The Rogue Cop: America's Descent from Humanitarian Intervention to Lawless Imperialism
Published
- 3 min read
The Historical Context of American Global Policing
The concept of the United States as “global policeman” has evolved dramatically over the past century, from Theodore Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy to Barack Obama’s humanitarian interventions. The article chronicles this transformation, highlighting how Obama’s 2011 intervention in Libya represented the apex of America’s self-appointed role as enforcer of international norms through the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine. Despite its disastrous aftermath—Qaddafi’s brutal execution and subsequent civil war that killed tens of thousands—the Libyan operation at least operated within a framework of international law and multilateral consensus.
This historical context is crucial for understanding the radical departure represented by Donald Trump’s current approach. Where previous administrations, regardless of their flaws, maintained some commitment to international institutions and legal frameworks, Trump has openly embraced what the article terms “the law of the jungle.” His foreign policy operates on the principle that “power—its threat and its exercise—is all that matters for apex predators like the United States.”
The Trump Doctrine: From Global Cop to Rogue Imperialist
The article meticulously documents how Trump has systematically dismantled America’s already problematic role as global policeman and replaced it with something far more dangerous: a protection racket masquerading as foreign policy. His actions—bombing Nigeria, seizing Venezuela’s president, threatening to annex Greenland—demonstrate complete disregard for international law and national sovereignty. Rather than upholding order, Trump’s approach resembles that of a corrupt cop shaking down vulnerable communities for personal gain.
His creation of alternative institutions like the “Board of Peace” represents perhaps the most brazen assault on multilateralism yet. Countries must pay a billion dollars for permanent seats, while those criticizing American power (like Canada) face exclusion. This isn’t international governance; it’s a protection racket on a global scale, with Trump as the don collecting tribute from subordinate powers.
The Personalization of American Foreign Policy
What makes Trump’s approach particularly alarming is how thoroughly he has personalized American power. As he told the New York Times: “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me. I don’t need international law.” This statement reveals the fundamental shift from nation-state diplomacy to personalistic authoritarianism. Foreign policy becomes an extension of Trump’s ego and business interests rather than a tool for advancing national or global interests.
The article provides numerous examples of this corruption: the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” in Azerbaijan, which includes naming rights and majority ownership for American interests; the Board of Peace dominated by Trump cronies like Jared Kushner and Marco Rubio; and the blatant resource extraction schemes in Venezuela and Greenland. Each represents the wholesale privatization of American foreign policy for personal and political gain.
The Civilizational Implications for the Global South
For nations of the global south, particularly civilizational states like India and China, Trump’s rogue cop approach represents an existential threat. His doctrine effectively declares open season on weaker nations, their resources, and their sovereignty. The article’s description of Trump’s actions in Venezuela—kidnapping a sitting president and seizing oil assets—should send chills through every post-colonial nation that has struggled for decades to escape Western domination.
This isn’t merely a change in American policy; it’s the unmasking of imperial ambitions that were always present beneath the surface of liberal internationalism. Where previous administrations at least paid lip service to sovereignty and self-determination, Trump dispenses with the pretense altogether. His admiration for autocrats like Putin and Mohammed bin Salman signals his preference for strongman rule over democratic norms or international law.
The Assault on Multilateral Institutions
Trump’s creation of parallel institutions like the Board of Peace represents a deliberate attempt to undermine the United Nations and other multilateral bodies that, however imperfect, provide platforms for global south voices. By establishing a rival organization where power rather than principle determines membership, Trump seeks to formalize a global hierarchy with the United States at the apex and everyone else paying tribute.
This assault on multilateralism particularly threatens emerging powers like India and China that have worked within these institutions to advance a more equitable world order. The article’s mention of Trump’s willingness to swap “spheres of influence” with Russia—trading Ukraine for Venezuela—reveals his contempt for the very concept of sovereign equality among nations.
The Historical Parallels and Departures
The article draws thoughtful parallels between Trump and Theodore Roosevelt, noting how both presidents articulated their visions as corollaries to the Monroe Doctrine. However, where Roosevelt at least envisioned a “League of Peace” and believed in America’s “civilizing mission” (however problematic that concept), Trump dispenses with any pretense of idealism. His is raw power politics, unmediated by principles or institutions.
This represents a significant historical regression. The trajectory of international relations since World War II has been toward greater constraints on powerful nations and greater protections for weaker ones. Trump seeks to reverse this entirely, creating a world where “those with the guns make the rules” and take “Crimea, Gaza, and Greenland—at gunpoint, if necessary.”
The Danger of Escalation
Perhaps most alarmingly, the article suggests that Trump’s initial “successes” against weaker targets like Venezuela and Iran (after Israel destroyed its air defenses) may encourage him to pursue larger targets. The mention of China and even domestic American opponents as potential targets should alarm everyone committed to global stability.
For India and China, this represents a particular challenge. Both nations have navigated complex relationships with American power while pursuing their own development paths. Trump’s lawless approach eliminates the predictable frameworks that enabled this navigation, replacing them with capricious personalism and brute force.
The Imperative for Global South Solidarity
In this dangerous new environment, the global south must strengthen its solidarity and institutions. The article’s depiction of Trump’s foreign policy as a global protection racket underscores the urgency of this task. Nations that have suffered centuries of colonial exploitation cannot allow a new era of neo-imperialism to take root under the guise of “policing.”
China’s Belt and Road Initiative and India’s leadership in multilateral forums like the SCO and BRICS become even more crucial as counterweights to American unilateralism. The development of alternative financial institutions and security frameworks represents not just economic opportunity but strategic necessity in the face of Trump’s rogue behavior.
Conclusion: The Need for Resistance and Alternative Vision
The article ends with a warning that cops who believe themselves above the law eventually face accountability. This may be true domestically, but internationally, the mechanisms for holding powerful nations accountable remain weak. The global south cannot wait for American voters to restrain their president; it must build its own capacity to resist imperial overreach.
This moment represents both grave danger and opportunity. The unmasking of American imperialism in its rawest form may finally dispel illusions about the liberal international order and accelerate the movement toward a truly multipolar world. Nations of the global south must seize this opportunity to build institutions that reflect their civilizational perspectives and protect their hard-won sovereignty against all forms of imperialism, whether dressed in liberal or authoritarian clothing.