The protectorate as the axis of the new international order
By: Beatrice E. Rangel - 18/02/2026
Share:
The concept of the protectorate has a long history. Ancient empires had client states where defense and international relations were handled by the imperial power, as was the case with Rome, while domestic affairs were managed by a local ruler. During the Middle Ages, protectorates were often intertwined with religious doctrine or dynastic networks. Between the 16th and 20th centuries, protectorates evolved into a concept of international law. After 1945, they fell out of favor as nationalism and decolonization gained global prominence.
In our hemisphere, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine served as a legal backdrop for the establishment of protectorates in Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.
With the independence of Palau, the United Nations Trusteeship Council, whose function was to supervise a set of protectorates inherited from the League of Nations or taken from the powers defeated in World War II, ceased to function in November 1994.
Today, the United States appears to have opted for this form of government to restore order in territories plagued by protracted wars or infiltrated by transnational organized crime. This strategic choice fulfills the requirements of the thesis announced by the Trump administration as a paradigm for hemispheric relations, since it unites the Monroe Doctrine with the Roosevelt Corollary within the framework of law enforcement.
The first example within this paradigm is Venezuela, a country governed for the last twenty years by the political arm of transnational organized crime. It was a regime that functioned like the Cosa Nostra's commission, a coordinating body among criminal entities whose purpose was to divide the spoils, eliminate enemies, and control the target population through terror. This country, however, is also home to one of the most obsessively democratic civil societies. For 27 years, this civil society has exhausted all democratic means to remove the ruling clique from power: civic protests, marches, recall referendums, elections, and, of course, requests for the intervention of competent international organizations to stop the regime's unchecked crimes against humanity. Venezuela also has the world's largest oil reserves, which is very convenient for the United States given the likely end of oil extraction from the Permian Basin, expected within fourteen years.
Under these conditions, it was impossible to dismantle the criminal regime without using force and to disarm the criminal apparatus without a protectorate. And that is precisely what we are witnessing unfold in Bolívar's homeland. The United States has taken control of the government through its own leading figures to quell the violence and perform a political operation to restore the rule of law. Simultaneously, it is opening the doors to American companies so they can undertake the tasks of rebuilding infrastructure, restoring oil flows, and eventually organizing elections. Venezuela, therefore, is embarking on a process unseen since 1811, when it declared its independence from Spain. And so the question arises: Will the democratic forces understand this historical juncture and follow the example of leaders like Conrad Adenauer, whose patience and profound geopolitical understanding allowed him to save Germany from disappearing as a nation? Or will they be impatient, attempting to force the situation, creating an excuse for the regime to resort to violence and weaken them before they are strong enough to advance? Only time will tell.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».