Labels

TRUMP'S AMERICAN EMPIRE: PRACTICAL, WITHOUT IDEOLOGY

Over the Christmas period Jack Posobiec on Human Events posted a three part series on failed American attempts at regime change operations aimed at democratic nation building: watch it at "Tales of Regime Change", part 1, part 2, part 3. When rumors swelled that President Trump would 'go into Venezuela' the assumption was that this necessarily would be another regime change operation in order to liberate the country from the 'Bolivarian' tyranny. It has now become clear that another mistake like that is not on the Trump 2.0 agenda. Historically that is not revolutionary. Alexander the Great as well as the Roman Republic applied the concept quite often.


Jan. 21, 2025 History Icons Channel: How Did Alexander The Great Rule The Territories He Conquered? - History Icons Channel.

Alexander the Great often left local rulers in place or integrated them into his administration, especially when they surrendered without resistance. For example, after defeating the Persian satraps in Asia Minor, Alexander allowed local governance to continue under certain conditions.

In India after  the Battle of the Hydaspe, Alexander allowed King Porus to stay on after he pledged his allegiance. In Judea and in Egypt, the local population welcomed Alexander as a liberator from Persian rule. 

The Romans followed a similar strategy of retaining local rulers, particularly in regions where resistance was minimal or where integration was beneficial. The practical was the standard before the modern age of ideology. 

The  post Alexandrian Seleucid kingdom itself, after being conquered in turn by the Romans allowed local dynasties to continue ruling under Roman oversight, especially in client states like Judaea and parts of North Africa. Local rulers were permitted to govern as long as they remained loyal to Rome and paid tribute.

This approach allowed Rome to extend its influence without the need for direct military occupation in every region, much like Alexander’s method of using local leaders to maintain control over vast territories. The point is, that the concept can be applied successfully up to a point and under certain conditions.

The regime in Venezuela seems to be responding well to the orders of its new masters, as political prisoners are being released. The US is keeping part of the war fleet in place locked and loaded, just in case the new regime under VP Delci Rodriguez, a step daughter of the 1970s terrorist Carlos the Jackal, should have a change of heart. 


In the meantime the capture of Venezuelan oil tankers continues. International tribunals have ordered Venezuela to compensate US energy giants ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips for the nationalization of their oil assets in 2007.

In 2014, an arbitration tribunal at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), part of the World Bank, ruled that Venezuela must pay ExxonMobil approximately $1.6 billion for the expropriation of its Cerro Negro and La Ceiba projects (link). 

An ICSID tribunal found in 2013 that Venezuela had unlawfully expropriated ConocoPhillips' oil asset, ordering Venezuela to pay over $8 billion in compensation, with later assessments bringing the total to approximately $8.37–8.7 billion including interest.

So we are talking here about a grand total of $10 billion in compensation due to US corporations. The realistic value of one full tanker after sale discounts is  $115 million* .  To compensate for the $10 billion the US has to seize almost 87 fully loaded Venezuelan oil tankers. 

The Communists may not respect property rights, but if there is any such thing as law -- be it 'international' or universally recognized commercial law -- the holders of the property must be compensated for their loss. If you refuse to pay, commercial assets can be seized and sold until the debt is repaid. No one talks about this. 



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts