South. Incidentally, this was the nightmare that disturbed Brzezinski’s sleep in his already mentioned 1997 book. Moreover, to the extent that as the gendarme of world capitalism Washington is obliged, according to Huntington, to do some nasty things such as to “pressure other countries to adopt American values and practices; to prevent third countries from acquiring military capabilities that call into question American military superiority”; or to impose the outrageous and  illegal extraterritoriality of all US laws; or to promote US business interests under the “slogans of free trade and open markets and shape IMF and WB policies to serve those same interests”; and also to categorize certain countries as “state sponsors of terrorism” (as Trump did with Cuba in one of his first executive orders) because they refuse to bow to US wishes” it would only be a matter of time, he warned, before in reaction to these policies a broad front opposed to the United States would be formed and the empire would be increasingly challenged by new and very powerful international actors. (6)  In the military field, the “lone sheriff” was beaten in Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan; he was unable to overcome Cuba’s heroic resistance to sixty five years of a criminal blockade, or to overthrow the government of Venezuela after more than ten years of all kind of aggressions. To make matters worse, this guardian of world capitalism is not only weaker but also has to deal with a much more complicated and intractable international scene than a quarter of a century ago. (7)

In his desperation, Trump tries to stop the clock and dress up as a sheriff, appealing to brute force and making bullying his main diplomatic argument (“peace by force”, as Marco Rubio said) to revive the “golden age” of imperialism: gunboat diplomacy, and in vain try to resurrect a “rules-based world order” that died a few years ago. Trump is only the gravedigger, not the executioner of that biased world order. He withdraws from the Paris Climate Change Accords, from the World Health Organization, cuts the funding to the World Trade Organization created under Washington’s leadership, and threatens to abandon the United Nations, its multiple global bodies (UNESCO would be a special target of this policy shift) and definitively scrapping a large number of international treaties that, according to his mediocre staff of advisors, prevent the United States from “becoming great again”. In its restoration crusade Trump wields the weapon of the trade war by appealing to customs tariffs, whose boomerang effect has been repeatedly pointed out by economists of all walks of life. In its belated imperial delirium threatens to impose its will over any opponent, from those who say that Greenland is not for sale, or annexing Canada as the 51st state of the Union, or taking back the Panama Canal by force because it is controlled by the Chinese (which is a tremendous lie), changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, to consider the drug cartels as “terrorist organizations”, which according to US laws would empower him to fight them inside the Mexican territory and, of course, to redouble the aggressions against Cuba and Venezuela. He had promised to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office and two months after his words vanished into thin air because Vladimir Putin is not willing to throw in the trash his military victory against NATO in Ukraine in exchange of nothing. And despite Trump`s supposedly pacifist pretensions, reduced to the case of Ukraine, he continues with the policy of his predecessors, both Republicans and Democrats, of financing, arming and approving the genocide that the Israeli terrorist regime is perpetrating in Gaza and now in the West Bank. So far Trump and his small band of oligarchs who hijacked democracy in the United States and the lackluster members of his cabinet, beginning with Marco Rubio  -“little Marco”, as Trump dismissively called him in the Republican primaries of 2016- has limited its restorative pretensions to the level of gestures and words, or to costless initiatives such as, for example, abandoning World Health Organization. But on the Mars Field of international relations, where multiple and very powerful actors and interests collide, so far little or nothing has been achieved. To make matters worse, Trump has a domestic front where growing numbers of the American population, already disapproves his job at the White House, 50 percent according the The Economist survey of March 27. (8) Nevertheless, in Latin America and the Caribbean we must be on guard because, as Fidel and Che repeatedly warned, when things do not go well for the United States in other parts of the world Washington retreats to its strategic rearguard, precisely Latin America and the Caribbean, and it would not hesitate to unleash a political, media, intelligence and even military offensive to erect “friendly governments” in the region, if necessary ferocious dictatorships, to scare off rival powers such as China, Russia, India, Iran and other countries of the Global South. It happened in the past, and it could happen again today.

Sources:

(1) Theme that runs through what in my opinion are his two most important books: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (original in English: 1997) and the as yet untranslated Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power (2012).

(2) https://www.bea.gov/news/2025/us-international-trade-goods-and-services-january-2025

(3) See his  “Power and Weakness”, Policy Review, Junio-Julio 2002,  pp. 1, 10-11.

(4) Robert Cooper, “The New Liberal Imperialism”, in The Guardian  7 Abril 2002

(5) Cf. https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-10-19/borrell-suscita-el-rechazo-internacional-por-comparar-a-europa-con-un-jardin-y-al-resto-del-mundo-con-una-jungla.html

(6) Samuel P. Huntington, “The lonely superpower”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 78, No. 2, 1999, p. 48.

(7) We have examined these issues in detail in a paper published in 1994. “Towards post-Hegemonic Age? The end of Pax Americana”. Security Dialogue, 1994, vol. 25 (2), pp. 211-221.

(8) Data available in: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2025/03/29/donald-trumps-approval-rating-latest-polls/82711289007/

(9) more information on all these topics can be found at
www.atilioboron.com.ar/cafevirtual

EN ESTA NOTA:

The opinions expressed in this section do not necessarily represent those of teleSUR