Bulletins and News Discussion from January 27th to February 2nd, 2025 - Tariffs in Trump's Imperium - COTW: Colombia

Image is of Colombian President Gustavo Petro giving a speech at the UN in 2022.

Trump has arrived in office with the force of an avalanche; ~~ending~~ slowing a genocide on the one hand, while simultaneously promising a total nightmare for minorities and the poor throughout and outside the United States on the other hand. [edited for clarity; I do not actually think Trump has ended the Palestinian genocide obviously, I was making a joke - but the ceasefire is a genuine improvement in conditions for millions of people right now who are on the edge of death, so it cannot be dismissed]

It's still far too early to truly compare and contrast his imperial strategy with Biden's, but initial signs show that there does appear to be somewhat of a reorientation. Biden was famous for being two-faced; ostensibly offering aid and stability, while also blowing up your pipeline to ensure you did not actually have an alternative to his idea. Trump, meanwhile, seems only really capable of aggression, threatening several "allied" nations with what may as well be sanctions because of the economic harm they'd do. I suspect we'll be debating for a long time how much of this can be attributed to the specific characteristics of Trump, or whether he merely embodies the zeitgeist of imperial decline - a wounded empire lashing out with extreme violence to try and convince everybody, including themselves, that they can still be the world imperialist hegemon.

I'll admit it: I did not believe that Trump would actually try and go ahead with putting tariffs on basically anybody who annoys him. And while the threat could still be empty in regards to countries like China and Canada, Colombia is the first indication of the potential of his strategy. Despite some fiery words from President Petro, after Trump's administration revealed the punishment if Colombia did not agree, it appears that Colombia will in fact be accepting deported migrants after all. It's funny how that works.

Last week's thread is here. The Imperialism Reading Group is here.

Please check out the HexAtlas!

The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.

You're viewing a single thread.

1.1K comments

So, I'm guessing at this point, there won't be any concerted resistance to Trump in Latin America. They're just all going to fold.
This probably also means Sheinbaum will concede to any demands made and maybe avoid getting couped.
- We are very early in Trump's term. To say there will be none is premature. Colombia can't do it alone - unity needs to be built. China also needs to accept more LatAm imports, which would boost its own consumption, another benefit.
  
  Hopefully it does build to that.
  I was just hoping Petro would kick it off early and build solidarity now with Sheinbaum so she could push back too. Hopefully there is some force against the US but stops short of war/invasion.
  
  If Colombia had accepted the tariffs, their economy would've suffered a massive and devastating shock. They need assurances that Mexico and Brazil and hopefully more will stand with them. That trust and collaboration and organization needs to be built over time, just like building a revolutionary movement among the masses within a country.
  
  It seems like the best they can do is be a thorn in the US's side.
  
  A united Latin America could crush the empire in short order. But... that would need to be a very well united Latin America.
  
  win-win cooperation
- Of course there won't be resistance from Latin America - anyone who's making that proposal is lobbying for a poisoned pill. If the great harvesting of the EU is shocking news to the average person, then newsthread readers should know by now that that's the default position of Latin American states. As Argentina shows it doesn't really pay to be a friend of the United States. It will hurt to read this, but Venezuela also shows that it doesn't pay to be an enemy either. What pays is to keep your head below the tall grass. Survival is what's paramount and pragmatism is what's required.
  
  Sure, but Venezuela, as well as Cuba, also shows there is opposition to the US, so it's not as simple as just "of course not".
  It looked like it could have happened, not that it would've been glorious or easy, but Latin America is also different from EU and has its moments.
  
  My rationale is that what Cuba and Venezuela are under is war. It is often cushioned in the language of sanctions, resistance and so on. But it is nothing short of war. This is something that leftists don't have any trouble accepting. If anything, leftists want to make sure everyone understands that the United States wielded its full military and economic might to make it so the cuban and venezuelan populations were denied access essentials like food and medicine. To strangle their economies and ruin their futures. What's hurtful is the corolllary to that:
  No Latin American country will go to war with the US unless it is backed into a corner.
  Trust me. It never even 'looked' like it could have happened. You see, there's something of an online phenomenom that newsreaders know as Bricsgrifting. Five minutes after Petro's announcements you had videos from all sorts of channels claiming that this was Latin America's grand stand. It was nonsense. Even if it was peddled by otherwise well informed channels like Geopolitical Economy Report. My reaction as I woke up and saw those recommendations on youtube was to scoff even before I saw comments on Hexbear about Petro giving up.
  You talk about how Latin America is very different from the EU and 'has its moments'. Well, I assume you assume a greater degree of sovereignty. That's overblown. The reason Latin America lacks the bonds of vassalage that the EU has towards the US is because vassalage is too good for Latin America. Its a two way street. The Europeans actually benefitted from US Hegemony, that's why there's so much inertial loyalty to it still. That's why Latin America was once loyal to the US even before WW2, the problem is that the region would never be permitted the level of economic prosperity that was once afforded to the rest of the Golden Billion. It would be the thin end of the wedge.
  Latin America as a whole exists in the afterglow of the Jakarta Method. Not even two generations ago the entire continent was under the direct rule of US backed military juntas. It is a defeated continent, brought low by the Volcker shock and the Great Latin American Debt Crisis. At least half of the population of Latin America is made up of evangelical pro US stooges who want sanctions against themselves. The entire region is ideologically compromised, and materially dependent on resource exports.
  So at the end of the day, yeah: Colombia and México won't oppose the US because they are dependent on it. México is the USA's sweatshop, with 90 percent of its exports going north. Argentina and Perú won't oppose the US because those are outright occupation regimes with american boots on the ground. Brazil won't oppose the US because it never has, and to be quite honest it knows better. It's not about choosing the easy path. It's about surviving at all.
  
  At the end of the day, Latin America is deep within imperium americana and as the US gets run out of Afro-Asia, it will reassert its control over its actual backyard. To rephrase a popular quote, poor Latin America, so far from God and so close to the United States. The US is in decline, but from the perspective of someone from Latin America (and Europe), it just means the USian boot being pressed down on their throats even harder as they have to make up for the US losing its periphery.
  We don't live in a multipolar world. We live in a bipolar world with one pole in DC and another pole in Beijing. An actual multipolar world would be brought forth to existence either when Erdogan plays 5d chess to fuck over both NATO and the Axis of Resistance or when India is strong enough that Asian countries defect from the West and the new East (Russia, China, Iran) to join the India bloc.
  In this context, stuff like China being able to have a port in Peru or MAS still being around instead of both Morales and Arce being shot with their bodies thrown in a shallow ditch is unprecedented. Thinking Colombia wouldn't fold is like thinking Mexico can use its cartels to wage war against the US (who's giving the cartels their brand new shiny military equipment?).
  
  Of course Venezuela and Cuba are in a state of war with the US, and neither of them wanted nor want to be. Both tried to extend overtures from the very beginning to avoid getting to this stage.
  And I'm not trying to drown in hopeium but this also feels like a doomer perspective. It's not so much about "sovereignty", I don't even know what you mean by that, but Latin America has always had anti-colonial movements and there are recent histories of revolutions and resisting US-led coups. Again, it's not the same as EU. This is like a century ago dismissing Asia as a British and French backwater that will always remain timid servants in order to survive.
  Yes, people play the pragmatic game but I also do believe that we will see the Global South moving away from the West at some point within our lifetimes. Is that today and will it be led by Petro? It seems like that's a resounding No. Of course it will require a lot of building and time to get to that point, but if the US is even trying to block China from building relationships in that region to one day get to that point then maybe there will be a sharp break to build those material conditions that no one expected. I'm not sure if the alternative structures are built yet, seems not, to sustain that break but I also don't know what's going on in the background to be so self-assured about things.
  Also, I don't think your claim that "half of the population of Latin America is made up of evangelical pro US stooges who want sanctions against themselves. [and that] The entire region is ideologically compromised" really has any standing at all, to be honest. What makes you say this? Are you organizing in LatAm?
  
  What makes you say this?
  Well, I live in the region and I look around.
  I am not dismissing the potential for LatAm or the Global South to move away from the West. If anything I'm a bloomer about it: because I recognize that the pragmatic game is a requirement for that to happen, and I think most governments in the region are well poised to play it. As despairing as it will be to watch Trump collapse the world's economy over 'trade imbalances' its a good thing that China's influence is strong enough that even with American boots on Peruvian soil the megaport and the rail projects are still going ahead. Or that even a dumbass like Milei can't pretend he'll export soybeans to the US for a living.
  At the end of the day the single most successful example of building an alternative to the West is China. It was not built via a revolution that turned China away from the West. Far from it. Even now the Chinese would have to be pushed kicking and screaming away from their trade surpluses, ability to recycle those surpluses into foreign assets and projects, not to mention massive possibly even under-reported foreign currency reserves. Even Russia, the designated enemy of the past 20 years, had to be driven to a corner.
  
  Not to continue belaboring the point but living in a single place and 'looking around' isn't sufficient to, again, dismiss half of all Latin America. That seems reactionary, to be honest. There are certainly Right-wing movements in Latin America that are still supporting the US but if it was as strong as you say we wouldn't see even the bit of progressive movement we've thus far seen over the last few decades, even evangelicals don't have that strong a hold outside of some Central American countries, although it's growing everywhere.
  But I agree with you generally, actually. I just think the conditions you're mentioning with China and Russia are actually good examples. Both started working with the US when the US was at the top economically and not currently militarily aggressive towards them. As the US declines and starts becoming militarily aggressive, I do think countries historically dependent upon the US will begin to risk moving away from that dependency.
  
  As the US declines and starts becoming militarily aggressive, I do think countries historically dependent upon the US will begin to risk moving away from that dependency.
  Let's say the US declines. Hard. And becomes as much a Great Power as, say, Russia.
  Isn't the Ukraine War a pretty good example of the limits of that risk taking? How about a war over Taiwan? These are disastrous scenarios and we are assuming that the US isn't in charge of the global finance.
  Not to continue belaboring the point but living in a single place and 'looking around' isn't sufficient to, again, dismiss half of all Latin America. That seems reactionary, to be honest.
  I wouldn't be dismissed if I was another american here, claiming that the US has a massive, reactionary right wing constituency that is only (slightly) outnumbered by another massive, liberal and also right wing constituency. And yet because I'm from Latin America and if I make a similar claim I'm a reactionary? Hell, my outlook is that only half of the region is deeply right wing. This means I have a more positive opinion on latin america than any american leftist has on the USA population. And yet that's enough to be outright dismissed. Sorry but if you're Latin American, I'd call you naive. If you're American, I perceive your position as deeply patronizing.
  You can point to México, where a successful developmentist programme bends the opinions of the right wing because it delivers material gains for everyone. Brazil surfed a similar wave not too long ago. These scenarios do not mean that the right wing does not exist. They do not mean that evangelical churches aren't a fulcrum of power. They do not mean that a 500 year old oligarchy does not own these countries. They do not mean that the legacy of US dictatorships and propaganda don't exist. What they mean is that latin americans are as human as everyone else, and as contradictory as everyone else.
  even evangelicals don't have that strong a hold outside of some Central American countries
  That's just not true. Not only is the neopentecostal movement much, much bigger than you think, its propaganda efforts are hegemonic and affect - for better and worse - the conduct of catholic and historical protestant groups as well.
  There are certainly Right-wing movements in Latin America that are still supporting the US but if it was as strong as you say we wouldn't see even the bit of progressive movement we've thus far seen over the last few decades
  I'd be careful about decades, because if your analysis veers towards half a century of history you'll find yourself in the terrain of progressive reforms by latin american general-dictators who were ok with divorce because they were raised Lutheran and hated the catholic church. Latin America as a region is not one where revolution has reigned supreme, but rather where relative progressivism has made waves following the gato pardo principle. 'Let us do the revolution so that adventurers don't take the initiative', or, rather, let us change so that things stay the same.
  The long arc of history bends progressive because, eventually, all these resource economies go through the cycles of boom and bust and in order to avoid collapse end up reforming in a number of ways. A century ago it was the benefit of urban workers to the detriment of the peasant majority. Twenty years ago it was an effort to follow IMF dictats to increase consumption. Either way, the more we discuss the issue the more reasons come up as to why Latin America cannot and is probably better off not being revolutionary in the medium term, much less the short term.
  
  Let's say the US declines. Hard. And becomes as much a Great Power as, say, Russia.
  Isn't the Ukraine War a pretty good example of the limits of that risk you're lobbying for? How about a war over Taiwan?
  Such a disastrous scenario assumes the US isn't in charge of the global finance. At the very least. This by itself should point to what is the reasonable and pragmatic path left.
  I'm not trying to be difficult but I genuinely don't think I understand what you mean by this, or how Ukraine/Taiwan play into it. Are you saying US will treat Latin America like Russia treated/treats Ukraine or how the US treated/treats Ukraine?
  I wouldn't be dismissed if I was another american here, claiming that the US has a massive, reactionary right wing constituency that is only (slightly) outnumbered by another massive, liberal and also right wing constituency. And yet because I'm from Latin America and if I make a similar claim I'm a reactionary? Hell, my outlook is that only half of the region is deeply right wing and that's enough to be outright dismissed. If you're Latin American, I'd call you naive. If you're American, I perceive your position as deeply patronizing.
  The immediate difference is speaking about one country which is the imperial core and speaking about the greater part of an entire continent. I'm not saying you're a reactionary, to be clear, but dismissing an entire continent as compromised or half of it as "US stooges" is reactionary. You don't see how that would lend itself to doomer, counterrevolutionary ideology? Again, living in a specific country and a particular city where you may or may not even be organizing doesn't give you the capacity to make such blanket statements about most of a continent. Clearly you're very knowledgeable about the region, and I respect that, but it still seems like an excessive statement. Can you see what I mean? I don't even fully agree with USians that make kinda similar statements about the US. I was just pushing back on some anti-boomer, generational culture war rhetoric yesterday that helps to erase movements that boomers had in their day, which is reactionary in effect.
  These scenarios do not mean that the right wing does not exist. They do not mean that evangelical churches aren't a fulcrum of power. They do not mean that a 500 year old oligarchy does not own these countries. They do not mean that the legacy of US dictatorships and propaganda don't exist. What they mean is that latin americans are as human as everyone else, and as contradictory as everyone else.
  Yeah, I completely agree. And dismissing such a contradictory and complex continent of peoples and countries as a monolith is probably not capturing that human reality.
  That's just not true. Not only is the neopentecostal movement much, much bigger than you think, its propaganda efforts are hegemonic and affect - for better and worse - the conduct of catholic and historical protestant groups as well.
  Again, I'm not saying they don't exist and not saying the movement is not growing. But saying half of Latin America is evangelical or part of the Pentecostal Church in particular is just hyperbolic at this point outside of some countries.
  I'd be careful about decades, because if your analysis veers towards half a century of history you'll find yourself in the terrain of progressive reforms by latin american general-dictators who were ok with divorce because they were raised Lutheran and hated the catholic church. Latin America as a region is not one where revolution has reigned supreme, but rather where relative progressivism has made waves following the gato pardo principle. 'Let us do the revolution so that adventurers don't take the initiative', or, rather, let us change so that things stay the same.
  The long arc of history bends progressive because, eventually, all these resource economies go through the cycles of boom and bust and in order to avoid collapse end up reforming in a number of ways. A century ago it was the benefit of urban workers to the detriment of the peasant majority. Twenty years ago it was an effort to follow IMF dictats to increase consumption. Either way, the more we discuss the issue the more reasons come up as to why Latin America cannot and is probably better off not being revolutionary in the medium term, much less the short term.
  That's very fair and I don't disagree.
  
  I'm not trying to be difficult but I genuinely don't think I understand what you mean by this, or how Ukraine/Taiwan play into it. Are you saying US will treat Latin America like Russia treated/treats Ukraine or how the US treated/treats Ukraine?
  Great Powers have spheres of influence. No country in Latin America is on the track to become a Great Power on their own, and the closest one is the United States. The US is at most declining at the moment. But it is still a superpower and is still in charge of global finance. Questioning its influence in the western hemisphere is at least as much a risk as Taiwan declaring independence or Ukraine allowing itself to become a battleground. This circles back to my initial point. A grand latin american resistance to Trump is suicide. It is the sort of political failure that Latin American countries are, for the medium term, better off avoiding altogether.
  The immediate difference is speaking about one country which is the imperial core and speaking about the greater part of an entire continent.
  You don't see how that would lend itself to doomer, counterrevolutionary ideology?
  Clearly you're very knowledgeable about the region, and I respect that, but it still seems like an excessive statement. Can you see what I mean?
  Well, which is it?
  Is it a problem because I am generalizing hundreds of millions of people? Is it a problem because I am making myself into a doomer counterrevolutionary? Or is it a problem because I'm actually wrong and hyperbolic? You might see these statements as connected, but I felt the need to break them up because they are not synonymous.
  Yes, I might be generalizing hundreds of millions of people and even dismissing some interesting movements here and there. But that doesn't mean my analysis is good or bad. It could mean that I am motivated by sheer prejudice. With, say, Democrats claiming that Latinos cannot countenance a woman of color POTUS while, that the same year a majority of mexicans living in actual México elected a jewish female president. However it could also mean that I am making a claim to structural analysis. For an example, a notion that the imperial core is veering towards far right politics as material conditions worsen. Assuming such a notion is more than just vibes based on things going down in Europe and the USA then, yeah, one might be overlooking interesting anarchist and other orgs in Europe, or the efforts of local government in the USA. The original analysis, if confirmed, would still stand regardless.
  Am I rendering myself unto a doomer with a very negative relationship with my region of the world? Well, I'm not from the imperial core. The thing about living in a defeated nation in the periphery of capitalism is that you do live with those feelings on a permanent basis. There's no escaping that. There's no escaping it with sheer american optimism. What you have is a choice and I have not chosen to be a doomer. I could talk to you about the contradictions and successes of the landless workers movement in Brazil or about liberation theology. I could also talk to you about the interplay of drug trade, local oligarchy and the massively powerful neopentecostal movements. All in all, I take the good with the bad and I have also chosen to see the silver linings that we are dealt with. Much of what you read before - such as the play of relative progressivism done by reactionary elements - might come across as doomerism to you. To peoples such as ours that sort of pragmatism is more akin to hope.
  Now was I hyperbolic? No, I don't think so. The average Latin American voter is at least as contradictory as any other. Phrasing of questions and aesthetics of political movements tend to align them harder than any one policy issue. And that's fine and good because humans relate to other humans on the basis of passion, not reason. Another way in which Latin America is no different from any other part of the western world is in political polarization. Besides US propaganda, Latin America is seeing the same 'death of the center', 'inability of the center left due to neoliberalism' and 'radicalization of the center right due to becoming economically indistinguishable from the center left' dynamic. You have the total hegemony of US media and social media controlling discourse and pushing it right wing. You have the right wing in the good graces of the estabilished oligarchies, with all the funding that comes with it. You have the rise of prosperity gospel and american libertarian propaganda. You can keep going. These are structural issues and they don't go away. Organizing in Latin America is a play towards people's material conditions and in spite of the cultural hegemony of american capitalism.
  
  Great Powers have spheres of influence. No country in Latin America is on the track to become a Great Power on their own, and the closest one is the United States. The US is at most declining at the moment. But it is still a superpower and is still in charge of global finance. Questioning its influence in the western hemisphere is at least as much a risk as Taiwan declaring independence or Ukraine allowing itself to become a battleground. This circles back to my initial point. A grand latin american resistance to Trump is suicide. It is the sort of political failure that Latin American countries are, for the medium term, better off avoiding altogether.
  Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, that makes total sense.
  Well, which is it?
  Is it a problem because I am generalizing hundreds of millions of people? Is it a problem because I am making myself into a doomer counterrevolutionary? Or is it a problem because I'm actually wrong and hyperbolic? You might see these statements as connected, but I felt the need to break them up because they are not synonymous.
  Look, I'm really not trying to spiral debate-bro'ing each other on this. But do you have any evidence to back up the original claim in question that half of all Latin Americans are "evangelical pro-US stooges" and/or that the entire continent is ideologically "compromised"? The latter you could clearly theoretically argue based off some analysis critiquing the pervasive impact of US propaganda like you did afterwards so it's relatively moot since I don't even expect you to link a survey or some dumb shit like that because it's impossible to prove but also obvious on some level despite you not agreeing with my point about it, but if you can find some kind evidence to support the former statement then I'll retract my comment about it being hyperbolic.
  The other things you said are interesting and I generally agree with you and I think they're good points.
  
  Lol Colombia is no Venezuela or Cuba. I read what some on r/Colombia had to say, most were enraged and scared that they would not get their visas or access to the RTX 5090 would go away
  
  Of course, prior to the Iraq War Colombia hosted the largest military base outside of the US in the world. They are deeply connected with the US, but you never know. Mexico was a Right-wing dictatorship for most of a century but now pushing progessive.
  Again, we can't just write off most of a continent. (Not that you are, I know you're just speaking about Colombia's reactionary trends but I meant Latin America generally)
  
  You are probably right
  
  But it does feel like if they can't resist now, then is there ever going to be a better time? The US is losing to China, internally they are eating themselves. They are at their most vulnerable, but also at their most aggressive point.
  
  Resistance takes many forms. The question is what you want to achieve. Historically speaking the last time Latin America had a good deal from the great powers was when the United States itself supplanted the British Empire's economic hegemony in the region. That was towards the early 1900s. It took a great deal of time of silent american growth under very boring presidents, and it took decades of american trade primacy to create conditions for that to happen. Even so, the British had to be in an inflection point - WW1 - for the US to make their move and break the British financial stranglehold on the continent. After that, it was between WW1 and WW2 Latin America had a lot of opprtunities to seize vis a vis american interest.
  I do not think Latin America has the human and demographic resources nor the political will to stop being a peripheric region in world production chains and finance. That is not to say Latin America doesn't trade in high tech, rather that its population by and large is not harnessed towards a full blown industrial revolution. However, as long as there's at least one other game in town - China - then its best choice for resistance is to build ties with the chinese, to defend its public services as well as it can, and to appropriate as many funds as possible for state driven infrastructure.
  Just look at México. It has become an industrial middleman between China and the US. It has a 600 billion USD export business of mostly industrialized goods, 80 percent of which or so is sent into the United States. Should it resist in a way that meaningfully endangers that? Of course not, thats how those AMLO/Sheinbaum reforms are financed.
- Watching the flights now, and it looks like México is starting to fold, but still not fully giving in. I'll update when the situation is clearer.
- We are very early on. My guess is that this is going to drive the creation of some sort of collective response. Maybe a Latin American Union, maybe just some sort of economic cooperation org that the US is specifically excluded from. The only way for all these small countries to fight back is going to be to band together.
  
  Yeah, I very much hope that something like that can happen.
- I predict that Latin America will be the last place in America's imperium to fall; even once they've been forced out of Asia and Africa and maybe even Europe by the 2050s and 60s, they'll be sailing their gunboats around the coast of Peru and Brazil and taking potshots to try and keep them in line.
  That being said, resistance will arise as a result of ongoing events regardless of whether the current selection of leaders or politicians is up to it; that's just how, like, history works, materially. I think it's easy to look at the history of Latin America and go "wow, this fucking sucks, it's just hundreds of years of organisations and parties and countries being overthrown and leaders being assassinated," and while that's certainly not a bad way of looking at it (and emphasizes America's destructive tendencies), it's interesting that those organisations and parties and countries and leaders keep arising at all. Compare that to Europe, which has been in a state of subservience since more-or-less the end of WW2. The US only need to occasionally shoot a leader's plane down or blow up a pipeline to keep everybody there aligned with Atlanticism; they don't have to invade Spain every couple decades or outright overthrow the government of Germany every time they elect a communist leader, because they're all nice and docile in Europe and don't generally even want to enact anti-American policies.
  
  Yeah, totally, that's what I'm saying. I don't get the issue here.

1070 comments