“Ancient Neocons” became the United States’ source of inspiration!

As a curious student of history, the similarities between current events and those of the past strike me as highly intriguing. The scenery changes, but people largely remain the same. In my previous article, I likened the US intervention in Venezuela to the military intervention of the “Athenian Empire” against the island of Melos some 2,500 years ago.

The “great power rivalry” between the “rising power Athens” and the “established power Sparta” ultimately led to war. Athens’ “Delian League” and Sparta’s “Peloponnesian League” comprised hundreds of city-states. The Delian League was established as a defensive alliance against a potential Persian invasion. However, Athens gradually assumed an imperial character, moved the league’s treasury from Delos to Athens, and turned the financial contributions of member states into tribute. Those who wished to leave the league were subjected to Athenian coercion.

The “Delian League” and the “Peloponnesian League” resemble NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the roughly forty-year-long “Cold War” between the United States and the Soviet Union. Despite the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO continued to expand. US President Trump warned NATO members that unless they increased their financial contributions, the US would withdraw its military protection umbrella over Europe. Of course, it was obvious that a large portion of these contributions would end up filling the coffers of American arms companies.

During the wars between Sparta and Athens, the decision of the city-state of Melos to remain neutral enraged the “Athenian Empire.” Melos regarded it as its natural right to refuse both joining the Delian League and paying tribute. For Athens, however, Melos constituted a “bad example.” Melos had no strategic importance, nor did it possess wealth worth seizing. For the Athenian neocons, Melos had to be smashed against the wall to demonstrate Athenian power. The logic of the Athenian neocons was roughly the same as that of the “American neocons.”

The Melians, who had good relations with Sparta, hoped that Sparta would come to their aid when Athenian ships blockaded the island of Melos, and they said as much to the Athenians. The Athenians, however, knew that Sparta, with its weak naval power, would not be able to come to Melos’s rescue.

Venezuela drew the hostility of the “American Empire” because of its close relations with China, the US’s deadly rival. Even distant China and Russia were unable to prevent the US from placing Venezuela under a military blockade or from abducting the country’s president and his wife through military intervention. Both countries contented themselves with condemning the situation.

Yet during the most intense years of the Cold War, in October 1962, when the US imposed a military blockade on Cuba, Soviet warships immediately set course for the island. Because of what became known as the “Missile Crisis,” the US and the Soviet Union came face to face with nuclear war. Soviet ships approached the US blockade zone. This tension, which kept the entire world on edge for about thirteen days, ended with agreements reached by the leaders of the two countries.

In 1823, US President James Monroe announced a foreign policy doctrine stating that any intervention by European powers in affairs on the American continent would be regarded as a hostile act against the United States. Initially, this doctrine was optimistically perceived as meaning “America for Americans.” Accordingly, the Monroe Doctrine was defined as a common defense policy to protect the territorial integrity of the continent. Of course, that was how it appeared on paper.

With additions by successive US presidents, the Monroe Doctrine gradually evolved into an aggressive foreign policy. These additions recognized Latin America as the US’s “exclusive sphere of influence.” The vast difference between the US map of 1823 and that of the first quarter of the 20th century is sufficient to illustrate how the Monroe Doctrine took shape. During this period, the US did not refrain from occupying numerous Latin American countries, as well as even the overseas country of the Philippines.

In the 20th century, two world wars intervened, the “United Nations” was established, and the Monroe Doctrine was shelved. However, during the Cold War, instead of direct military interventions in Latin America, the US mostly supported pro-American military coups and military regimes through covert means. In other words, the Monroe Doctrine manifested itself in different ways.

With the addition—or rather the annotation—made by Donald Trump, the “Monroe Doctrine” is now referred to as the “Donroe Doctrine.” The intervention in Venezuela is the clearest indication that Trump’s annotation has not remained merely a comment but has been translated into action. There are interpretations suggesting that more is yet to come.