Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

On December 22, President Trump announced a new class of “battleships” that will be 100 times more powerful than previous battleships and larger than any other surface combatant on the oceans. The ship’s purported characteristics are so extraordinary that the announcement will surely spark immense discussion. However, there is little need for said discussion because this ship will never sail. It will take years to design, cost $9 billion each to build, and contravene the Navy’s new concept of operations, which envisions distributed firepower. A future administration will cancel the program before the first ship hits the water. Design: The ship’s design will take many years. At the “30,000 to 40,000” tons cited by the president, the ship is much larger than anything the United States has built in the last 80 years, other than aircraft carriers. The truncated DDG-1000 class (only three built) displaced 15,000 tons but still took 11 years from program initiation (2005) to commissioning of the first ship (2016). The battleship will be more than twice as large and more complicated — nuclear-capable with directed-energy weapons. The first ship, USS Defiant (BBG-1), is likely to commission in the early - to mid -2030s, assuming it is built at all. Cost: The cost will be extremely high. The DDG-51 class flight III (the current version of this destroyer class) displaces 9,000 tons and costs $2.8 billion each. A ship four times as large would not cost four times as much, but would still be much more expensive. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a future destroyer of 14,500 tons would cost $4.4 billion or $300,000 per ton. That would imply a battleship cost of about $9.1 billion, allowing for some economies of scale. Lead ships are typically 50 percent more expensive than the average, so BBG 1 would likely cost $13.5 billion, about as much as an aircraft carrier. The cost might be even higher because of inflation in the shipbuilding sector. For example, building the battleship will require thousands of experienced shipyard workers, even as there is a labor shortage, and shipyards are bidding against each other for personnel. Concept of Operations: The Navy has been moving toward a distributed operations model, in which fleet assets are spread out and connected by a network, maximizing fires by coordinating many different sensors and shooters. This proposal would go in the other direction, building a small number of large, expensive, and potentially vulnerable assets. Several other points on the battleship are worth noting. • First, is it really a battleship? Nothing prevents the president from using the term. However, it is usually reserved for the historical type that had big guns and heavy armor. This ship will have neither. Its guns will likely be the standard five-inch (projectile weight 55 pounds) rather than the battleship’s 16-inch (projectile weight over 2,000 pounds). Large surface combatants armed with missiles are typically described as guided missile battle cruisers (BCG), like Russia’s Kirov class ships. • The ships will be designated a guided missile battleship, BBG, a new type. “BB” designates a battleship; “G” means guided-missile armed. The last of the Iowa-class battleships to enter service was the USS Wisconsin (BB-64). The first of this new class will be BBG-1, Defiant. The second ship is unnamed, but will likely be named soon, given the program’s high visibility. • Calling this the “Trump class” breaks several naming conventions, such as not naming ships after living persons and naming the class after the lead ship. For example, the Arleigh Burke class is named after the lead ship, the Arleigh Burke DDG-51. However, recent administrations of both parties have flaunted these conventions to make political points. • These would be “the largest [surface combatants] ever built.” The ships will, indeed, be very large, larger than any surface combatant sailing today. However, at 30,000 to 40,000 tons, the ships will be smaller than the Iowa-class battleships, which displaced about 55,000 tons. • The new battleships will be “100 times” as powerful as the old battleships. Such comparisons are problematic because the ships are so different. The old battleships had heavy armor and big guns, so they could slug it out with similar ships at relatively short ranges (up to 15 miles). The new battleships, like existing destroyers and cruisers, will fire long-range munitions that can reach hundreds of miles. So, the new battleship’s range could be estimated to produce 100 times the effectiveness in some situations. However, if the old battleship and the new battleship were put a few miles apart, the old battleship would chew up the new one because its weapons were designed for that fight. • The Navy will commit to 2 of these ships, then 10, and eventually perhaps a total of 20–25. This is a risky acquisition strategy because ships get much cheaper the more that are built. The object lesson is the DDG-1000 class, which was originally intended to number 18–24, later cut back to 10, and finally reduced to 3 ships. The BBG program will replicate this contraction if it fails. The cost per DDG-1000 rose from an estimated $2.3 billion to $3.6 billion (fiscal year 2005 dollars) — $5.6 billion in FY 2025 dollars. That excludes $14.4 billion in development costs (FY 2025 dollars). • The president criticized warships that are ugly, even though they were stealthy. He was likely referring to the DG-1000 class, which has specialized surfaces to deflect radar but does not look very imposing. Apparently, aesthetics will now be a design criterion for Navy shipbuilding. • The BBG will carry the new nuclear missile — the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile. The Biden administration had tried to cancel this program, but Congress overruled them. Deployment of nuclear weapons on surface ships ended in 1991 but was common during the Cold War. Deploying nuclear weapons on ships requires minor design adjustments, such as a dedicated magazine. The major issues are policy, whether an additional nuclear platform is needed, and whether sacrificing some conventional capability for nuclear capability is a worthwhile trade. • The Navy will use artificial intelligence (AI) to help design the ship. That’s sensible, given the power of such tools. However, AI is not a magic wand. Complex designs take time to produce; big and complex ships cost a lot. • The picture in the background of the press conference showed a ship much like the DDG 51 but larger. The ships are shown firing missiles, guns, and directed energy weapons. Indeed, the pictures look like they have been repurposed from a notional DDG(X) — a 2024 hypothesized follow-on to the DDG-51 class. That design also had two superstructures, with an enclosed main mast on the forward superstructure. The DOD announcement says that the BBG class replaces the notional DDG(X). • President Trump has long been fascinated by battleships. He suggested reactivating them in his September 30, 2025, speech at Quantico to the assembled generals and admirals. The president’s December 22 remarks indicated that the Navy had pointed out that the 10 existing U.S. battleships were all museums. This new battleship idea likely arose when the avenue of reactivating World War II battleships was closed. Several non-battleship issues arose relating to the Navy, shipbuilding, and military operations. • The president said there will be a new class of aircraft carrier. This is odd since the Ford class is new. The USS Ford, the lead ship, was commissioned in 2017. Three more are under construction. The previous Nimitz class totaled 10 ships built over 40 years. It seems too early for a new carrier class. • The president referenced Theodore Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet of 1907–1909 (“white” referred to the fact that ships had been painted white to deal with the heat of the tropics in an era before air conditioning). The fleet circumnavigated the globe to show that the United States had arrived as a world naval power. Trump wants to send the same message. • Both the president and Secretary Hegseth referenced acquisition reforms. These are serious and deserve their own analysis, as other CSIS scholars are doing. • In his December 22 remarks, the president stated that there had been a 2 percent reduction in drug smuggling by sea as a result of the administration’s anti-drug naval campaign. He went on to say that “we’ll be starting the same program on land… If they want to come by land, they’re going to end up having a big problem. They’re going to get blown to pieces.” There was no elaboration. Central American countries, particularly Mexico, are likely very nervous about what this might mean. • Finally, the president referenced the new small surface combatant program. The administration canceled the Constellation class due to cost growth and schedule delays, and announced that a new class would be based on the Coast Guard Homeland Security Cutter (HSC). Although using an existing design is sensible, the HSC will need many modifications to change its primary mission from law enforcement to warfighting. The Constellation class failed because the Navy made too many changes to the existing European design. The Navy now risks going down the same path. The administration has rightly highlighted the need to build more ships, and the 2026 reconciliation bill adds $29.2 billion to do that. However, a BBG class is extremely high risk. When the full cost and schedule become known, the program will almost certainly be canceled. However, that may be after spending several years and several billion dollars. The Navy needs to build ships now rather than begin long development programs that will take years to produce usable capability, if they ever do. It is far better to upgrade existing, proven designs and ramp up their production rates. That’s the way to reach the higher production levels that President Trump cited in his speech and to expand the U.S. presence on the world’s oceans.

Make American shipbuilding great again (Masga) may sound like an effort by the US to bolster its economic strength and project power internationally, but Masga is not an American policy. It is a South Korean initiative that emerged following trade talks with the US in June. Rather than responding to the Trump administration’s tariff threats solely through trade negotiations, Korean officials saw an opportunity to show their American counterparts that South Korea deserved better treatment. They suggested that South Korea bring its shipbuilding prowess to the US. South Korea is perhaps most famous as an exporter of K-pop, cars and semiconductors. But it is also a global powerhouse in shipbuilding. The shipyard in the south-eastern Korean city of Ulsan alone produces roughly ten times more ships annually than the entire US shipbuilding industry. And as the US tries to counter China’s rapidly growing naval fleet, Korean assistance is something that is clearly needed. The US navy secretary, John Phelan, declared earlier in 2025 that US shipbuilding programmes “are a mess”. He added: “I think our best one is six months late and 57% over budget … That is the best one.” Masga was launched in August, with South Korean conglomerates HD Hyundai and Samsung Heavy Industries signing a US$150 billion (£112 billion) deal to modernise US shipbuilding capabilities. It is a clear example of a middle power, a term for countries that lack the dominance of great powers but matter because they possess distinctive industrial, resource or diplomatic capabilities, using economic statecraft to punch above its weight. Economic statecraft has largely been used to describe actions taken by great powers like the US and China to enable and restrict access to their consumer markets, investment coffers and production capabilities. The aim is to achieve foreign policy goals or national security objectives by inflicting damage on or beating the capabilities of a rival power. One classic example is the US government’s use of sanctions against Russia over its war in Ukraine and Iran over its nuclear programme. The overt linking of economic tools like sanctions and tariffs to defence objectives in Washington’s recent national security strategy is another striking illustration of this. Middle powers have traditionally not actively pursued economic statecraft to achieve their objectives. They have instead looked to secure a seat at key tables through cooperative participation in regional and multilateral forums. But some of these countries are now asserting their power more explicitly, through preemptive moves like Masga. Using economic statecraft Taiwan is perhaps the most obvious case of a middle power engaging in economic statecraft. The country has used its critical role in global semiconductor supply chains as leverage to protect itself against Chinese invasion. Former Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen referred to international reliance on the island’s chip industry as a “silicon shield” in 2021. Taipei imposes strict controls on tech sales and screens investment, particularly from China, to protect its position. And Taiwan’s industry-leading firms, such as TSMC, also invest heavily to maintain their technological edge. Vietnam offers another example. Consistent with its “bamboo diplomacy” foreign policy model, Hanoi hosts leaders from China, Russia and the US, seeking flexibility rather than rigid alignment. The aim is clear: to maximise Vietnam’s national interests pragmatically and with autonomy. With the world’s sixth-largest reserves of rare earths, Vietnam is now looking to use critical minerals as a tool of economic statecraft. The government voted to ban rare-earth exports on December 11, citing the need to reorient the sector towards domestic processing and higher-value manufacturing rather than merely the export of basic raw materials. Rare earths are essential components in numerous products that are central to our daily lives, including smartphones, semiconductors and electric vehicles. By restricting foreign access to these essential inputs, Vietnam is striving to secure its long-term position in the supply chains of highly in-demand resources. Together, these cases show how economic statecraft is not only the preserve of great powers. Middle power states are selectively granting and restricting access to their economic strengths to reshape markets and security relationships. Korea’s shipbuilding, Taiwan’s chip production and Vietnam’s rare earths illustrate this more assertive approach. They are no longer confined to reactive measures or behind-the-scenes diplomacy in regional forums or multilateral negotiations. These states are proposing economic and military partnerships, as seen in initiatives such as Masga and Tsai’s assertion that everyone needs to care about Taiwan, given how essential chips are to the world economy. Great powers are taking notice. In October, HD Hyundai and US defence contractor Huntington Ingalls Industries announced they are together building next-generation navy vessels. This marks the first time a South Korean firm will build a US navy ship. And Washington has also reportedly been courting Hanoi with elevated diplomatic status and promises of mining support. For other middle powers, the lesson is clear: identify and leverage the strategic economic strengths that other countries depend on.

Amidst US bombs and lies about Venezuelan drug trafficking as a pretext for regime change, the subordinated position of Caribbean states’ economies plays a role in U.S. aggression. It is no exaggeration to say that for over half a millennium, the Caribbean has been a stage for imperial incursions. In the past two months, the US has increased its military presence in the Caribbean Sea, including carrying out an airstrike campaign, while claiming that these operations are necessary to protect US citizens from illicit drug trafficking allegedly occurring off the coast of Venezuela. As of November 15th, the US military has launched eleven deadly air strikes on small boats in Caribbean waters and eleven on South America’s Pacific Coast, killing over eighty people. In these operations, the US Navy also raided a tuna fishing boat, detaining the fisherfolk on board for several hours before releasing them.[1] To date, the US government has not provided any proof of its claims that the people it publicly executed are trafficking drugs. These extrajudicial killings have struck fear into the hearts of millions of ordinary people across the region, especially the fisherfolk who depend upon traversing the sea for their livelihoods. Meanwhile, Caribbean countries have either blatantly come out in support of the imperial violence at their doorsteps or been hesitant to respond. When these attacks began, Trinidad and Tobago (T&T) as well as Guyana expressed enthusiastic support for US militaristic incursions and extrajudicial murders.[2] As tensions escalated, the Guyanese government attempted to backpedal from its original position. However, the T&T Prime Minister, Kamla Persad Bissessar, has maintained a pro-US stance. PM Persad Bissessar is on record saying, “I have no sympathy for traffickers, the US military should kill them all violently.”[3] This position by the T&T government was reiterated even after the US murdered two of its citizens, Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, in these airstrike campaigns. T&T allowed the US warship, USS Gravely, a guided-missile destroyer, to dock in the country’s capital between October 26-30 and for US military agents to “address shared threats like transnational crime and build resilience through training, humanitarian missions, and security efforts” on T&T soil.[4] The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) - the intergovernmental regional organization - has dragged its feet to take a position, waiting a whole month on October 18, to release a presser wherein it reaffirmed the region as a “zone of peace,” with Trinidad and Tobago excepting itself from this stance. The foot dragging is sinister when it is known for a fact that the US propaganda of conducting “anti-narcotics” operations is/are a ruse. These hostile US military aggressions in the Caribbean Sea and on South America’s Pacific Coast are part of a broader US imperial geopolitical strategy aimed at toppling the government of Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro. The aim, as Trump has publicly intimated,[5] is to get the Venezuelan government to grant the US more beneficial access to Venezuela’s resources. One might ask: Why are governments, like Trinidad and Tobago, enabling US imperial terror in the region? And why have CARICOM governments not taken an unequivocal anti-imperialist position? The answer lies in the subordinated position of these states’ economies within the global economy. Caribbean states are historically structured to be neoliberal, pro-imperial, and anti-democratic – while political elites are beholden to enacting external interests. Moreover, internal political dynamics – in terms of racial and class struggles – are also a factor, influencing the timing and intensity of these Caribbean governments’ responses to present US imperial terror. Debunking the Myth of the Venezuela Narco State The first order of business is dispelling the myth that Venezuela is a ‘narco-state.’ US officials have framed the current operations — boat strikes, deployments of destroyers and aircraft — as counter-narcotics efforts designed to stem the flow of illicit drugs from Venezuela to the US. However, the Caribbean route is not among the primary conduits for major volumes of cocaine and methamphetamines into the US. Most trafficking flows of narcotics to the US are overland, through Central America and via Pacific routes.[6] It is no surprise therefore that the US government has not provided any proof of its claims that the people it has extrajudicially murdered in the Caribbean Sea or on South America’s coast are engaged in drug trafficking. Additionally, the scale and nature of force being used are far beyond what traditional interdiction operations require – with the Trump administration claiming that interdiction has not worked, hence deadly air strikes are necessary. In addition to the lack of evidence of a Venezuelan route being key to drug trafficking into the US, there is also no credible proof linking the Maduro government to organized drug trafficking, despite the Trump regime’s claims, which are parroted uncritically by many Caribbean media and politicians. Within the US’s own intelligence establishment, one report explicitly states: “the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA [Tren de Agua] and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States.”[7] The report goes on to say: “Venezuelan intelligence, military, and police services view TDA as a security threat and operate against it in ways that make it highly unlikely the two sides would cooperate in a strategic or consistent way.” These facts stand out, especially given the evidentiary long and sordid history of the US’s leading role in drug trafficking in the Americas, and the US as the #1 supplier of weapons to those involved in the global drug trade in the region. The US government’s real motive is to destabilize and topple the Maduro government in Venezuela, in favor of a regime that undermines Venezuela’s sovereignty. Frantz Fanon, Walter Rodney and many others remind us that capitalist imperialism depends upon neocolonial puppet governments occupied by a predatory elite who facilitate accumulation by extractivism, dispossession, and exploitation. Positioned to usurp Maduro in Venezuela by imposition and not elections, is 2025 Nobel “Peace” Prize winner, María Corina Machado. Machado is a key US ally, Trump admirer, supporter of Israel and its bombing of Gaza, and an overall admirer of repressive regimes in Latin America – including El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele and Brazil’s former president, Jair Bolsonaro. Machado has been begging for foreign military intervention in Venezuela to remove the Maduro government while professing that her administration, if granted power through non-electoral means, intends to open up Venezuela’s doors to foreign exploiters. If the current iteration of US imperial antagonism in the region leads to regime change in Venezuela, the US is poised to have control over the resources in the southern Caribbean – namely Guyana and T&T – as well as on the South American Coast: again, namely Guyana and then Venezuela. This will give the US direct control over shipping routes in the region, as it prepares for a wider economic confrontation with China. Hence, these alleged “anti-narcotics” operations which have taken the lives of over eighty Caribbean and South American people, are just a smokescreen for deeper US geopolitical interests. Dependency and the Character of the State Caribbean states are disregarding the lives of the Venezuelan, Latin American, and their own Caribbean populations using external security narratives, largely because there is a true dictatorship of foreign capital in the region. As US Vice-President JD Vance let slip, places like the Caribbean countries were always intended to remain extractive workstations, not autonomous, functioning nations.…at all.[8] T&T, for example, has long been dependent on oil and gas extraction for the bulk of its national income. However, the country has been experiencing a decline in natural gas and crude oil production over the past decade and the country’s liquefaction complex and petrochemical plants producing ammonia, methanol, and other key exports – which depend upon gas input – have been suffering.[9] Combined with the collapse in energy prices in 2014, this situation has produced a decline in foreign exchange inflows and government revenues.[10] With the demand for US dollars far outstripping the supply, T&T is facing one of the most severe foreign exchange crises in the Caribbean, causing uproar across the working, middle, and upper classes of society alike.[11] As such, the T&T government is desperate for the resuscitation of its flailing oil and gas sector. The T&T government spent decades developing a “Dragon” gas deal, where Shell would lead operations that funnel gas located in Venezuelan waters to T&T, where it can be exported as LNG. This deal, considered by the T&T state to be the lifeline that would save the local economy from collapse, has become a weapon in Washington, DC’s arsenal against Venezuela. In the midst of the extra-judicial killings in the region, the US has revoked licenses approving the deal and re-approved them under new terms meant to ensure the involvement and profits of US companies. The continued structural dependency of T&T on foreign capital and imperial markets renders its misleaders susceptible to these coercive measures to ensure that Caribbean states align with US capitalist imperialist policies. Economic coercion is an important part of the context for Kamla Persad Bissessar’s support for imperialism, but her position cannot be traced to this alone. Persad Bissessar and the educated elite and comprador class she represents come out of some of the “best” primary, secondary, and tertiary educational institutions locally and internationally. Are these elites supposed to provide independent, critical thinkers who would decolonize “post” colonial societies? Are they only unwitting agents of imperialism or are they willing participants? From the time of many states' flag independence, foreign interventions have secured for the local Caribbean elites’ (or comprador classes) party longevity and/or political dominance, and/or visas and dual citizenships, and/or the ability to accumulate wealth for themselves by exploiting the people and land within their countries. As Frantz Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth” and Walter Rodney’s “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” detailed, these elites lack the sort of creativity and vitality to independently develop into an industrial bourgeoisie. They therefore turn to propping up foreign entities and dependent economic relations. Consequently, Caribbean state-making and the establishment of territorial statuses in the context of US and European imperialist capitalism has reproduced institutions that are unresponsive to Caribbean people. Whether through hopes of securing or acquiring foreign investment, or due to rank economic blackmail that threatens foreign investments elites through sanctions and other restrictions – many Caribbean states choose to serve US and Western imperialism as an almost “practical” strategy of economic “stability”. However, such imperial service only guarantees continued underdevelopment and economic beggary. Herein, T&T’s misleadership is positioning the country as a beggar to the US and reinforcing US sanctions on Venezuela, which makes it hard for Venezuela to sell its own oil and gas to states that need it, including T&T. Worse still, the US does not want China to remedy this situation between Venezuela and Trinidad. So not only are some Caribbean leaders and party supporters encouraging naked US imperialism cloaked in the deceptive language and rhetoric of “anti-drug trafficking” and “protecting the region,” they are also upholding a condition of dependency of the region on the US, advancing US attempts to subvert Chinese influence in the region, and in the process supporting direct attacks on states in the region’s right to self-determination and sovereignty. Moreover, local internal racial and class dynamics are also shaping the timing and intensity of Caribbean governments responses to US aggression in the region. In the post-WWII construction of party politics in T&T, middle-class parties carried forward the colonial divisions between the predominantly African and Indian segments of the population that multiracial worker movements had fought so hard to overcome. Kamla Persad Bissessar, as leader of the party popularly known as the one representing “Indian interests,” is advancing and exploiting this racial wedge to garner support for her pro-imperial policies. This party has actively engaged in criminalizing poor African communities as well as Venezuelan migrants, while downplaying the fact that the many poor and marginalized Indians are similarly caught in the net of US imperialism. Persad Bissessar and her party affiliates’ own ideas of “purity” mixed with class notions of entitlement merge with the supremacist foundations of US local and foreign politics. It’s bad enough that a Prime Minister — a lawyer — supports extra-judicial murders in violation of International Law, but how does one align with a political ideology that produced people like Senator James Reed, who, circa 1919, openly dismissed dealing with “a nigger from Liberia, a nigger from Honduras, a nigger from India…each (having) votes equal to that of the great United States.” Before one argues that this was long ago, consider what right-wing political commentator Ann Coulter told Vivek Ramaswamy why she’d never vote for him regardless of how his views match hers. We acknowledge that political leaders, seeking re-election, opt for the path of least resistance which in this case means not offending the mighty United States. But this cannot just be naïveté. It is in this context that Kamla Persad Bissessar has broken with even the basic understanding of what CARICOM is, and is astonishingly peddling the idea that each island seeking its own interest is somehow more progressive than banding together as one bloc! In other words, she and those who support her stance have embraced regional colonial divide-and-conquer tactics. The US has always stood in opposition to a unified body in the region. As then US diplomat Charles Whittaker put it: “A strongly federated West Indies might be detrimental to American interests.” As such, they undermined the West Indian Federation in the 1950s and sabotaged the New International Economic Order throughout the 1970s. The Caribbean misleaders proclaiming disunity as strength subscribe to political ideologies that interlock with a particular brand of politics in the West that has been openly Euro-nationalist and imperialist. Hence, at a time when many resource-rich countries are forming partnerships and alternative trading and security blocs, the political misleaders in the Caribbean calling for further fragmentation should warrant deeper investigation. Media, Political Misleadership, and How the State Weaponizes “Security” It is important to clarify that crime does exist in the Caribbean region, just as it exists elsewhere throughout the world. The size of Caribbean countries are also important to note, because though it is true that the amount of drugs flowing through the Caribbean are low relative to the global drug trade, the little that does pass through is indeed wreaking havoc, given the geographical and population sizes of these countries. The increase in guns and violent crime associated with the global drug trade in places like T&T has become a critical factor affecting everyday life for ordinary people there. This context has enabled the T&T government to justify and legitimate US military aggression in the name of “fighting” the drug trade in the region. Thus, most people cheering on the US military are simply desperate for a sense of safety. However, it is precisely this need for safety that is being weaponized — to increase unsafe conditions as new US-produced military weaponry and technologies become even more commonplace in the region. There is a direct and indirect connection between (geo)political and economic decisions made by successive generations of ruling elites in the Caribbean, and North American narratives of crime, which have – going back to the 19th century in some countries – allowed (and made space for) imperial aggression in the region. Over a number of decades, the United States has taken advantage of crises caused by rising violent crime to pursue its own security interests – even though rises in violent crime in the region is directly linked to US imported and manufactured weapons, and US consumer demands for items that the US state deems “illegal.” To establish and maintain US dominance — and the accompanying cheap labor[12] from the surplus populations which exist in a region notorious for high levels of unemployment and underemployment — the US has deployed constant applications of violence, packaged as maintaining “law and order” in the drive to “progress” and “catch up” with the West. It’s no coincidence that modern policing began in the Caribbean as militarized slave patrols in St Lucia.[13] Then, like now, the purpose is the same: protect wealth from the workers who created it. However, the real effectiveness lay in conditioning the exploited to adopt the values of the elites. To date, Western elite definitions of progress and development for the wider working people in the Caribbean region dominate, even as the dependent status of Caribbean economies make this impossible for the majority of the people in the region. Thus, US reliance on expanding its military apparatus for economic growth is justified through the construction of permanent threats that the US supposedly has to “defend” itself against. Another such narrative, like the need to “promote democracy” in Venezuela, is also within this vein of western imperialist propaganda. The US and western imperialists maintain that Venezuela is not a democracy, despite the presence of robust, active citizen’s assemblies and communes, as well as elections that occur under the presence of election observers – including from the US. Nonetheless, the western imperialist narrative maintains that Venezuela is not democratic and thus their people can be bombed for some purported “greater good.” Meanwhile, these same imperialist narratives call genocidal Israel a democracy deserving of “protection” and “defense,” as it exterminates Palestinians and decimates Palestinian land. This propaganda – not analysis based on any facts – readily frames western imperialism as “defensive,” “pro-security,” and “pro-safety” and those not in line with it as “aggressive” and “undemocratic.”[14] In lockstep with imperialists, local political figures too have long used or encouraged the use of dehumanizing language when discussing criminalized people and communities. When the T&T Prime Minister, Police Commissioner, and other influential authority figures refer to human beings as “carcasses,”[15] “pests,” “fleas” or “cockroaches,” the message sent is that these are not citizens or members of society and therefore, not worthy of certain basic courtesies and legal obligations, including the right to life. When this sort of thinking is widespread, issues of social justice fall by the wayside. Instead, heavy, often murderous attacks on real or alleged drug runners who come from poor, precarious, vulnerable communities become justified while the power brokers, bankers and their institutions[16] that launder money do not get so much as a paper weight dropped on them. Likewise, the local and international media is playing a significant role in the unfolding crisis. Save for a few columnists, the local media has been disgraceful, little more than sycophantic stenographers for egregious narratives coming from Washington. Initially, the local media conducted little to no critical research into the many available sources discrediting[17] false allegations connecting the Maduro administration to drug cartels. They parroted language that criminalized the victims of the attacks without presenting any evidence proving that they were guilty of violating any laws. They were silent on the voluminous literature connecting the CIA and the US military to colonial land and resource grabs that violate international and local laws.[18] They also proliferated the myth that Nicolas Maduro “lost” or “rigged” elections in Venezuela, contrary to information provided by election observers. The lack of critical and independent journalism is a clear dereliction of duty, supporting imperialist narratives and providing cover for extrajudicial murder. Conclusion The neoliberal era shortly after many states’ independence extended the life of bourgeois colonial thought in the Caribbean, interpreting the human “firstly, [as] a figure that is homo economics, and, secondly, a figure that can only operate within the field of white supremacy and capitalism.”[19] In this environment, Caribbean resistance weakened, having to establish itself alongside the intensification of neoliberal processes – foremost amongst them being state repression and militarist aggression supported by the US hegemon – so that Caribbean peoples could be definitively integrated into a Western capitalist system as “bottom labor-exporting economies,” whose labor commodification was masked by discourses on ‘growth’ and ‘development.'[20] It is in analyzing the characteristics of Caribbean states and governance within them – including how they interpret “development” – that helps us to answer why so many states elect to do imperial service: Caribbean neocolonial (puppet) states are fundamentally anti-democratic with no real regard for Caribbean life within them. The T&T government’s deliberate facilitation of US imperial aggression in the region mirrors the position of several African states. The post-genocide Tutsi-dominated regime of Paul Kagame in Rwanda, leveraging its image as a victim of colonialism and genocide, justifies domestic repression of Hutus and expansionist military ventures in neighboring states, notably the Democratic Republic of Congo in close alliance with the United States, France, and Israel. In exchange for U.S. and western military, financial, and political backing, Rwanda facilitates imperial access to Congo’s mineral wealth — coltan, gold, and tin — channeling profits both to Western capital and Rwandan elites. Thus, Rwanda functions as a pro-U.S. imperial proxy, advancing the global system of resource extraction and accumulation on behalf of Western powers. In addition, Rwanda along with a growing list of African states, including Ghana, Eswatini, and South Sudan have accepted the terms of bilateral agreements with the US government to receive people who have been criminalized and deported under the Trump regime’s attack on communities racialized as non-white in the US.[21] By enlisting themselves to be locations for the outsourcing of US racist incarceration policies, they are enabling the geographical expansion of the US military industrial prison complex to more and more corners of the world. These Caribbean and African misleaders will go down in history as active enablers and facilitators of the very imperial greed, oppression, and exploitation that the masses have been resisting since the days of direct colonial domination. Only invigorated mass resistance that takes power away from Caribbean neocolonial (puppet) elites engaged in imperial service can rectify these conditions. Global Africans in the Caribbean and around the world must claim power and reclaim movement histories that fought back against capitalist imperialism. Originally published in Pambazuka News and republished in Black Agenda Report References [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/venezuela-says-u-s-warship-raided-a-… [2] https://www.caribbeanlife.com/trinidad-guyana-us-moves-venezuela/ [3] https://newsday.co.tt/2025/09/03/kamla-says-kill-all-traffickers-as-tru… [4] https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/26/world/us-warship-docks-trinidad-venezeul… [5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/17/trump-maduro-venezuela [6] https://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/world-drug-report-2025.ht… [7] https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/32f71f10c36cc482/d9… [8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1bd-D1PIZg&pp=ygUZIGogZCB2YW5jZSBnbG9i… [9] https://www.finance.gov.tt/2020/03/16/effect-of-the-oil-price-collapse-… [10] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2014/cr14271.pdf; https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2024/06/04/Trinidad-and-T…. [11] Chamber of Industry and Commerce 2025; University of the West Indies Campus News 2024. [12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAJgGFtF44A [13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kavkiH9YHag&pp=ygUaanVsaWFuIGdvIHBvbGlj… [14] See, for example, the Trilateral Commission’s “The Crisis of Democracy” in which influential thinkers who shaped US policy complained that decolonising countries were exercising too much democracy, which needed to be contained, leading to the proliferation of NGOs all over the peripheralized world. [15] https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/kamla-state-resources-won-t-be-wasted/article_5d0c61fd-d633-4dd3-8e3e-6995a454c774.html [16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcpZPGOksp0 [17] https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/2025NationalDrugThreatA…; https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/32f71f10c36cc482/d9… [18] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/455652.Dark_Alliance; https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/1628-whiteout?srsltid=AfmBOor…; https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/the-politics-of-heroin-…; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbW0CCuT7E [19] Bogues, Anthony. 2023. “Sylvia Wynter: Constructing Radical Caribbean Thought.” BIM: Arts for the 21st Century 11(1): 33–41, p.37. [20] Henry, Paget. 2000. “Caribbean Marxism: After the Neoliberal and Linguistic Turns.” In Caliban’s Reason: Introducing Afro-Caribbean Philosophy, Africana Thought, New York: Routledge, 221-46, p.228. [21] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/more-african-nations-are-receiving-t…

China’s policy paper supports the “Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace” — a pointed contrast to US twenty-first century gunboat diplomacy. On December 10, 2025, US forces seized the oil tanker Skipper off the coast of Venezuela, carrying over a million barrels of crude. “Well, we keep [the oil],” President Trump told reporters. Venezuela’s foreign ministry called it “blatant theft and an act of international piracy,” adding: “The true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been revealed. It has always been about our natural wealth, our oil.” That same day, on the other side of the world, China released its third Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean (the first since 2016) outlining a vision of partnership “without attaching any political conditions.” The timing captures the choice now facing Latin America. Two documents released within a week — Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS) on December 5 and China’s policy paper five days later — lay bare fundamentally different approaches to the hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine returns Trump’s NSS makes no pretense of diplomatic subtlety. It declares a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting US opposition to “hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets” in the hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere is now America’s “highest priority”, with three threats requiring military response: migration, drugs, and China. Countries seeking US assistance must demonstrate they are “winding down adversarial outside influence” — a demand that Latin American nations cut ties with Beijing. The strategy promises “targeted deployments” and “the use of lethal force” against cartels. It states that Washington will “reward and encourage the region’s governments … aligned with our principles and strategies.” Unsurprisingly, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio rushed to congratulate Chile’s Trump-inspired extreme right wing candidate José Antonio Kast, who won the presidency with 58% of the vote (the most right-wing leader since Pinochet). The tanker seizure shows what this doctrine looks like in practice. Since September, US strikes on boats have killed 95 people. The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier group patrols the Caribbean. As Colombian President Gustavo Petro observed, Trump is “not thinking about the democratization of Venezuela, let alone the narco-trafficking” — only oil. After declaring that a new phase of attacks could include “land strikes on Venezuela”, Trump threatened the Colombian president that “he’ll be next” as well as invasion of Mexico. China’s alternative China’s policy paper operates from an entirely different premise. Opening by identifying China as “a developing country and member of the Global South,” it positions the relationship as South-South cooperation and solidarity rather than great power competition. The document proposes five programs: Solidarity, Development, Civilization, Peace, and People-to-People Connectivity. What distinguishes this paper from its 2008 and 2016 predecessors is its explicit call for “local currency pricing and settlement’ in energy trade to “reduce the impact of external economic and financial risks” — new language directly addressing the weaponization of the dollar. This trend has been underway, as highlighted by the R$157 billion (USD 28 billion) currency swap agreement between Brazil and China, signed during Brazilian president Lula’s visit to the Asian country in May this year. China’s policy paper supports the “Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace” — a pointed contrast to US twenty-first century gunboat diplomacy. And it contains a line clearly responding to Washington’s pressure: “The China-LAC relationship does not target or exclude any third party, nor is it subjugated by any third party.” The historical pattern Of course, the focus on the “China threat” to “US pre-eminence” in the region is not new. In August 1961, progressive Brazilian Vice President João Goulart visited China, the first high-ranking Latin American official to do so after the Chinese Revolution. At a mass rally in Beijing, he declared that China showed “how a people, looked down upon by others for past centuries, can emancipate themselves from the yoke of their exploiters.” The US response was swift. American media constructed a narrative linking Brazilian agrarian reform movements to a “communist threat from China.” On April 1, 1964 (less than three years after Goulart’s visit) a US-backed military coup overthrew him. Twenty-one years of dictatorship followed. The playbook remains the same. In the 1960s, the pretext was “communist threat”; today it’s “China threat.” And what’s at stake is Latin American sovereignty. What makes this moment different is economic weight. China-LAC trade reached a record US$518.47 billion in 2024, according to China’s Ministry of Commerce. China’s share of trade with Mercosur countries has grown from 2% to 24% since 2000. At the May 2025 CELAC-China Forum, Xi Jinping announced a USD 9 billion investment credit line. In 1964, Latin America had few alternatives. Today, China presents another option. The question before the Latin American people The right-wing surge across the continent is undeniable — Kast in Chile, Milei in Argentina, the end of MAS rule in Bolivia. These victories reflect the limitations of progressive governments when addressing crime, migration, and economic stagnation. But they also reflect how US-generated crises become the terrain on which the right wins. The question is whether Latin American governments (including right-wing ones) want to be subordinates in what Trump’s strategy calls an “American-led world.” Even Western liberal analysts are alarmed. Brookings describes the NSS as “essentially assert[ing] a neo-imperialist presence in the region.” Chatham House notes that Trump uses “coercion instead of negotiation”, contrasted with China, “which has been providing investment and credit … without imposing conditions.” That being said, China’s presence in Latin America is not without contradictions. The structure of trade remains imbalanced — Latin America exports raw materials and imports manufactured goods. Meanwhile, labor and environmental concerns linked to specific Chinese private enterprises cannot be ignored. Whether the relationship enables development or reproduces dependency depends on what Latin American governments demand: technology transfer, local production, industrial policy. This agenda for a sovereign national project must be pushed forward by the Latin American people and popular forces. At present, the differences between the two visions being presented of the “US-led world” and a “community with a shared future” have never been starker. This article was produced by Globetrotter. The original article is under a CC BY-SA license

The recently released Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) has upended what had been the decades-long consensus about American foreign policy. Most notable in it is the Trump Administration’s prioritization of the Western Hemisphere as an American security concern, its deemphasis on defending America’s traditional European allies, its identification of China as far more of a threat than Russia, and its determination not to be drawn into conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. But while the 2025 Trump Administration National Security Strategy breaks with much of previous American foreign policy, the logic behind it is not something completely new. Even though the document makes no mention of him, the policy outlined in the NSS comports with what John Mearsheimer described in his influential book, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”, which was first published in 2001 and updated in 2014. In his book Mearsheimer declared that no nation has ever achieved global hegemony. According to Mearsheimer, America is the only country that has achieved predominant influence in its own region (the Western Hemisphere) and has also been able to prevent any other great power from dominating any other region. Mearsheimer wrote, “States that achieve regional hegemony seek to prevent great powers in other regions from duplicating their feat. Regional hegemons, in other words, do not want peers” (2014 edition, p. 41). Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy has, whether knowingly or not, adopted these aims as well. It discusses the various regions of the world in the order of their priority for the Trump Administration: the Western Hemisphere first, followed by Asia (or Indo-Pacific), Europe, the Middle East, and lastly Africa. With regard to the Western Hemisphere, the NSS unambiguously calls for the restoration of “American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere,” and states, “We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.” This is very much in keeping with what Mearsheimer described as America being a regional hegemon in the Western Hemisphere. As for the other four regions of the world, though, the Trump Administration seeks either to prevent any other great power from becoming predominant — or it doesn’t see this as a possibility that needs to be worried about. According to the NSS, the Middle East was a priority in the past because it was the world’s most important energy supplier and was a prime theater of superpower conflict. Now, however, there are other energy suppliers (including the U.S.) and superpower competition has been replaced by “great power jockeying” in which the U.S. retains “the most enviable position.” In other words: the Trump Administration does not see any other great power as able to become predominant in this region which is now less strategically important than it used to be anyway. Similarly, the NSS does not see any other great power as even seeking to become predominant in Africa. The NSS thus sees America’s main interests there as mainly commercial. By contrast, China is seen as a threat in the Indo-Pacific region. The NSS, though, discusses Chinese threats in the economic and technological spheres before turning to the military one. A continued U.S. military presence in the region is seen as important for preventing Chinese predominance. But Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia are all enjoined by the NSS to increase their defense spending in order to counter this threat. The NSS also identifies “the potential for any competitor to control the South China Sea” as a common threat that not only requires investment in U.S. military capabilities, “but also strong cooperation with every nation that stands to suffer, from India to Japan and beyond.” Unlike the Middle East and Africa, then, the NSS does identify a rival great power as striving for predominance in the Indo-Pacific region. Countering it, though, is not seen as just being America’s responsibility, but also that of other powerful states in the region. The strangest section in the 2025 NSS is the one on Europe. While acknowledging that “many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat,” the NSS envisions America’s role as “managing European relations with Russia” both to “reestablish conditions of strategic stability” and “to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.” This is very different from the decades-long U.S. policy of seeing America’s role as defending democratic Europe against an expansionist Soviet Union in the past and Putin’s Russia more recently. Indeed, the NSS’s claim that the European Union undermines “political liberty and sovereignty” and its welcoming “the growing influence of patriotic European parties” (in other words, anti-EU right wing nationalist ones) suggests that it is not Russia which the Trump Administration sees as a rival, but the European Union. The 2025 NSS does call for a “strong Europe…to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.” The NSS, though, seems to envision the European Union as either greater than or equal to Russia in threatening to dominate European nations. In his book, Mearsheimer did not envision the European Union as a potential great power rival to the U.S. Indeed, there isn’t even an entry for it in the book’s index. The way that the NSS envisions the world, though, comports with how Mearsheimer described America’s great power position: predominant in the Western Hemisphere and able to prevent any other great power from becoming predominant in any other region of the world. Mearsheimer, though, is a scholar who described the position in the world that he saw the U.S. as having achieved and which would seek to maintain. The 2025 NSS, by contrast, is a policy document laying out how the Trump Administration believes it can best maintain this position. And there is reason to doubt that it has done so realistically. Keeping non-Hemispheric great powers out of the Western Hemisphere will not be easy when there are governments there that want to cooperate with them. Further, devoting American resources to being predominant in Latin America when this will be resented and resisted could not only take away from America’s ability to prevent rival great powers from becoming predominant in other regions, but could counterproductively lead Latin American nations than have already done so to increase their cooperation with external great powers which the Trump Administration wants to avoid. Further, the Trump Administration’s efforts to reduce the influence of the European Union runs two risks: the first is that such an effort will succeed, but that the rise of anti-EU nationalist governments throughout the old continent results in a Europe less able to resist Russian manipulation and incursion. The second is that Trump Administration efforts to weaken the European Union backfire and result not only in a Europe united against American interference but unnecessarily emerging as a rival to the U.S. It would be ironic indeed if pursuing the NSS’s plan for upholding what Mearsheimer described as America’s ability to predominate over the Western Hemisphere combined with an ability to prevent any rival from predominating over any other region ended up undermining America’s ability to do either.

Abstract This research article seeks to analyze the current geopolitical landscape, specifically the strategic confrontation between China and the United States and its impact on the international context. In this regard, the concept of the “World Order” refers to the hegemony that the United States held in the West following the end of the Cold War. Over the years, a new concept emerged, the “New World Order,” which defines the relationships that develop after a historical stage of international hegemony. The research begins by defining the variable “World Order” and its evolution into the “New World Order.” It then focuses on post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy, which shaped the course of the West. This is followed by an analysis of China’s foreign policy in recent years, which has generated a shift in the international paradigm. Finally, the study aims to analyze the confrontation between both countries for global hegemony through various international policies and geopolitical strategies. In conclusion, the concept of the “New World Order” for the 21st century is based on the strategic rivalry between China and the United States within an increasingly multipolar system. Both countries have defined foreign policies: the United States seeks to maintain hegemony, while China aims to create an international environment in which all participants can benefit. The conflict itself defines the “New World Order.” Keywords: China, United States, New World Order, geopolitics, international economy. Introduction Currently, there is an ongoing struggle between two powerful states that influence the reality of other countries around the world: the United States and China. These economic and military powers are at an impasse. On one hand, the United States seeks to maintain its influence and hegemony in the West, setting the agenda in international organizations and resolving global conflicts according to its own rules. On the other hand, China, which has a historical rivalry with the U.S., has become the world’s second-largest economy due to its economic development and has joined powers such as Russia and India to counter the US ambitions. The old “World Order” is in decline, making it necessary to update this category of international relations and define what the “New World Order” is, what it consists of, why it emerges, and, above all, how it could be addressed. For this reason, this research article first defines what is understood by the “World Order.” It then analyzes the crisis of this “World Order” in the 21st century, which has led to the emergence of a “New World Order” spearheaded by China’s rise on the international stage. The study continues by examining the United States and the general actions it has taken to reach this critical point, followed by an analysis of the Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping’s leadership, and finally, it explores how this confrontation impacts international reality. World Order To understand the concept of “World Order,” it is necessary to begin with a preliminary conceptual analysis of its underlying roots. “Hegemony” and “Power” are two key concepts for understanding the definition of “World Order.” “Hegemony” can be understood as the midpoint between the processes of influence and dominance in interstate relations, beyond its legal content in public or international law. The term has been used by Marxist and structuralist currents, but for general understanding, hegemony is predominantly the ability to lead or direct others. This can be understood from any perspective, whether international, social, or interpersonal. (Bobbio & Matteucci, 1981a) Hegemony cannot be understood without the exercise of power. In this context, power in the social sphere is the capacity of one person to influence another. A person becomes both agent and object simultaneously; the one who exercises power over another has the ability to influence decisions, activities, motivations, and more. (Bobbio & Matteucci, 1981b) The hegemonic process is explained through the exercise of power. “Power”, being the ability to influence an external agent, inherently requires being prepared to surpass this external agent in order to maintain a constant exercise of power and prevent, under any circumstances, the influenced agent from reacting and obstructing the full exercise of power. Consequently, it can be understood that the “World Order” is viewed from a hegemonic structural perspective, where the power exercised by one party — in this case, a country or countries — is largely consensual. This differs from a non-hegemonic order, where multiple actors coexist and compete for dominance over others. Even so, a notable distinction exists with respect to domination, which is the factual exercise of power. In other words, domination can exist without hegemony. (Cox, 2013) Naturally, under this definition, one might assume that the “World Order” follows a linear historical trajectory, with a clear beginning, middle, and end, along with defined actors and positions. This, however, is not the case. The “World Order” is a process marked by constant crises, emerging actors as they develop economically, socially, and militarily, specific interests seeking to influence others, and, above all, a continuous struggle for being the state at the top. (Schulz, 2023) Historically, the concept of “World Order” emerged after the Cold War. Another way to understand the term is through the hegemony of a political-economic model, materialized in the social and cultural expressions of countries. After the Cold War, a “neoliberal” model was established and adopted by most Western countries to perpetuate U.S. interests. Through “liberal” or “neoliberal” policies, a process of domination or hegemony is observed. (Duque-Vargas, 2021) Over the years, academia has reevaluated global events and defined categories through historical processes, which, due to circumstances, reemerge with new actors and in different geographic locations. Today, the concept of the “Cold War” is used as a framework to understand the struggle between powers. The so-called “New Cold War” refers to the confrontation between the U.S. and either Russia or China (Sanz Díaz & Sáenz-Rotko, 2022). It does not describe warfare in the same sense as from 1947 to 1991 but rather as a model of confrontation between powers, with the U.S. as a constant actor. From a political-philosophical perspective, liberalism has been and continues to be widely debated. To simplify — since defining this current is beyond the scope of this study — liberalism is politically expressed in liberal democracies and economically in the opening of markets to the international context and the development of capitalism as an economic model. (Bobbio & Matteucci, 1981b) Today, debate persists around the concept of “neoliberalism,” which emerges from liberalism, and no definitive canon has been established. Therefore, this term will not be defined to avoid straying from the focus of the study. Finally, the concept of “World Order” adopted for this study is a fusion of the concepts previously analyzed. The political-economic model in most Western countries over the past twenty-five years has been liberal democracy, imposed by the United States after the Cold War, expressed through culture, education, language, and other societal aspects, and continues to this day. (Dabat & Leal, 2019) In summary, the concept of “World Order” reflects the understanding that the United States maintained global hegemony over the past twenty-five years. This was due to its superior economic and military capacity, which shaped the political actions of other Western countries that adopted the pre-established model (liberal democracy). This allowed the U.S. to stimulate its market, thereby reinforcing and perpetuating its hegemony. Crisis of the 20th-Century “World Order” The World Order is affected by constant crises, as previously noted, but it is currently in a phase referred to as the “Interregnum.” This definition, noted by Gramsci, is understood as the midpoint where nothing is fully defined. It is a neutral moment, where there is neither progress nor regression, reached either because the dominant forces are unable to maintain their hegemony without detaching from coercive tools or, conversely, because the forces of change are insufficient to achieve their objectives. (Sanahuja Perales, 2022) This “stalemate” generates conflicts not only between countries but also within society itself. The post-capitalist economic model responds to this issue. Due to the technological rise of mass communication (social media) and the constant need to produce to sustain the model, problems of social identity emerge. As the identity of the “self” disappears, the identity of the “we” is eliminated; society itself disappears, leaving only a sum of undefined societies with shared problems such as anxiety and depression, which validate themselves through social media that consumes them. (Touraine & Guilpain Peuliard, 2016) The “World Order” after the Cold War established a globalizing mechanism that led to a paradigm of worldwide impoverishment, which is paradoxical to the intended outcome. This can be explained by the fact that the new production model adopted by large corporations sought to regress in social standards, promoting increased profits and reduced costs. This led major factories to relocate to countries where social policies were more easily circumvented, ignoring the regulations of their countries of origin, nullifying the consequences of their actions, and impoverishing the capacity of these populations to recover economically and socially. Consequently, this created not only a model of economic crisis but also a process of global social injustice with long-term consequences. (Chomsky, 2001) It is important to understand that the 20th-century “World Order” was not only afflicted by moral issues but also by global crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, international organizations demonstrated their inability to prevent the very problems they were originally established to address. It is essential for international organizations to promote new guidelines that cover sensitive issues such as global health. Within this framework, the “New World Order” is characterized by a human-centered approach and common development objectives. (Caldera Ynfante, 2020) To address the challenge of identifying problems affecting the international community, CEPLAN developed a series of nine “megatrends,” which are: population aging, increased global urbanization, a poly-nodal world, growing social inequalities and persistent social conflicts, crises of liberalism and globalization, changes in disease patterns and health systems, scarcity of natural resources, climate change and environmental degradation, and accelerated technological innovation and development. While these megatrends focus on the Peruvian context, they were formulated considering international agendas such as the 2030 Agenda and prospective analyses. (Observatorio Nacional de Prospectiva, n.d.) Emergence of the “New World Order” Under these circumstances, it becomes necessary to renew definitions and ask: are we still in the post–Cold War era? The answer is no, and it is necessary to present updated sociological and international relations categories. For this reason, the term “New World Order” is used when analyzing factors such as deindustrialization, failures in multilateralism, and the emergence of new powers capable of determining and imposing new positions. (Ramírez Montañez & Sarmiento Suárez, 2021) A large amount of studies presents a central point: the United States is losing its hegemonic control. This can be explained by the policies adopted by different governments, the economic decline due to historical recessions such as that of 2008, the absence of a political model to replace the failed attempt at liberal democracy in the region, internal social crises caused by various factors, and the emergence of China as an antagonist to its objectives. (Lechuga Cardozo & Leyva Cordero, 2020) United States and Hard Power The foreign policy of the United States has been widely studied by international relations scholars. It is often the focus of imaginative interpretations that sometimes verge on the absurd. Naturally, it is necessary to study such an important country with historical and economic significance with objectivity. After the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers, U.S. foreign policy took on a singular purpose: to be the world’s foremost power. This entails determining the direction of global affairs, whether through diplomatic or coercive means — military or economic. The various tools used to achieve this purpose have included multilateralism (as seen during the Obama and Biden administrations) and the radical unilateralism presented by Trump. (Domínguez López, 2021) This doctrine, however, has a history that predates the Twin Towers. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the United States promoted the creation of international organizations, learning from the failures of those established after World War I. These new international organizations were intended to preserve peace and develop new mechanisms for political and economic cooperation. Naturally, as the victorious power of both World Wars, and in the absence of a figure of comparable stature, the U.S. determined the future of these organizations, their purposes, and their rules. (Barbé, 1995) It is therefore necessary to understand that U.S. domestic policy effectively became its foreign policy. In other words, every state seeks to maintain order within its territory, continuously develop, and achieve a peak that can be consistently surpassed. This was how the United States viewed the world: as its canvas. (Lascano, Vedia & Colotta, 2020) Theoretically, the U.S. has a clear distinction from other states regarding hard power. Hard power is defined as a country’s military capability at strategic points around the world. The United States maintains military bases in various parts of the globe, on islands and specific territories, to impose its authority. (Peña Galindo, 2018) This military power is accompanied by economic power derived from arms development. War serves as a mean to develop the American industry, whose involvement — necessary from a business standpoint, though not necessarily military — has become central to debates due to the close relationship between political power, state structure, and the military-industrial complex. (Lorden Zeddies, 2023) The US model has been vigorously copied by various political figures. For example, Jair Bolsonaro, a member of Brazil’s right-wing party, positioned himself as a “Latin American Trump.” (Rodrigues, 2019) This demonstrates the influence of American doctrine on Western countries. Bolsonaro is not the only figure in the region; others include Javier Milei and Nayib Bukele, while in Europe, Giorgia Meloni serves as a counterpart. In the most recent U.S. elections held on November 5, 2024, Donald Trump won the presidency of the White House again. This would be his second term, and his positions, rather than moderating, became increasingly radical. His slogan, “Make America Great Again,” calls for a historical revision of what the United States represented in the world, from a colonialist perspective. Additionally, his various speeches against Mexican immigrants have been characterized as xenophobic. (Bussaja, 2024) It is evident, then, that the U.S. stance continues to be one of maintaining dominance and hegemony. The New Giant: China Xi Jinping assumed leadership of the People’s Republic of China in 2013. His first objective was the creation of a “New Silk Road,” referencing the Silk Road of the 2nd century that connected Europe, Africa, and Asia. This new route was designed to connect China with the rest of the world, opening its markets and leaving behind its historically insular past. (Zhongguo, 2019) This initiative also reflects the early stages of Jinping’s domestic policy based on soft power. The theory of soft power defines a country’s influence through economic strategy. In other words, it involves intervening in international markets to the extent necessary — or even obligatory — for the countries involved in the global landscape. In most cases, this is manifested through the accumulation of ports in different countries, controlled or financed by a single nation, with priority given to these key points as essential for its development. (Peña Galindo, 2018) This strategy not only promotes the economic development of a state but also enables the formulation of new political relationships. In China’s case, we see outreach to Japan, India, and Russia. (Rosas, 2008) Naturally, China initially sought to engage with these countries due to geographic proximity, but over time, and with the growth of its industry, it sought relationships with more distant nations. In Latin America and the Caribbean, China has established various agreements on economic, political, and social cooperation. However, as can be inferred, these initiatives have limitations due to China’s cultural gaps; while China seeks to open its cultural world to Latin America — and vice versa — the result is not an intercultural process but rather a multicultural one. (Staiano, 2019) This approach poses a challenge for the United States. In Latin America, the U.S. has historically held strong influence, but its challenges in various areas have allowed China to enter Latin markets freely. Countries in the region are not indifferent to China’s initiatives. The Chinese market offers cheaper products, more technologically advanced goods, and cultural visibility for the general public. (Zapata & Martínez-Hernández, 2020) A clear example of China’s soft power in South America is the Chancay mega-port in Peru. This port opens multiple opportunities for the region and the world. Asian products cost less and take fewer days to arrive. It increases tariff revenue in Peru and promotes the development of economic corridors in the region. (Villagra, 2023) Finally, China’s strategy is historically grounded in the “Century of Humiliation,” a historical period that continues to affect the Chinese Communist Party’s self-perception. Since China’s opening to the international market, measures have been taken to achieve the overarching goal: to “cleanse” its history. Communication strategies such as the “Wolf Warrior Diplomacy,” Peripheral Diplomacy, and its new international relations model based on win-win principles have made Xi Jinping one of the most recognized and lauded leaders when evaluated objectively in historical context. (Mazuelos Chávez, 2022) China vs. the United States The power dynamic between the U.S. and China has persisted over time. During his presidency, Obama made decisions that marked a rapprochement with China, but this paradigm shifted under Trump’s administration, which adopted a protectionist and nationalist policy line, culminating in a tariff war in 2018. China, on the other hand, maintained its party ideals, and under Xi Jinping, distanced itself from any hegemonic ambitions, promoting economic engagement with peripheral countries, respect for international organizations, and goodwill in international politics. (Barrera G et al., 2021) China’s stance is evident in the increase of exports to various countries. In multiple conferences, President Xi Jinping consolidated China’s economic openness, generating investment confidence in other countries by presenting a strong economic ally that does not interfere in domestic politics. Furthermore, economic exchanges benefit both parties. (Xu, 2021) Thus, on one hand, the U.S. seeks to protect its economy by radicalizing protectionist measures, triggering a tariff war, disturbing the international context, and increasing tensions with the Asian continent. Meanwhile, China’s economic model functions effectively as long as it opens itself to other countries, proposing alliances that mutually benefit both sides. Consequently, in the years leading up to the coronavirus pandemic, a confrontation between China and the U.S. was anticipated. By 2021, all signs pointed to an inevitable economic clash. Beyond tariff measures, questions arose as to whether China might repeat the same mistakes the U.S. made in managing hegemony, which have been analyzed over time and through unfolding events. (Gerig, 2021) Under these tensions, the U.S. emphasized that its intentions revolved more around physical warfare than economic conflict. Unlike China, the U.S. has allies that are more strategically positioned militarily but weaker economically. This is why a military agenda is promoted: in a hypothetical conflict, U.S. military capacity, combined with access to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, its military bases, and its industrial complex, would tilt the balance of war in its favor. Strategically, China has greater capacity to influence peripheral markets, making it difficult for the U.S. to initiate a conflict, as it would lack long-term trading partners, discouraging its production chain. (Gerig, 2021) Eventually, both countries need each other to maintain economic and technological development. China has independently developed innovative technologies but requires a large market to justify its multi-million-dollar investments, while the U.S. keeps many of its factories in China due to low labor costs. Trump’s first-term policies were later moderated by Biden, who adopted a more conciliatory approach, opening diplomatic channels while still emphasizing the importance of maintaining U.S. hegemony. (Fernández Tabío, 2022) So, where did this confrontation materialize? By 2023, Latin America became the preferred arena for both countries. Both sides recognized its importance, and peripheral economies were the center of attention. The notable difference between the two was, once again, their engagement strategy. The U.S. took a coercive approach toward Panama, whereas China approached Peru through port investments, creating new maritime routes that benefit the entire southern continent. (Carbajal-Glass, 2023) By 2024, with Trump’s second administration, the U.S. strongly opposed the rise of Asia, returning to isolationism. China maintained its perspective of mutual cooperation, while the U.S. pursued a militaristic stance, attempting to obstruct China’s cooperative development with Latin America and India. Even so, U.S. efforts were insufficient to prevent Asia’s engagement with other Western countries. Currently, China holds significant influence in Europe, Africa, and Latin America. (Nascimento, 2024) Discussion After conducting this comprehensive analysis of the “World Order” and its evolution into the “New World Order,” it becomes clear that the struggle for hegemony occurs between China and the United States. This confrontation is primarily economic, although it has cultural, military, social, and political dimensions. It is not comparable to the Cold War, but the term is used as a representation of a past that seems to echo in the present. (Crivelaro Neto, 2024) The “New World Order” for the 21st century represents a context of economic, political, military, cultural, and social crisis. The confrontation between these two major powers defines the current trajectory of the world. Countries that lack the capacity to participate in this confrontation (peripheral economies) nevertheless become geostrategic points of contention. This is evident in the case of Latin America. The diplomatic and cooperative relationships that China has built in recent years have strengthened its ability to confront the United States. (Rosas, 2008) The geopolitical landscape is fraught with uncertainty generated by the development of the conflict itself, making it difficult to establish definitive guidelines or perspectives in the analysis. The U.S., through its foreign policy, seeks to maintain its hegemony. Donald Trump exemplifies this approach. The American perspective is to prevent any other country from determining what should be done. This approach is not only aimed at countering China, which has become its primary adversary, but also applies to other countries, including the European Union, which remains its ally. China presents itself as the leader of this “New World Order” through its alliances in Asia and Latin America because it possesses the greatest capacity to confront the U.S., withstand policies directed against it, and develop new strategies through economic and technological development, preventing the U.S. from achieving international stability. The global reality (New World Order) is, in any case, a multipolar system. Finally, the United States faces multiple challenges. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, several events have contributed to its weakening. Moreover, the Biden administration has left a significant debt to the American people, and the crisis of liberal democracies continues to deepen. Trump represents the American mindset, while Xi Jinping is its most important adversary. This confrontation will ultimately be resolved with a single winner in a zero-sum equation. Conclusions Addressing the main objective of this research, the “New World Order” projected for the 21st century is the conflict between China and the United States. This impasse, as discussed, represents a deadlock in the international arena. It is necessary to allow more time for events to unfold. In due course, a winner will emerge in this economic contest. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the United States remains at the forefront, and figures such as Donald Trump clearly exemplify the country’s continued hegemonic perspective. In the case of China, Xi Jinping’s government has marked a decisive shift in foreign policy, achieving what the reform and opening period did not: transforming China into an international market. Only time will determine whether it can withstand U.S. measures. Furthermore, it is essential to closely observe, despite the party’s secrecy, the geopolitical actions that the Chinese Communist Party undertakes. Finally, the confrontation between the United States and China, in economic terms, is real and affects the entire world. It impacts the development of new international policies, the emergence of social and health crises, and the formulation of new bilateral agreements between states thousands of kilometers apart. This confrontation represents the “New World Order” — an order without a concrete order — something only time can define, perhaps as a precursor to an international paradigm shift. References Barbé, Esther. (1995). Relaciones internacionales. Tecnos. Barrera G, R. A., Suárez G, L., & Ospina, L. M. (2021). La balanza comercial de América Latina con China y Estados Unidos en el contexto de la guerra comercial entre Trump y Xi Jinping. Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de administración, 17(33). https://www.redalyc.org/journal/4096/409672512004/409672512004.pdf Bobbio, Norberto., & Matteucci, Nicola. (1981a). Diccionario de política. abcchdefghij (1a ed., Vol. 1). Siglo Veintiuno. Bobbio, Norberto., & Matteucci, Nicola. (1981b). Diccionario de política. klmnopqrstuvwxyz (1a ed., Vol. 2). Siglo Veintiuno. Bussaja, J. (2024). Make America Great Again (MAGA): The Covert Call for Colonialism’s Comeback. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.4790796 Caldera Ynfante, J. (2020). Biocracia y derecho fundamental al nuevo orden mundial en la postpandemia COVID-19. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana, 25(4), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3931044 Carbajal-Glass, F. (2023). Riesgo político, seguridad y geopolítica: América Latina y la competencia estratégica Estados Unidos-China. URVIO Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios de Seguridad, 36, 104–117. https://doi.org/10.17141/URVIO.36.2023.5842 Chomsky, N. (2001). Democracia y mercados en el nuevo orden mundial. Globalización y sindicalismo, 1, 47–83. Cox, R. (2013). Fuerzas sociales, estados y órdenes mundiales: Más allá de la Teoría de Relaciones Internacionales. Relaciones Internacionales, 24, 129–162. https://repositorio.uam.es/bitstream/handle/10486/677391/RI_24_7.pdf Crivelaro Neto, D. (2024). CHINA X EUA: RESTABELECIMENTO DA COMPETIÇÃO PELA LIDERANÇA DA ECONOMIA MUNDIAL. Revista Contemporânea, 4(3), e3445. https://doi.org/10.56083/RCV4N3-178 Dabat, A., & Leal, P. (2019). Ascenso y declive de Estados Unidos en la hegemonía mundial. Problemas del desarrollo, 50(199), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.22201/IIEC.20078951E.2019.199.67934 Domínguez López, E. (2021). De Bush 43 a Biden: cambios en el sistema-mundo y ajustes de política exterior en Estados Unidos. Política Internacional, 3(2), 27–42. Duque-Vargas, N.-H. (2021). Educación para una cultura de paz en el orden mundial posguerra fría. Revista Guillermo de Ockham, 19(2), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.21500/22563202.4086 Fernández Tabío, L. R. (2022). Estados Unidos, geoeconomía y pugna hegemónica con China. Política Internacional, 4(3), 19–31. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/7620/762081507003.pdf Gerig, M. (2021). El retorno de la Trampa de Tucídides: la Gran Estrategia de Estados Unidos y China frente a la disputa hegemónica desde la perspectiva de la economía política de sistemas-mundo. Geopolítica(s). Revista de estudios sobre espacio y poder, 12(1), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.5209/geop.68341 Lascano y Vedia, J. R., & Colotta, M. (2020). Formulación de una política exterior: su dimensión política y social. Revista Relaciones Internacionales, 29(59), 103–130. Lechuga Cardozo, J. I., & Leyva Cordero, O. (2020). Escenarios 2020 del Orden Mundial. Análisis desde la Prospectiva Estratégica. Ánfora, 27(48), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.30854/anf.v27.n48.2020.672 Lorden Zeddies, N. (2023). Defensa y negocios: el complejo industrial militar en los Estados Unidos [Universidad Europea]. https://titula.universidadeuropea.com/handle/20.500.12880/5577 Mazuelos Chávez, J. A. (2022). El sueño chino de rejuvenecimiento nacional y la política exterior bajo Xi Jinping. Agenda Internacional, 29(40), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.18800/agenda.202201.002 Nascimento, L. G. do. (2024). La geoeconomía y geopolítica de las rivalidades China-Estados Unidos en las estrategias del Asia-Pacífico vs Indo-Pacífico. Relaciones Internacionales, 57, 191–207. https://doi.org/10.15366/RELACIONESINTERNACIONALES2024.57.010 Observatorio Nacional de Prospectiva. (s. f.). Recuperado 16 de octubre de 2025, de https://observatorio.ceplan.gob.pe/megatendencia Peña Galindo, A. (2018). ¿Soft power o Hard power? Reflexiones teóricas sobre la política exterior brasileña. Revista Relaciones Internacionales y Estrategias de seguridad, 13(2), 97–121. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/6819790.pdf Ramírez Montañez, J., & Sarmiento Suárez, J. (2021). Nuevo orden internacional a inicios de la segunda década del siglo XXI. Estudios Internacionales, 52(197), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-3769.2020.55138 Rodrigues, G. (2019). ¿EL TRUMP DEL TRÓPICO? POLÍTICA EXTERIOR DE ULTRADERECHA EN BRASIL. Análisis Carolina, 06, 1–11. Rosas, M. C. (2008). China y Estados Unidos en el siglo XXI: ¿hacia una nueva bipolaridad? Comercio exterior, 58(3), 198–217. Sanahuja Perales, J. A. (2022). Interregno. La actualidad de un orden mundial en crisis. Nueva Sociedad, 302, 86–94. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/72807 Sanz Díaz, C., & Sáenz-Rotko, J. M. (2022). ¿Segunda Guerra Fría? Un análisis desde la Historia y las Relaciones Internacionales. Relaciones Internacionales, 51, 167–184. https://doi.org/10.15366/RELACIONESINTERNACIONALES2022.51.009 Schulz, J. S. (2023). Crisis sistémica del orden mundial, transición hegemónica y nuevos actores en el escenario global. Cuadernos de Nuestra América, 3, 34–50. https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/handle/11336/206913 Staiano, M. F. (2019). La relaciones internacionales entre China y América Latina: encontrando un camino común hacia un nuevo orden mundial. Anuario en Relaciones Internacionales del IRI, 1–10. http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/95952 Touraine, Alain., & Guilpain Peuliard, Odile. (2016). El fin de las sociedades. Fondo de Cultura Económica. Villagra, M. E. (2023). Megapuerto de Chancay: Repercusiones en el Comercio Sudamericano e Impacto Geoestratégico. Revista Seguridad y Poder Terrestre, 2(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.56221/SPT.V2I2.28 Xu, Y. (2021). Los efectos internos de la apertura exterior de la Economía China [Universidad de Valladolid]. https://uvadoc.uva.es/bitstream/handle/10324/52272/TFG-J-341.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Zapata, S., & Martínez-Hernández, A. A. (2020). Latin American Foreign Policy before the hegemony of the United States and China’s emerging power. Colombia Internacional, 104, 63–93. https://doi.org/10.7440/COLOMBIAINT104.2020.03 Zhongguo, J. (2019). La Nueva Ruta de la Seda: Universalismo y pluriversalismo para un nuevo orden mundial. Memoria Académica, 32, 24–46. https://www.memoria.fahce.unlp.edu.ar/art_revistas/pr.13112/pr.13112.pdfInformaciónadicionalenwww.memoria.fahce.unlp.edu.ar

1. Introduction: AI as a Reconfiguration of the Global Order Artificial intelligence (AI) has become one of the most influential factors shaping the contemporary international system. Major powers are competing to lead the new technological revolution that impacts the economy, security, foreign policy, defense, communications, and scientific innovation. The development of AI depends on three strategic inputs: 1. Human talent (research, data engineering, mathematics, computer science). 2. Computational capacity and access to large volumes of data. 3. Robust innovation ecosystems, with companies, universities, and aligned industrial policies. Global spending on artificial intelligence is expected to exceed USD 52 billion over the next three years, consolidating AI as the central axis of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (IDC, 2023; Stanford AI Index Report, 2024). 2. Talent as a Global Strategic Resource More than 60% of top AI researchers work in the United States, and about half of them are immigrants, primarily from China, India, Europe, and Iran (Stanford AI Index Report, 2024). The so-called brain drain is not merely an academic issue, but a geopolitical one: • States compete to attract talent through visas, high salaries, and access to frontier laboratories. • Innovation in AI depends on who concentrates the largest amount of specialized human capital. The United States dominates due to its ability to attract international researchers, while China compensates through massive investment and domestic talent production. 3. The United States Leads the AI Race for Three Main Structural Reasons 1. Innovation, talent, and industry: The United States leads in high-impact research publications and AI startups (more than 50% worldwide). Private investment exceeded USD 350 billion in 2023 alone. Key companies include Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, NVIDIA, Tesla, and IBM, among others. 2. Computational infrastructure and chips: The country concentrates the most advanced computational infrastructure and controls cutting-edge chips (such as the NVIDIA H100), a resource that China cannot yet produce at the same level. 3. AI and national security: The United States allocates more than 16 federal agencies and billions of dollars annually to AI development for defense, cybersecurity, and intelligence (White House AI Budget, 2024). 4. China: The Emerging Superpower on the AI Path China ranks second globally in the AI race but follows a more aggressive, centralized, and ambitious strategy. • Massive investment as state policy: China has pledged to invest more than USD 150 billion by 2030 in AI under its Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan (AIDP) (Government of China, 2017). • Domestic talent production: China trains more AI engineers than any other country. Annual graduates in science and engineering reach 4.7 million, compared to 600,000 in the United States (UNESCO, 2023). However, a significant portion migrates to the U.S. due to better research conditions. • China’s role in the global AI industry: China leads in AI-based facial recognition, with generative AI startups such as Baidu, SenseTime, Alibaba Cloud, and Tencent AI Lab. It produces massive numbers of publications, although with lower scientific impact than those from the United States. AI is widely implemented in governance, security, and smart cities. • The chip dilemma: China depends on advanced semiconductors produced only by Taiwan (TSMC), South Korea (Samsung), and the United States/Netherlands (ASML). • Export controls: Export restrictions imposed on China since 2022 limit its ability to train frontier models, although the country is making radical investments to achieve chip sovereignty. 5. Europe, India, Israel, Canada, and Other Relevant Actors • Europe: The United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the Netherlands generate a solid ecosystem in algorithmic ethics, digital regulation (AI Act), and applied research. • India: The world’s main hub of engineering talent and a global provider of technological services. • Israel: A powerhouse in cybersecurity and military AI, with per-capita innovation comparable to Silicon Valley. • Canada: The birthplace of deep learning (Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio) and a strong center for basic research. 6. Africa on the AI Chessboard: Intentions, Challenges, and Opportunities Although Africa does not lead the AI race, its geopolitical role is growing rapidly for four strategic reasons. Africa is a major producer of critical minerals. AI depends on lithium, cobalt, graphite, and rare earth elements, and Africa holds 70% of the world’s cobalt reserves (in the DRC), as well as other strategic minerals in Zambia, Namibia, South Africa, and Mozambique. This places the continent in a key position within the supply chains for batteries, computers, and data centers. There is also a rapid expansion of digital infrastructure. China, through Huawei and ZTE, has built around 70% of Africa’s 4G network, as well as Ethiopia’s first smart data center and technology innovation hubs in Egypt, Kenya, and South Africa. Africa is entering the AI space through fintech, digital health, smart agriculture, and biometric systems. In terms of AI policy, African countries with formal AI strategies include Egypt, Rwanda, Kenya, and South Africa. • Threats and challenges: limited computational infrastructure, a deep digital divide, the risk of dependence on external technological solutions, the use of AI for political surveillance (as seen in Ethiopia and Uganda), and a shortage of specialized talent. 7. China and Africa: The Intersection of AI, Data, and Geopolitics China combines its role in AI with its influence in Africa through investments in digital infrastructure, the sale of surveillance systems, the construction of data centers, and technical training programs. This creates interdependence but also raises concerns: Africa could become dependent on Chinese systems that are difficult to replace. Data may become centralized on foreign platforms, and the risk of a technological debt trap adds to existing financial dependence. 8. AI, Regulation, and Global Governance The rapid expansion of AI calls for international treaties on data use, security standards, limits on military automation, and ethical regulations to protect civil society. Governance will be decisive in determining not only who leads, but also how this technology will be used in the coming decades. In this context, global AI governance has become a new field of geopolitical competition. While the European Union promotes a regulatory approach based on human rights and risk prevention, the United States favors market self-regulation and innovation, and China advances a model of state control and technological sovereignty. Multilateral organizations such as the UN, the OECD, and the G20 have begun discussing common principles, but there is still no binding international regime. The absence of clear rules increases the risks of an algorithmic arms race, the use of AI for mass surveillance, and the deepening of global inequalities in access to and control over technology. 9. Conclusions The United States leads due to innovation, global talent attraction, and computational capacity. China follows closely with a comprehensive state-led strategy and dominance in global digital infrastructure. Europe, India, Israel, and Canada contribute key elements to the global ecosystem. Africa, while not a leader, occupies an increasingly strategic role due to its resources, data, markets, and alliances. The race for AI will define not only the global economy, but also the balance of power in the international system of the 21st century. References -Stanford University.(2024). AI Index Report 2024. Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2024-ai-index-report?utm_source=chatgpt.com -International Data Corporation. (2023). Worldwide Artificial Intelligence Spending Guide. IDC. https://www.idc.com/data-analytics/spending-guide/ -State Council of the People’s Republic of China (2017). Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan. Government of China https://fi.china-embassy.gov -UNESCO. (2023). Global Education Monitoring Report: science, technology, engineering and mathematics. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://www.unesco.org/en -The White House. (2024). Federal AI Budget and National AI Strategy. Executive Office of the President of the United States. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/ -European Commission.(2023).Artificial Intelligence Act. Publications Office of the European Union. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai -Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). OECD. Artificial Intelligence Policy Observatory. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/artificial-intelligence.html

According to the IEA by 2024, more than 20% of new cars sold worldwide were electric, exceeding 17 million and positioning China as the leader in the market with more than 11 million sales. In comparison, the European and US markets also saw a growth in the sector, but not comparable to the Chinese counterpart. Figure 1: Global EV sales, 2014-2024. Source (IEA, 2025) Figure 2: EVs registrations share in China, US and Europe: 2018-2023. Source: IEA, 2025. On the other hand, autonomous vehicles, whose market value size was estimated at USD 68.09 billion in 2024, are also trending worldwide, North America being the largest market in 2024 (market share of 37.1% and passenger vehicles leading the market with 69% of the global revenue), while the Asia Pacific region is the fastest-growing market. Figure 3: Autonomous Vehicle Market. Source: Grand View Research. (Grand View Research, 2025) Recently, despite the data and market share, discussions and analysis of the vehicle industry have moved into new concerns related to security risks, trade protectionism and unfair competition. Why? Because the vehicle industry has evolved and adopted new technologies, at the same time, concerns have shifted accordingly. These changes have relied on or prioritized human convenience and connectivity over everything else. A New Security Paradigm for Mobility: Are Connected Cars Data Weapons A simple answer is no, but there are elements that can change the answer into a yes in the future. Vehicles are evolving into connected machines, with software-driven platforms, sensors, cameras, connectivity modules and AI systems. Thus, the vehicle industry is entering a new era where data is key, and whoever controls it, is likely to control the market itself. As mentioned before, vehicle-related security risks have sparked discussions in recent years. Nowadays, practically any vehicle sold has a certain degree of connectivity, naturally this leads to a continuous and massive collection of information (sensitive or not), including for example: real-time location, driving patterns, biometric data, audio recordings, images from the Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS) and more. For common people this might pass unnoticed but for governments, the fact of collecting and storing data or having the possibility to do so has become a critical point and a threat to their national security. After all, fear is real, and the more connected a vehicle is, the higher the chances that it can become a surveillance device, for example. The speculations can grow as much as our/their imagination leaves them, but after all, security risks and fear related to them exist. In line with the security risks, the possibility of software backdoors hidden in operating systems or telematic units is another possibility. Naturally, if exploited this possibility, these vulnerabilities could allow a remote shutdown of vehicles or fleets, manipulation of navigation systems or even data extraction could occur. In simple terms, this could open the door to cyberattacks, including the potential loss of control of a vehicle. Once again, the possibility of these ideas has reshaped and changed the paradigm of connected vehicles Actual measures and global regulatory trends As governments start recognizing these security threats associated with connected vehicles, many have begun implementing several regulations to protect their national security. For instance, the UK, Israel, the USA and the EU are among the most active actors. One of the branches of the economic war between the US and China is exactly the mobility industry, the fierce competition between both nations has tightened the nationalist policies of President Trump, in fact the US has rapidly adopted a national-security lens for automotive imports. There have been discussions in Congress and even the Commerce Department has proposed rules allowing Washington to prohibit connected car technologies linked to foreign adversaries. In addition, there is huge pressure over the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), specifically in the encouragement to revise the vehicles entering the US and the promotion of US vehicle-manufacturing companies. For those reasons, the US had imposed tariffs on Chinese-made vehicles (from 25% up to 100% on 2024 during Biden’s administration and later a 35.5% extra tariff on Chinese-made EVs) and had set several rules in line with the USMCA, to limit or protect the American market from Chinese vehicles, as it argued that China is taking advantage of the USMCA by using Mexico or Canada as the entry points to the American market, avoiding tariffs and minimizing costs. According to experts, this Chinese circumvention of US tariffs can occur in three main ways. First through transshipment – products enter Canada or Mexico and then they are shipped to the USA. The second way is by incorporating the Chinese products into the North American supply chains. And the third way is through direct Chinese investments in manufacturing facilities in Mexico or Canada. At the same time, across the Atlantic the EU has also been working on tightening regulations through the Cyber Resilience Act, as well as strengthening the General Safety Regulations, both focusing on the application of rigorous standards to vehicle cybersecurity, data governance, and supply-chain transparency. Also in Europe, recently, a British newspaper reported that military and intelligence chiefs had been ordered not to discuss official business while riding in EVs, and cars with Chinese components had been banned from sensitive military sites. In addition, the former head of the intelligence service MI6 claimed that Chinese-made technology, including cars, could be controlled and programmed remotely. Consequently, the UK has begun evaluating supply chains for hidden dependencies in infotainment systems, telematics, and semiconductors. In the same line, Israel has adopted rigid measures, the Israeli army has begun withdrawing Chinese-made vehicles from officers, citing espionage concerns. Other measures implemented include auditing imported vehicles to ensure no remote-access pathways existence, plus the encouragement of local automakers and tech firms to develop secure telematics modules to minimize foreign reliance. What is China’s role in this new paradigm? To understand the role of China in the EVs and connected vehicles is important to highlight the low labor costs in China, coupled with government subsidies and a well-structured and established supply chain, these three factors gave the Chinese firms huge advantages over their competitors. However, those are not the only factors involved in the equation, the promotion of EVs over internal combustion vehicles and the adoption and development of technologies that turn “simple” vehicles into connected vehicles are important to mention too. All these factors have been well capitalized by Chinese firms, in consequence, China has become the world’s largest EV exporter and somehow a threat for the West. As mentioned throughout the article, the security risks have sparked discussions and concerns, and it is fair, as Chinese-made vehicles have become competitive and technologically well-connected, much, that nowadays are in conditions to fight for the global automotive market. Therefore, there is a clear sense of concern among Western governments, especially in conditions of a politicized world that we live in nowadays. Naturally Beijing argues that bans and investigations on their Chinese-made vehicles are forms of economic protectionism and rejects any claims related to espionage, data leaks or misuse. While, it has also responded by tightening its own domestic rules: foreign vehicles are prohibited from accessing sensitive regions, including areas near government buildings and military facilities. Benefits and challenges for other key players and global automakers Automakers from Korea, Japan or the European and American are being directly benefited from the rising Chinese scrutiny of connected cars, meaning that new export and investment opportunities could be achieved by them. If these countries can materialize transparent software supply chains, strong cybersecurity frameworks, and local data-storage compliance, their advantage would increase. Specifically Korean and Japanese firms – which are proven reliable players with a strong presence worldwide and strengths in battery technology and infotainment systems –, can position themselves as trusted suppliers in those markets that are worried about Chinese-made vehicles and their possible espionage or security risks. On the other hand, however, there are big challenges ahead. If each country or region decides to have proper regulations, major hurdles will appear. For example; compliance costs will rise as automakers must meet different cybersecurity rules across regions; the technology surrounding software auditing, and the transparency of the supply chains itself will require significant investments; the supply chain and design of vehicles will be affected and in consequence production cost will increase; and, if there are different digital standards or rules, it is likely that there could be some limitations in the global interoperability. Conclusions While the rapid growth of EVs worldwide can be considered a good sign for sustainability goals – as they displaced over 1 million barrels per day of oil consumption in 2024 –. Recently there have appeared certain concerns related to security risks – proven or not – trade protectionism and unfair competition. On top of that, the transformation of cars into fully connected digital platforms has created a new paradigm, in which certain nations – mostly western nations – have started to be worried and rethinking their mobility through the lens of national security. In consequence, governments have tightened rules related to data, cybersecurity and foreign software dependencies. This new vision is already changing and transforming the vehicle industry, while the most affected, being the Chinese firms – due the natural competition and geopolitical reasons – there are other global automakers that, if they take the chance, could become key players – as far as they prioritize transparency in supply chains, security and technological trust. The new paradigm has shifted what used to be an ordinary, everyday product into a critical national infrastructure that must be subject to regulation. Finally, this paradigm also highlights the importance of data sovereignty and how important it has become and will be in the future. Referencias Carey, N. (2025, December 2). China floods the world with gasoline cars it can't sell at home. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/investigations/china-floods-world-with-gasoline-cars-it-cant-sell-home-2025-12-02/ European Commision. (2025, March 5). Industrial Action Plan for the European automotive sector . Retrieved from European Commision: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/89b3143e-09b6-4ae6-a826-932b90ed0816_en Financial Post. (2025, December 11). Why China's EVs are dangerous to Canada: CVMA. Retrieved from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV7bn29lpOQ Grand View Research. (2025). Autonomous Vehicle Market (2025 - 2030). Retrieved from Grand View Research: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/autonomous-vehicles-market IEA. (2025). Trends in electric car markets. Retrieved from IEA: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2025/trends-in-electric-car-markets-2 Introvigne, M. (2024, February 6). Should Chinese Electric Cars Be Banned in the West? Retrieved from Bitter Winter: https://bitterwinter.org/should-chinese-electric-cars-be-banned-in-the-west/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=11726773838&gbraid=0AAAAAC6C3PdZ9Jx_edcTzlW0hHoO8yN2D&gclid=CjwKCAiA3L_JBhAlEiwAlcWO59TNJrosoZkG7MwAid0bRuGKs5KY0P7csiXimfUzLlbYshtFMafkdxoCqvQQAvD_Bw Leggett, T. (2025, June 10). China's electric cars are becoming slicker and cheaper - but is there a deeper cost? Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8d4v69jw6o Meltzer, J. P., & Barron Esper, M. (2025, September 23). Is China circumventing US tariffs via Mexico and Canada? Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-china-circumventing-us-tariffs-via-mexico-and-canada/#:~:text=Chinese%20intermediate%20goods%20used%20in,to%20the%20production%20of%20new: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-china-circumventing-us-tariffs-via-mexico-and-canada/#:~:text=Chinese%20intermediate%20goods%20used%20in,to%20the%20production%20of%20new Navarrete, F. (2024, May 21). Aranceles de EU a autos chinos ponen en aprietos a México. Retrieved from El Financiero: https://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/empresas/2024/05/21/aranceles-de-eu-a-autos-chinos-ponen-en-aprietos-a-mexico/ Oertel, J. (2024, January 25). European Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from https://ecfr.eu/article/security-recall-the-risk-of-chinese-electric-vehicles-in-europe/: https://ecfr.eu/article/security-recall-the-risk-of-chinese-electric-vehicles-in-europe/ Radio biafra. (2025). Fearing data leaks, Israel bans Chinese-made cars for army officers. Retrieved from Radio biafra: https://radiobiafra.co/ Schuman, M. (2025, November). China’s EV Market Is Imploding. Retrieved from The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2025/11/china-electric-cars-market/684887/ Zhang, Z. (2025, December 4). China’s EV dominance sparks EU retaliation. Retrieved from East Asia Forum: https://eastasiaforum.org/2025/12/04/chinas-ev-dominance-sparks-eu-retaliation/

Introduction Soft-power dynamics have gained importance in the global arena. Moving from the classical cultural approach to the digital realm, soft power has now the ability to shift and transform geopolitics through technological influence. In the age of AI – where digital competitiveness across language blocs determines access to innovation, data, and influence – the emergence of a robust, multilingual digital ecosystem has become essential. Within this landscape, Spanish has become a key player. Spanish is a Romance language from the Indo-European language family that is spoken by around 636 million people worldwide. This number represents 7.6% of the global population and makes it the third most widely spoken mother tongue, after Mandarin and Hindi. Therefore, holding that position, Spanish has rapidly become one of the most influential languages in the digital sphere, this can be seen in the fact that Spanish ranks as the second most used language on the web, surpassed only by English. In fact, this digital presence is not a coincidence, it is part of a rapid digital reinvention driven by demographic strength, expanding connectivity, regional and local policies modernization, and a growing tech-savvy diaspora. Therefore, this transformation can be said to be reshaping Spanish-speaking economies, is enabling new digital ecosystems, and is positioning several Spanish-speaking countries as emerging innovation and digital hubs. As the transformations unfold, the digital reinvention of the Spanish-speaking world presents a powerful case of how linguistic, demographic, and technological forces converges to reshape geopolitical and economical power through digital soft-power. Figure 1: Spanish speaking countries. Source: Speak easy. The Acceleration Drivers For a better understanding, there are multiple forces that can explain why this shift is happening now. In economic terms, the demand for fintech, e-commerce, and mobile-based services has grown as Latin America’s expanding middle class accelerates the shift toward digital consumer habits. In demographic terms, with over 60% of the region’s population under 35 years old, it has one of the world’s youngest digital workforces. In addition, the large Spanish-speaking diaspora in the U.S. and Europe further amplifies cross-border entrepreneurship, remittances, and cultural-technological exchange. Moreover, global connectivity — expanded through fiber, 4G/5G networks, the widespread smartphone adoption and including digital transformation projects and financing — has enabled digital inclusion and remote-work globalization. While governments have also introduced strategic initiatives, such as digital identity programs, fintech sandboxes, and AI policies, helping structure the ecosystem. Key Regions Leading the Transformation Spain has become a European gateway for Spanish-speaking startups by providing access to EU-wide digital infrastructure, funding programs, and regulatory harmonization. For instance, Barcelona and Madrid – usually ranked among Europe’s top tech hubs –, and initiatives like ‘España Digital 2026’ or the AI Strategy 2020 have played an important role in supporting Spain in this regard. In addition, Spain is also home of one of the European Blockchain Service Infrastructure (EBSI) nodes and has hosted major innovation events like 4YFN or the Mobile World Congress, which help Latin American founders integrate into the EU market In the Americas, Argentina stands out for its strong AI talent pipeline and world-class developer community. The country produces one of the highest numbers of software engineers per capita in Latin America – just behind Brazil and Mexico –, and some Argentinian Universities – like the UBA and UTN – are constantly top-ranked in math and computer sciences in the region. In addition, Argentina is home to pioneering companies such as Auth0 or Mural, while its AI scene has also contributed to multilingual datasets and early experimentation with Large Language Models (LLM) fine-tuning tailored to Spanish and regional dialects. Argentina’s neighbor, Chile, has taken a leadership role in digital governance, cybersecurity, and regulatory modernization. In 2021, Chile became the first Latin American country to pass a National AI Policy, and it is among the first to establish a Fintech Law and regulatory sandbox, enabling companies like NotCo, Fintual, and Betterfly to scale with legal clarity. In terms of digital governance, Chile’s Digital Government Division is internationally recognized for its interoperability standards and cybersecurity strategy aligned with OECD recommendations. Colombia is another key player in the region as it is rapidly scaling its digital workforce and fintech ecosystem, becoming one of the fastest-growing digital economies in Latin America. For instance, companies such as Rappi, Addi, and Mercado Pago Colombia have turned the country into a logistics and payments innovation center. In addition, the Colombian government has boosted initiatives like Misión TIC 2022 – which objective was to train over 100,000 citizens in software development – or GovTech Colombia – aiming to accelerate digital procurement – to strength its young-tech talent base. Finally, Uruguay is known for having built one of the strongest digital infrastructures in the hemisphere. In this context, Uruguay – ranked among the top in digital connectivity worldwide – has a universal fiber-optic coverage and nearly 100% of households connected to high-speed internet through the public telecom company ANTEL. In addition, its digital ID system, Ceibal, and its national e-government platform, AGESIC, are considered global benchmarks for digital public infrastructure in the region. Figure 2: LATAM Fintech ecosystem growth. Source: Finn Summit. Data collected by Finnovista and the IDB within the framework of this report (2023) and historical data. The 2023 report considers 26 LAC countries, including The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago. https://www.finnosummit.com/en/fintech-ecosystem-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean-exceeds-3000-startups/ Where does innovation happen? As read in the previous section, innovation is happening already across different key sectors. For instance, AI and LLMs are rapidly being adapted to Spanish, Indigenous languages, and regional contexts. At the same time, the region’s fintech and digital banking sectors are expanding at remarkable speed, positioning Latin America as one of the world’s most dynamic fintech environments. On the other hand, smart cities and digital public infrastructure — such as digital IDs, online government portals, and interoperable public services — are being deployed across major urban areas. In parallel, the EdTech sector is training millions of new professionals and turning the region into an exporter of digital-skilled talent. Finally, e-commerce and logistics innovations are also undergoing transformation, they are evolving introducing blockchain and Web3 frameworks, enabling new forms of decentralized marketplaces and governance. Together, these developments reveal how the Spanish-speaking world is building a connected and technologically adaptive innovation landscape. Figure 3: Innovation competitiveness scores of certain Spanish-speaking countries. Source: ITIF. Latin American Subnational Innovation Competitiveness Index 2.0 https://itif.org/publications/2025/09/22/latin-american-subnational-innovation-competitiveness-index-2/ Challenges However, despite the rapid progress shown, several issues continue to limit the digital transformation of the Spanish-speaking world. First, the digital divide remains a major challenge, particularly between urban centers with high-speed connectivity and rural or low-income areas where access to broadband, devices, and digital skills is still limited. Therefore, the resulting gap is visible in education, financial inclusion, and the ability of smaller communities to participate in the digital economy. The second challenge is the regulatory lag, which is also slowing the adoption of emerging technologies such as AI, cryptocurrency, and automation. This can be visible in the fact that many countries are still developing comprehensive frameworks for data protection, AI ethics, and digital asset oversight, usually leaving innovators operating in uncertain legal environments in the meantime. The third challenge is talent mobility. The region continues to experience significant brain drain as skilled workers tend to migrate to the U.S. and Europe. Even though there is an emerging countertrend of “brain return” thanks to remote-work global hiring, competitive salaries in tech, and new government incentives aimed at retaining or repatriating talent, still is not enough and is a challenge to be addressed. Finally, the fourth challenge is the cybersecurity risks, which have also become a big problem. Latin America has become one of the regions most targeted by ransomware and phishing attacks, vulnerabilities in public infrastructure, small businesses, and critical sectors have been highlighted in most of these attacks. In addition, the spread of misinformation and weak data-governance systems further threaten trust in digital services and democratic institutions. What Comes Next? Although significant challenges remain, addressing them requires aligning technological growth with stronger governance, skilled talent, sustained investment in human capital, and resilient digital infrastructure. Therefore, the next phase of digital reinvention will likely focus on region-wide AI standards, cross-border digital markets, and stronger public-private collaboration to scale infrastructure, talent pipelines, and cybersecurity. Thus, countries that successfully integrate education reforms, innovation incentives, and robust digital institutions will position themselves as global players in emerging technologies. Conclusion Spanish, as the third most spoken language in the world, provides a unique base for building a shared digital ecosystem that could connect people across continents – or the world. This linguistic advantage – combined with a young population, a growing connectivity, and a wave of technological innovation – has positioned the Spanish-speaking world at a pivotal moment of digital reinvention. Countries within the Spanish-speaking sphere are not only adapting new tools or technologies; they are building digital public infrastructure, developing and exporting tech talent, and contributing and participating in the global development of AI, fintech, and smart-city solutions. Still, innovation on its own is not enough. Consequently, closing the gap in the digital divide, strengthening cybersecurity, modernizing regulations, and finding ways to retain and reverse brain drain remain the main challenges. If governments and private actors succeed in building resilient digital institutions and harmonizing regional standards, the Spanish-speaking world could emerge as a major center of global technological influence. Ultimately, this transformation has the potential not just to modernize economies, but to redefine how more than 600 million Spanish speakers participate – and shape – in the digital age. Referencias AGESIC (Agencia de Gobierno Digital) (2023). Digital Government Strategy of Uruguay 2020–2025. https://www.gub.uy/agesic/ BIS (Bank for International Settlements) (2022). Fintech Regulation and Payment Systems in Latin America and the Caribbean. https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap124.pdf CAF (2022). GovTech Index for Latin America — Colombia Chapter. https://scioteca.caf.com/handle/123456789/1916 CAF (2022). Urban Mobility Observatory: Digital Public Infrastructure in Latin American Cities. https://www.caf.com/en/knowledge/ CB Insights (2023). Global Fintech Report: Q4 2023 — Latin America Section. https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/fintech-trends-q4-2023/ CMF Chile (2022). Ley Fintech y Marco Regulatorio para Innovación Financiera. https://www.cmfchile.cl ECLAC (2022). State of Digital Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. https://www.cepal.org/en/publications ECLAC (2023). Status of Digital Infrastructure in Uruguay. https://www.cepal.org/en European Commission (2023). Spain Digital 2026: Spain’s Digital Transformation Strategy. https://espanadigital.gob.es/ Fira Barcelona (2023). Smart City Expo LATAM Congress Report. https://www.smartcityexpolatam.com GSMA (2023). Mobile World Capital Barcelona: Digital Talent Overview. https://www.mobileworldcapital.com GSMA (2023). The Mobile Economy: Latin America 2023. https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/latin-america/ Government of Chile (2021). National Artificial Intelligence Policy. https://www.ciencia.gob.cl/ia/ IDB (2021) Accelerating the Digitization of SMEs in Latin America and the Caribbean. https://www.iadb.org/en/project/RG-T3902#:~:text=and%20the%20Caribbean-,Accelerating%20the%20Digitization%20of%20SMEs%20in%20Latin%20America%20and%20the,the%20digital%20transformation%20of%20MSMEs. IDB (2022). The Digital Transformation of Latin America and the Caribbean: Opportunities, Challenges and Policy Priorities. https://flagships.iadb.org/en/MicroReport/digitalizing-public-services-opportunities-for-latin-america-and-the-caribbean IDB (2023). Argentina’s Digital Talent and Innovation Ecosystem. https://www.iadb.org/en IDB (2025) IDB Approves Financing to Support Digital Transformation and Use of Artificial Intelligence in Piauí, Brazil. https://www.iadb.org/en/news/idb-approves-financing-support-digital-transformation-and-use-artificial-intelligence-piaui-brazil#:~:text=The%20expansion%20of%20connectivity%20is,co%2Dfinancing%20is%20$12.5%20million.&text=The%20Inter%2DAmerican%20Development%20Bank%20(IDB)%20is%20devoted%20to,well%2Dbeing%20in%2026%20countries. Instituto Cervantes (2025). Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2025: El Español en el Mundo. https://www.cervantes.es/sobre_instituto_cervantes/informes_actividad/anuario.htm MIT Technology Review (2023). AI Innovation in Latin America: Spanish-Speaking Ecosystems. https://www.technologyreview.com/ Ministerio TIC (2022). Misión TIC — Informe de Resultados. https://mintic.gov.co OECD (2020). Digital Government Review of Chile: En Chile, hacia un Estado Digital. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/digital-government-in-chile_9789264258013-en.html OECD (2020). Latin American Economic Outlook 2020: Digital Transformation for Building Back Better. https://doi.org/10.1787/20725140 OECD (2022). OECD Digital Government Review of Spain: Enhancing the Digital Transformation of the Public Sector. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/07/enhancing-digital-diffusion-for-higher-productivity-in-spain_8b97078e/ce12270a-en.pdf Poorte, Marielle (2025) How many people speak Spanish in the world? 42 Statistics. Speak easy. https://www.speakeasybcn.com/en/blog/how-many-people-in-the-world-speak-spanish#:~:text=42%20statistics%20about%20Spanish%20speakers,most%20widely%20spoken%20Romance%20language. Stanford HAI (2024). AI Index Report 2024 — Regional Spotlight: Latin America. https://aiindex.stanford.edu/report/ Statista (2023). Fintech in Latin America – Market Insights and Outlook. https://www.statista.com/topics/5123/fintech-in-latin-america/?srsltid=AfmBOorQcdxpAWPuf6g7Ojqbg8Yb_bQtZZmsl--OxOL29w4nQxKsI8lp#topicOverview UNESCO (2021). Latin America and the Caribbean: Artificial Intelligence Needs, Challenges and Opportunities. https://unesdoc.unesco.org United Nations (2022). World Population Prospects 2022 — Latin America & Caribbean Profile. https://population.un.org/wpp/ World Bank (2020). Argentina: Fostering Technology and Innovation for Productivity. https://documents.worldbank.org World Bank (2021). Digital Economy for Latin America and the Caribbean (DE4LAC) Report. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/digitaldevelopment World Bank (2022). GovTech Maturity Index 2022 — Uruguay Profile. https://www.unesco.org/ethics-ai/en/uruguay World Bank (2023). Colombia Digital Economy Country Assessment (DECA). https://www.worldbank.org

Abstract This paper analyses the escalating tensions between the United States and Venezuela as of 2025, focusing on the Caribbean regional security complex. Under President Donald Trump, U.S. - Venezuela relations have sharply deteriorated, marked by increased military deployments, including the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, and over 4,000 troops near Venezuela. Operation Southern Spear targets alleged narco-terrorist groups linked to Venezuela, with numerous airstrikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels resulting in significant casualties. Despite official claims of counternarcotics objectives, critics question the legality and evidence supporting these actions. Venezuela, backed by Russian arms and military support, has mobilised substantial forces and prepared for guerrilla resistance. The potential for full-scale conflict remains elevated but uncertain, complicated by domestic U.S. opposition, legal constraints, and regional diplomatic backlash. Additionally, Venezuela's rare earth mineral deposits add a strategic dimension to the conflict amid global supply chain concerns. The study highlights the multifaceted geopolitical, military, and economic factors shaping this volatile confrontation. Key Words: the U.S., Venezuela, Regional Security Complex Introduction Recently, the U.S.-Venezuela relations have deteriorated significantly under President Donald Trump, marking a continuation of longstanding tensions rooted in U.S. opposition to the socialist government led by President Nicolás Maduro, including past sanctions and diplomatic isolation. [1] The year 2025 has seen a sharp escalation in U.S. military posturing framed as a counternarcotics campaign, with Trump signing a secret directive in August authorising Pentagon forces against select Latin American drug cartels, including those allegedly tied to Venezuelan entities.[2] This has involved designating groups like Tren de Aragua (TdA) as a foreign terrorist organisation in February and the Cartel de los Soles as a transnational terrorist group in July, with unsubstantiated claims linking them to Maduro's regime in drug trafficking operations targeting the U.S.[3] Recent developments alarmingly include a U.S. military build-up in the Caribbean since August 2025, featuring assets such as Aegis-class destroyers, nuclear-powered submarines, the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, over 4,000 troops deployed off Venezuela's coast, an additional 5,000 on standby in Puerto Rico, F-35 fighter jets, MQ-9 Reaper drones, and B-52 bomber demonstration flights over Caracas. Starting in September, the U.S. has conducted at least 16 airstrikes on suspected drug-running boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific waters, resulting in at least 67 deaths. However, critics argue that these lack sufficient evidence of drug ties and raise concerns over extrajudicial killings.[4] Administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, have emphasised that these operations are limited to maritime counternarcotics and intelligence gathering, with no current plans for strikes inside Venezuela itself, citing a lack of legal justification for land-based actions under existing Justice Department opinions. However, the administration is seeking a new legal opinion to potentially authorise future land strikes without congressional approval, aligning with Trump's hints that Maduro's leadership is nearing its end.[5] On November 6, 2025, the U.S. Senate rejected a bipartisan resolution under the 1973 War Powers Act that would have required congressional authorisation for any military attack on Venezuela, failing by a 51-49 vote, with only two Republicans — Sens. Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski — joining Democrats in support.[6] Some have interpreted this vote as giving tacit approval to Trump's "America First" doctrine, which critics compare to past interventions in Panama (1989) or Iraq (2003), warning of risks like regional instability or failed regime change efforts. Economically, the intensified U.S. pressure has led to a surge in Venezuelan bond prices, reflecting investor speculation on the potential for regime change amid the country's $150 billion in defaulted debt and interest payments.[7] Broader implications include debates over Trump's endgame, with experts suggesting limited strikes to pressure elites around Maduro rather than a full invasion. However, this could echo U.S. misadventures in Afghanistan or Libya.[8] From Venezuela's perspective and allied views, these actions represent an imperialistic push to undermine the Bolivarian Revolution, potentially through fabricated pretexts or assassinations, with international actors like China and Russia conducting joint exercises in the region to counter U.S. moves.[9] Congressional Democrats have voiced scepticism over the campaign's legality and transparency, while Republicans largely support executive authority in combating drug threats.[10] Source: https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/instability-venezuela The U.S. military build-up towards Venezuela Diplomatic relations were terminated in 2019 following the United States' recognition of opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's interim president. Consequently, as reported by the media, several South American nations, including Brazil, Colombia, and Peru, have also acknowledged Mr. Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela.[11] In response to President Trump's recognition of the opposition leader, President Maduro severed diplomatic relations with the United States and mandated that its diplomatic personnel vacate Venezuela within 72 hours. He accused Washington of attempting to govern Venezuela remotely and alleged that the opposition was endeavouring to orchestrate a coup. Consequently, the U.S. embassy in Caracas remains closed. The United States continues to recognise the National Assembly elected in 2015, but ceased to acknowledge Guaidó's presidential claim in 2023. The U.S. government maintains that neither Maduro nor his affiliates represent the legitimate Venezuelan government. [12] Furthermore, the United States has markedly augmented its military presence in the Caribbean Sea as part of "Operation Southern Spear," purportedly to address drug trafficking. This initiative includes the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier and thousands of military personnel, constituting the largest military deployment to the region in several decades.[13] As reported by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, recent operations have primarily targeted vessels suspected of drug smuggling. The initial attack was recorded on September 2 in the Caribbean, and since then, the frequency of these attacks has increased, extending into the Eastern Pacific.[14]    Reports suggest the strikes in the Caribbean have occurred near the Venezuelan coast. Previous analysis by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) described a potential U.S. surveillance operation off the coast, which the United States has purportedly established to detect and target potential drug traffickers before they integrate with the dense maritime traffic of the Caribbean.[15] Until late summer, the deployment of U.S. Navy ships to the Caribbean was relatively limited compared to previous years. However, as illustrated in Figure 2, this situation changed in August when the administration initiated a significant increase in forces to combat drug smuggling. Deployment levels further escalated with the arrival of the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group (CSG).[16]    Recent deployments have also involved larger vessels, which bring substantial firepower and additional combat capabilities. A rudimentary method to quantify the enhancement in capability is to examine the displacement of the deployed ships. Figure 3 illustrates the significant increase in the displacement of deployed ships since the commencement of the second Trump administration. The initial major increase occurred with the deployment of the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group; the arrival of the Ford CSG nearly doubled the number.[17]   Since September 2025, the U.S. has conducted a series of airstrikes on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, which it claims are drug-trafficking vessels operated by "narco-terrorist" organisations like the Tren de Aragua gang.[18] On Monday, September 15, President Trump announced that, under his directive, United States military forces executed a second kinetic strike against drug trafficking cartels and narco-terrorists identified as extraordinarily violent within the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. This strike was conducted while these confirmed narco-terrorists from Venezuela were in international waters, transporting illegal narcotics intended for the United States, which he described as a deadly weapon poisoning Americans. In the same announcement, President Trump asserted that these extremely violent drug trafficking cartels pose a threat to U.S. national security, foreign policy, and vital U.S. interests.[19] The strike on September 15 resulted in the deaths of three individuals aboard the vessel. Subsequently, on Friday, September 19, U.S. military forces executed an additional strike. President Trump asserted that, under his directive, forces conducted a strike against a designated terrorist organisation involved in narco-trafficking. Intelligence confirmed that the vessel was transporting illicit narcotics and was en route to harm Americans. The strike resulted in the deaths of three male narco-terrorists. It remains unclear which group within the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility was targeted in the third airstrike.[20] On September 2, 2025, the United States military conducted its initial strike, resulting in the deaths of 11 individuals suspected of narco-terrorism. Following the third strike, the cumulative number of suspected drug traffickers killed reached 17. By mid-November 2025, at least 20 strikes had been announced, resulting in over 80 deaths, with most occurring in the Caribbean and several expanding to the Pacific off South America's coast.[21] U.S. officials, including President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have justified the actions as part of a counternarcotics campaign against groups like TdA and the Colombian National Liberation Army (ELN), framing them as an "armed attack" on the U.S. and releasing videos of some strikes.[22] Maduro's government has denounced the U.S. actions as acts of aggression and "regime change through military threat," launching its own "massive mobilisation" of troops and military exercises in response.[23] Additionally, the Colombian president, Gustavo Petro, who is in the midst of a spat with Donald Trump over the boat strikes and tariffs, said: "The attack on another boat in the Pacific … killed people. It is murder. Whether in the Caribbean or Pacific, the U.S. government strategy breaks the norms of international law." Interestingly, María Corina Machado, a prominent Venezuelan politician and opposition leader, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025 for her "unwavering commitment to promoting democracy and human rights in Venezuela", according to The Nobel Prize.[24] Following her award on October 10, 2025, Machado has called for increased international support, urging U.S. leaders like Donald Trump to intensify pressure on Maduro to facilitate a democratic transition, including by calling for military intervention.[25] The military build-up has fueled speculation of a potential U.S. invasion, though President Trump downplayed the possibility, saying he "doubts it". Experts disagree on the likelihood of a full-scale invasion, noting the U.S. has previously opted for sanctions and diplomatic pressure over direct military action. War Speculation As of mid-November 2025 (when this analysis is written), the likelihood of a full-scale war between the United States and Venezuela remains elevated but not imminent or inevitable.[I] While tensions have escalated dramatically through U.S. military build-up and operations in the Caribbean, several restraining factors—including domestic U.S. opposition, legal hurdles, and high risks of failure would suggest a medium probability of limited escalation to airstrikes or missile attacks on Venezuelan targets, but a lower chance of a ground invasion or prolonged conflict. As mentioned above, the U.S. did launch "Operation Southern Spear" on November 13, a joint task force under U.S. Southern Command aimed at defending against "narco-terrorists" allegedly tied to Venezuela.[26] The arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group on November 11 has shifted the focus toward potential anti-Maduro operations, supported by a build-up of over a dozen warships, an attack submarine, amphibious vessels, roughly 15,000 troops (including Marines in joint exercises with Trinidad and Tobago), 10 F-35 fighter jets, drones, and special operations forces in the region and Puerto Rico. [27] President Trump has authorised CIA covert operations in Venezuela and, on November 14, stated he has "sort of made up my mind" on military options after briefings from top officials like Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. [28] He has suggested "the land is going to be next" after maritime strikes, hinting at ground operations or strikes on Venezuelan soil, such as military facilities, drug routes, or even targeting Maduro directly.[29] However, Trump has also mentioned possible discussions with Maduro and expressed caution about actions that could fail or entangle U.S. troops. In response, Venezuela has mobilised around 200,000 military personnel, civilians, and militias in large-scale exercises, deploying aging Russian-made equipment like 5,000 Igla missiles and preparing for guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and "anarchization" strategies to make the country ungovernable for invaders[30] Maduro has warned that U.S. intervention would turn Venezuela into "another Gaza, Afghanistan, or Vietnam," emphasising national resistance.[31] What could enhance the likelihood of a war between the U.S. and Venezuela? The U.S. holds overwhelming advantages in air, sea, and missile capabilities (e.g., up to 170 Tomahawk missiles in the region, stealth bombers for long-range strikes), making initial air or missile campaigns feasible without ground forces.[32] Venezuela's forces are numerically larger on land but poorly trained, under-equipped, and focused on internal control, with limited operational aircraft and inoperable submarines.[33] Experts note that this imbalance could encourage U.S. escalation, similar to the 1989 invasion of Panama.[34] Trump's administration views the situation as an "armed attack" on the U.S. via drugs and migration, with regime change as a potential endgame to disrupt flows and secure oil deals.[35] The Senate's rejection of a War Powers Act resolution earlier in November gives tacit executive leeway. Analysts describe the region as "on the brink," with the carrier deployment starting a "shot clock" for action before unsustainable costs mount.[36] There are several arguments against a potential war. According to YouGov.US, polls show that 55% of Americans oppose a U.S. invasion, with only 15% in support, including majorities among Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans.[37] Apparently, Trump's anti-war coalition, including figures like Vice President JD Vance and Hegseth, is sceptical of foreign entanglements.[38] According to experts, there is no current legal justification for land strikes, as the War Powers Act's 60-day limit has expired and Congress is pressing for transparency.[39] Regional leaders (e.g., Brazil's Lula, Colombia's Petro, Mexico's Sheinbaum) condemn the build-up as aggression, suspending intelligence sharing and evoking "gunboat diplomacy." What is more, the UN and human rights criticisms label U.S. actions as potential extrajudicial killings, risking broader isolation.[40] A full invasion could require 50,000 - 150,000 troops, facing guerrilla resistance in challenging terrain and leading to a failed state or protracted insurgency (comparisons to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). Experts warn it won't solve drug or dictator issues, damaging U.S. credibility in Latin America (e.g., falling favourability ratings) and diverting from diplomatic alternatives. What about Russia? – Is there the potential for another Cuban Missile Crisis? Russia has been Venezuela's primary arms supplier since the early 2000s under former President Hugo Chávez, providing a wide array of military equipment that forms the backbone of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) and plays a central role in its defence strategy amid escalating U.S. - Venezuela tensions in 2025.[41] This arsenal, largely Soviet-era designs manufactured or upgraded by Russia, distinguishes Venezuela's military from others in Latin America, which typically rely on U.S. or European weaponry, and is intended to deter external aggression, particularly from the U.S., through asymmetric warfare capabilities.[42] Among the most critical for countering U.S. air and naval superiority are Russian-derived air defence and missile systems. In this category, according to media, the key assets include: 12 batteries of S-300 long-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), nine Buk-M2E medium-range SAMs, 44 S-125 Pechora-2M short-range SAMs, and thousands of portable Igla-S shoulder-fired SAMs (with up to 5,000 units reported in some estimates).[43] The S-300 and Buk systems are positioned to protect key sites like oil facilities and radar installations, potentially threatening U.S. aircraft, helicopters, and drones at various altitudes. Igla-S launchers are distributed to regular troops and the Bolivarian Militia for low-altitude defence.[44] As for the aircraft and anti-ship capabilities, experts estimate around 20-30 Sukhoi Su-30MK2 multirole fighter jets, armed with Kh-31 "Krypton" anti-ship and anti-radar missiles, serve as the core of Venezuela's air force. [45] These jets, equipped with long-range air-to-air missiles, could challenge U.S. naval vessels in the Caribbean by launching sea-skimming attacks, forcing U.S. forces to operate under heightened risk. Russia has also provided Mi-17 and Mi-35 helicopters for transport and attack roles.[46] As for ground and artillery systems, Venezuela fields 92 T-72B1 main battle tanks, 123 BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles, Msta-S self-propelled howitzers, and Smerch multiple rocket launchers.[47] Infantry weapons include Kalashnikov rifles (e.g., AK-103) and Dragunov sniper rifles, with a new factory opened in July 2025 for producing Kalashnikov munitions to sustain supply.[48] Finally, as for other support systems, Russian radar arrays and electronic warfare tools, integrated with Chinese communications, enable jamming of U.S. signals, creating a contested electromagnetic environment.[49] These systems contribute to Venezuela's overall force of about 150,000 active personnel, plus a Bolivarian Militia estimated at 220,000 - 1 million (with government claims up to 8 million), which could use Russian arms for guerrilla-style resistance.[50] Amid heightened U.S. pressure, President Nicolás Maduro drafted a letter in October 2025 requesting additional Russian missiles, radars, drones, upgraded aircraft, and other support directly from Vladimir Putin.[51] According to the media, a Russian Ilyushin Il-76 cargo plane, linked to military or Wagner Group operations, landed in Caracas in late October to deliver cargo, potentially including arms or parts.[52] Russia has also allegedly assisted in maintenance and opened a Kalashnikov munitions factory in Venezuela in July 2025. However, experts caution that Russia's commitments may be limited due to its focus on Ukraine, economic strains, and reliance on allies like China and Iran for broader support, suggesting more symbolic gestures (e.g., past bomber deployments in 2018-2019) than substantial reinforcements.[53] This aid seems to be part of a multipolar strategy involving China and Iran, but Russia's role remains pivotal in sustaining Venezuela's deterrent posture. Conclusion What about Venezuela's rare earths? Venezuela does have deposits of rare earth elements (REEs), though they are not among the world's largest or most developed reserves. Known occurrences include the Navay phosphate deposit in southwestern Venezuela, where phosphorites contain REE concentrations averaging around 208 parts per million, with potential for extraction as a byproduct of phosphoric acid production.[54] Additional deposits occur in the Amazon Basin and the Guiana Shield, particularly in the Bolívar and Amazonas states, where REEs are found alongside other critical minerals, such as coltan (a source of tantalum), tin, and tungsten.[55] These areas feature preliminary survey results indicating reserves of around 43 million tons of ore with REE oxide concentrations averaging 1.5%, though much of the extraction is informal and unregulated.[56] Historically, Venezuela has exported small amounts of REE compounds, such as $27,600 worth in 2003, but current production is limited and often tied to illicit mining.[57] REEs play a minor but notable role in the ongoing tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela, primarily as part of broader competition over critical minerals rather than as a central driver of the conflict. The main issues in US-Venezuela relations remain oil sanctions, political disputes over the Maduro regime, and human rights concerns, but Venezuela's mineral resources—including REEs and coltan—have drawn international attention amid global supply chain vulnerabilities.[58] The U.S. defence and technology sectors rely on these materials for applications such as fighter jets, missiles, and electronics, and Venezuela's deposits are seen as potential alternatives to China's dominant supply, especially after China's recent export restrictions heightened Western diversification efforts.[59] Mining in these areas is often controlled by armed groups like the ELN and FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) dissidents—designated as terrorist organisations by the U.S.—leading to smuggling, environmental damage, and human rights abuses that complicate international involvement.[60] Some analysts suggest that U.S. policies, including sanctions and border measures, may indirectly aim to secure access to these resources to counter China's influence, viewing Venezuela's alliances with Beijing as a strategic threat in the context of rare-earth dependencies.[61] However, REEs are not the primary motivator compared to oil, and their extraction remains largely illicit rather than a formalised point of diplomatic contention.[62] Notes [I] Importantly, on November 29, 2025, President Donald Trump declared that the airspace "above and surrounding" Venezuela should be considered "closed in its entirety. See more at: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/29/trump-venezuelan-airspace-military-00670743 References [1] U.S. Relations With Venezuela. (2024, July 18). U.S. Department of State. https://2021-2025.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-venezuela/ [2] U.S. Confrontation With Venezuela. (2025, July 11). Global Conflict Tracker. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/instability-venezuela [3] The United States Continues Its Attempt to Overthrow Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution: The Forty-Fifth Newsletter (2025). (2025, November 6). Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/us-threats-venezuela/ [4] Bertrand, N., Hansler, J., Lillis, K. B., Cohen, Z., & Atwood, K. (2025, November 7). Trump admin tells Congress it currently lacks legal justification to strike Venezuela. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/06/politics/trump-venezuela-legal-congress-land [5] War looms in Venezuela as Trump tests an “Americas First” doctrine. (2025, November 6). The Economist. https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2025/11/06/war-looms-in-venezuela-as-trump-tests-an-americas-first-doctrine [6] O’Brien, C., & Gould, J. (2025, November 6). Senate sinks measure to block military action against Venezuela. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/11/06/congress/senate-venezuela-vote-00640088 [7] Campos, R. (2025, November 7). Venezuela bonds surge as US pressure intensifies on Maduro. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-bonds-surge-us-pressure-intensifies-maduro-2025-11-06/ [8] Kroenig, M., & Marczak, J. (2025, November 6). The expert conversation: What’s Trump’s endgame in Venezuela? Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-expert-conversation-whats-trumps-endgame-in-venezuela/ [9] The United States Continues Its Attempt to Overthrow Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution: The Forty-Fifth Newsletter (2025). (2025, November 6). Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/us-threats-venezuela/ [10] Bertrand, N., Hansler, J., Lillis, K. B., Cohen, Z., & Atwood, K. (2025, November 7). Trump admin tells Congress it currently lacks legal justification to strike Venezuela. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/06/politics/trump-venezuela-legal-congress-land [11] Juan Guaidó: US backs opposition leader as Venezuela president. (2019, January 24). BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46980913 [12] Lee, D. D., & News Agencies. (2025, October 7). Venezuela’s Maduro says US embassy ‘false flag’ bombing foiled in Caracas. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/7/venezuelas-maduro-says-us-embassy-false-flag-bombing-foiled-in-caracas#:~:text=Following%20the%20rupture%20of%20diplomatic,and%20upkeep%20of%20the%20premises. [13] Operation Southern Spear: Latest Development in Operationalizing Robotic and Autonomous Systems. (2025, January 28). America’s Navy. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/4044322/operation-southern-spear-latest-development-in-operationalizing-robotic-and-aut/ [14] Cancian, M. F., & Park, C. H. (2025, November 10). Trump’s Caribbean Campaign: The Data Behind Operation Southern Spear. https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-caribbean-campaign-data-behind-developing-conflict [15] Ibidem. [16] Ibidem. [17] Ibidem. [18] Ducharme, J. (2025, September 22). Trump’s Caribbean Campaign: The Data Behind Operation Southern Spear. Orion Policy Institute. https://orionpolicy.org/airstrikes-on-drug-traffickers-in-the-caribbean/ [19] Ibidem. [20] Madhani, A. (2025, September 19). Trump says U.S. has carried out another fatal strike targeting alleged drug-smuggling boat. CNBC. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/trump-us-strike-drug-smuggling-boat/3694397/ [21] Flaherty, A., & Pereira, I. (2025, November 17). Timeline: US strikes on alleged drug boats. CBCNews. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-us-strikes-alleged-drug-boats/story?id=126940218 [22] Jaffe, A. (2025, October 30). Assessing the Facts and Legal Questions About the U.S. Strikes on Alleged Drug Boats. FactCheck.Org. https://www.factcheck.org/2025/10/assessing-the-facts-and-legal-questions-about-the-u-s-strikes-on-alleged-drug-boats/ [23] Lowell, H., & staff, G. (2025, October 23). US military kills five people in strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in Pacific. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/22/military-boat-strike-pacific-pete-hegseth [24] Maria Corina Machado Facts. (2025, November 20). The Nobel Prize. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2025/machado/facts/ [25] Nobel Peace Prize Winner: US Escalation Is “Only Way” to Free Venezuela. (2025, October 31). Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-maria-corina-machado-weekend-interview/?embedded-checkout=true [26] Cancian, M. F., & Park, C. H. (2025, November 10). Trump’s Caribbean Campaign: The Data Behind Operation Southern Spear. CSIS. https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-caribbean-campaign-data-behind-developing-conflict [27] Ibidem. [28] Klein, B., Liptak, K., Britzky, H., & Atwood, K. (2025, November 17). Trump has suggested he’s made a decision on Venezuela military operations. Here’s what we know. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/15/politics/venezuela-trump-military-what-we-know [29] Reuters. (2025, November 12). Venezuelan military preparing guerrilla response in case of US attack. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuelan-military-preparing-guerrilla-response-case-us-attack-2025-11-11/ [30] Venezuela announces ‘massive mobilization’ of military forces as America’s largest warship sails into region. (2025, November 12). CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/11/americas/venezuela-military-mobilization-us-buildup-intl-latam [31] Venezuelan military preparing guerrilla response in case of US attack. (2025, November 12). Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuelan-military-preparing-guerrilla-response-case-us-attack-2025-11-11/ [32] Cancian, M. F., & Park, C. H. (2025, November 10). Trump’s Caribbean Campaign: The Data Behind Operation Southern Spear. CSIS. https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-caribbean-campaign-data-behind-developing-conflict [33] Ibidem. [34] Cancian, M. F., & Park, C. H. (2025, November 10). Trump’s Caribbean Campaign: The Data Behind Operation Southern Spear. CSIS. https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-caribbean-campaign-data-behind-developing-conflict [35] Vidaurri, M., Marckwardt, J., & Gedan, B. N. (2025, November 14). A War in Venezuela Would Not Solve Latin America’s Drug and Dictator Problems. STIMSON. https://www.stimson.org/2025/a-war-in-venezuela-would-not-solve-latin-americas-drug-and-dictator-problems/ [36] Cancian, M. F., & Park, C. H. (2025, November 10). Trump’s Caribbean Campaign: The Data Behind Operation Southern Spear. CSIS. https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-caribbean-campaign-data-behind-developing-conflict [37] Rossell Hayes, A., & Orth, T. (2025, October 31). The U.S. Navy deployment near Venezuela has become even less popular in the past month. YouGov.US. https://today.yougov.com/international/articles/53298-the-us-navy-deployment-near-venezuela-has-become-even-less-popular [38i] Klein, B., Liptak, K., Britzky, H., & Atwood, K. (2025, November 17). Trump has suggested he’s made a decision on Venezuela military operations. Here’s what we know. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/15/politics/venezuela-trump-military-what-we-know [39] Vidaurri, M., Marckwardt, J., & Gedan, B. N. (2025, November 14). A War in Venezuela Would Not Solve Latin America’s Drug and Dictator Problems. STIMSON. https://www.stimson.org/2025/a-war-in-venezuela-would-not-solve-latin-americas-drug-and-dictator-problems/ [40] Tisdall, S. (2025, November 16). The US is now a rogue state - look at its extrajudicial killings off Venezuela’s coast. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/16/us-rogue-state-extrajudicial-killings-venezuela [41] Padinger, G. (2025, November 14). How Venezuela’s aging Soviet-era military stacks up against US forces in the Caribbean. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/13/americas/venezuela-military-us-tensions-explainer-intl-latam [42] Frazier, A. (2025, October 20). What U.S. Forces Face as Venezuela Puts Russian-Armed Military on Wartime Alert. MIlitary.Com. https://www.military.com/daily-news/investigations-and-features/2025/10/20/what-us-forces-face-venezuela-puts-russian-armed-military-wartime-alert.html [43] Ibidem. [44] Padinger, G. (2025, November 14). How Venezuela’s aging Soviet-era military stacks up against US forces in the Caribbean. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/13/americas/venezuela-military-us-tensions-explainer-intl-latam [45] Frazier, A. (2025, October 20). What U.S. Forces Face as Venezuela Puts Russian-Armed Military on Wartime Alert. MIlitary.Com. https://www.military.com/daily-news/investigations-and-features/2025/10/20/what-us-forces-face-venezuela-puts-russian-armed-military-wartime-alert.html [46] Ibidem. [47] Padinger, G. (2025, November 14). How Venezuela’s aging Soviet-era military stacks up against US forces in the Caribbean. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/13/americas/venezuela-military-us-tensions-explainer-intl-latam [48] Bayoumi, I., & Magid, S. (2025, November 4). Facing the threat of US strikes, Maduro has requested Russia’s help. He shouldn’t expect much. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/facing-the-threat-of-us-strikes-maduro-has-requested-russias-help-he-shouldnt-expect-much/ [49] Frazier, A. (2025, October 20). What U.S. Forces Face as Venezuela Puts Russian-Armed Military on Wartime Alert. MIlitary.Com. https://www.military.com/daily-news/investigations-and-features/2025/10/20/what-us-forces-face-venezuela-puts-russian-armed-military-wartime-alert.html [50] Romero, S. (2025, November 5). How Venezuela’s Military Might Respond to U.S. Attacks. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/05/us/venezuela-military-maduro-coup.html [51] Bayoumi, I., & Magid, S. (2025, November 4). Facing the threat of US strikes, Maduro has requested Russia’s help. He shouldn’t expect much. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/facing-the-threat-of-us-strikes-maduro-has-requested-russias-help-he-shouldnt-expect-much/ [52] Romero, S. (2025, November 5). How Venezuela’s Military Might Respond to U.S. Attacks. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/05/us/venezuela-military-maduro-coup.html [53] Bayoumi, I., & Magid, S. (2025, November 4). Facing the threat of US strikes, Maduro has requested Russia’s help. He shouldn’t expect much. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/facing-the-threat-of-us-strikes-maduro-has-requested-russias-help-he-shouldnt-expect-much/ [54] Linares, E., Velasquez, G., Manrique, J., Monsalve, J., Lo Mónaco, S., & Shumlyanskyy, L. (2026). REE + Y signatures of the Navay phosphate deposit, SW Venezuela: Seawater paleoredox conditions and diagenetic implications. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 129. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2023.104532 [55] Venezuela’s rare earth rush. A growing supply chain risk. (2025, November 12). Southern Pulse. https://southernpulse.substack.com/p/venezuelas-rare-earth-rush [56 Killeen, T. J. (2024, July 12). Industrial minerals in the Pan Amazon. MONGABAY. https://news.mongabay.com/2024/07/more-industrial-minerals-on-brazils-borders-with-ecuador-venezuela-and-colombia/ [57] Rare-Earth Metal Compounds in Venezuela. (2025, November 25). OEC. https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/rare-earth-metal-compounds/reporter/ven [58] Garcia, J. (2025, October 26). Trading Oil for Influence. The Heights. https://bcheights.com/224288/opinions/column/trading-oil-for-influence/ [59] Russell, M., & Ellner, M. (2025, November 15). The US War on China, Venezuela, and the Global Left. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/us-war-china-venezuela [60] bus, B. (2025, November 7). ‘Drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping’: the lawless rush for rare earth minerals in Venezuela. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/nov/07/drug-trafficking-extortion-kidnapping-the-lawless-rush-for-rare-earth-minerals-in-venezuela [61] Giunta, C. (2015, May 6). Follow the Minerals: Why the US is Threatened by Venezuela’s ‘Blue Gold.’ Venezuelanalysis. https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/11372/ [62] Blakemore, R., Harmon, A., & Engelke, P. (2025, November 19). Critical minerals in crisis: Stress testing US supply chains against shocks. Venezuelanalysis. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/critical-minerals-in-crisis-stress-testing-us-supply-chains-against-shocks/