Trump’s Imperialist Aims in Latin America Have Bipartisan Roots
Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Gordon Hyde, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“They need us much more than we need them. We don’t need them. They need us—everybody needs us.” These words, uttered by Donald Trump from the Oval Office, may come to define this administration’s policy on Latin America and give us insight into what a second-term presidency will mean, not just for Latin America, but the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. It has long been a strategy of the United States, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, to enforce imperialist and ideological motives with economic and military force, and encroach upon the economic and political livelihoods of Latin Americans—empowering right-wing populists and fomenting instability and regime change.
The unilateral renaming of the Gulf of Mexico by executive order may be an insignificant stunt to some, but it signals what author Belén Fernández describes as “egregious imperialist hubris,” arguing that “while Trump’s insistence on behaving like a caricature of himself makes it easier to cast him as some sort of aberration in U.S. foreign policy, at the end of the day, it’s imperialism plain and simple.” The Trump administration’s attempts at topographical domination echo the crisis that Western imperialism finds itself in today, in which acts of open aggression, plunder, imposed vassalage, and anti-immigration policies at home are no longer enough to satisfy the coddled, nationalist Washington D.C. mind.
Alexander Aviña, Associate Professor of History at Arizona State University, and author of “Specters of Revolution: Peasant Guerrillas in the Cold War Mexican Countryside,” tells Splinter that since at least the 1990s, the carceral and murderous anti-migrant and anti-refugee policies implemented by the United States have been bipartisan in nature. “Bill Clinton, as Ronald Reagan’s greatest accomplishment (to borrow from Thatcher’s comment about Tony Blair), expanded previous policies that militarized the U.S. border, criminalized undocumented migrants, expanded prison detention, and selectively followed U.S. laws on refugees (depending on geopolitical designs).” Aviña says that “Trump uses a different style, a different rhetoric that demonizes migrants, but his actual practices are in line with what Democrats have advocated, put into law, and practiced. One is a wolf, the other a fox, to paraphrase Malcolm X, but they’re both canine.”
Just a few examples of Aviña’s point can be found in Operation Hold The Line, a measure of border militarization enforced in 1993; Operation Gatekeeper, announced during Bill Clinton’s presidency in 1994; and most recently, the Biden administration’s initial refusal to end Title 42, a Trump era policy, resulting in the expulsion of immigrants and the denying of their ability to seek asylum, only to then impose further restrictions on immigration.