Financial Times Discovers US Foreign Policy Isn't About Enrichment
The FT's analysis of Trump's imperial Venezuela gamble suggests his 'search for mineral wealth' will 'weaken the US.' It’s almost quaint how they frame this as some novel, misguided quest for resources, as if US foreign policy in Latin America, historically, hasn't been a consistent masterclass in 'resource acquisition' — often at the barrel of a gun, and always under the guise of 'democracy
promotion.' (Remember United Fruit Company? Or the coups against democratically elected leaders deemed 'too socialist' for American business interests?) Perhaps the real 'folly' is when the empire's financial benefits aren't streamlined enough for a direct quarterly report. The article criticizes a vague 'imperial Venezuela folly,' but where's the deep dive into the cost-benefit analysis of other
'interventions' that did enrich specific American corporations and political donors? One might ask, how many coups (sorry, 'regime changes') pass the FT's financial scrutiny?