Is US Foreign Policy Indicating a Shift Towards a New Era of Imperialism?
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
- US foreign policy under Trump raises concerns of imperialism.
- Military actions in Venezuela and Nigeria exemplify new strategies.
- Global South seeks platforms to defend international norms.
- Coercive economic measures may force alignments.
- Threats to Greenland could disrupt NATO alliances.
Cape Town, Jan 17 (NationPress) As India prepares to take on the BRICS Presidency in 2026, the significance of this grouping has notably increased during a time when multilateral diplomacy faces considerable challenges, according to a recent report.
The onset of 2026 has seen a series of audacious foreign policy actions by the US under President Donald Trump, prompting serious concerns for the Global South.
On January 3, US special forces executed a bold raid in Caracas, capturing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his spouse Cilia Flores on charges related to narco-terrorism, followed by announcements of extended US control over Venezuela's extensive oil reserves. Just days earlier, on Christmas Day 2025, US strikes targeted alleged ISIS camps in northwest Nigeria's Sokoto State, justified as safeguarding Nigerian Christians from terrorism, as reported by Independent Online (IOL), a prominent media outlet in South Africa.
Additionally, the increasing threats to acquire Greenland, citing national security, rare earth minerals, and Arctic routes, have heightened tensions with Denmark, a NATO ally, with the White House not dismissing military options. Many nations in the Global South are seeking platforms that uphold global norms, the report emphasized.
Phapano Phasha, Chairperson of the South African think tank, The Centre for Alternative Political and Economic Thought, referenced Indian columnist T K Arun's Substack article '2026: Into the World According to Trump' and a subsequent critique in 'The Core' titled 'Trump's Imperial Turn Leaves India with No Simple Choices', where he described Trump's foreign policy as a deliberate revival of 19th-century imperialism.
Arun draws a direct analogy with figures such as President William McKinley, arguing that this strategy actively dismantles the post-World War II rules-based order, a system founded on treaties, sovereignty, and multilateralism, as quoted by Phasha.
This argument is underscored by actions like the intervention in Venezuela, which, while portrayed by Trump as a law-enforcement operation, ultimately led to US control over the nation's oil exports, epitomizing a new imperial mentality.
The report further noted that Arun broadened his critique of the US, spotlighting coercive economic measures, including threats of tariffs soaring up to 500% on nations buying Russian oil, effectively compelling alignment or facing repercussions.
The strikes in Nigeria, coordinated with local authorities but framed by Trump as a 'Christmas gift' to terrorists targeting Christians, risk expanding US influence in Africa under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts. The Greenland threats, Arun suggests in his broader analysis of imperial resurgence, could also disrupt alliances like NATO, treating sovereignty as negotiable when it aligns with US strategic interests.