Showing posts sorted by date for query IMPERIALISM. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query IMPERIALISM. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, January 12, 2026

This Kew Gardens Botanical Art Exhibition Revealed the British Empire’s 'Darker Side'

John Elliott
12/Jan/2026
THE WIRE
INDIA


Kew invited the artists, the Singh Twins, to explore Kew’s archives and plants, and track the links to colonisation




The Singh Twins, as photographed by Christopher Doyle.

The important role played by Britain’s Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew in the country’s controversial colonial history is being graphically exposed and criticised by an art exhibition that challenges the image of the peaceful green spaces with their rare plants, magnificent trees and iconic glasshouses.

Kew Gardens, as it’s usually known, invited the Singh Twins (below), who are established artists of Indian origin living in Liverpool, to focus their critical approach to the British empire on the institution’s massive and rare botanical collection contained both in extensive archives and as live plants.

The result is an exhibition titled ‘THE SINGH TWINS Botanical Tales and Seeds of Empire’ that is open till April 12 in the Gardens’ Shirley Sherwood Gallery of Botanical Art. It reflects the way that museums and other British institutions have become increasingly willing in recent years to look into their collections and expose what the twins call “the darker side of what is revealed”.

Kew’s role in colonisation comes alive with a dramatic series of large back-lit works of art on fabric. These show how plants such as cotton, spices and dyes played a pivotal role in Britain’s colonial expansion as well as more positively in the transfer of botanical knowledge and experience across continents. There are also smaller works on the symbolism and significance of plants in global trade, and a tough film highlighting the negative message.

“The Singh Twins were a natural choice because of their unique ability to combine rigorous historical research with a powerful contemporary artistic voice,” Maria Devaney the galleries and exhibition leader told me.

“Kew’s history is closely entwined with Britain’s imperial past, and it’s important to acknowledge and respond to those complexities. We have a responsibility to engage honestly with our own history and with the wider histories that shape our collections and our work today. This is part of Kew’s ongoing commitment to inclusion and to presenting, plants, science and culture in their full historical contexts”.



“Imperialism: By the Yardstick and Sword” – the main figure symbolises Western Imperialism surrounded by examples of its impact

The toughest message comes in an allegorical work titled Imperialism: By the Yardstick and Sword that focuses, says the exhibition’s coffee-table style catalogue, on “the impoverishment and enslavement of India under western colonial expansion and in particular British rule”.

The main figure is a female warrior representing Western Imperialism standing above a tiger, piercing it in the mouth. Smaller images surrounding the figure illustrate the exploitation with a quotation saying, “India was ruthlessly conquered as an outlet for British goods”, which actively contributed to the “destruction of India’s industries”.

The Golden Bird: Envy of the West shows an allegorical figure representing pre-colonial India “with the world at her feet” before the British arrived. It was a “fabled land of untold riches and prosperity”.

Dying for a Cuppa deals with the “British colonial history of tea”, highlighting the tea trade’s “links with sugar and opium, commodities inextricably linked to enslavement, conflict, violence, land grabbing, deforestation and drug addiction”.

The Twins say Kew was aware of their work and had seen an earlier exhibition in 2018 on the same theme in Liverpool. This demonstrated, they say, Kew’s “willingness to look at its collections in a different light and bring out those histories….they knew exactly what they were buying into”. When the Twins pointed out that they would be looking at the “darker side” of Imperialism, they were told “this is actually what we want you to do”.

They were “overwhelmed” by the breadth of Kew’s documentation, processing, and archiving of material relating to plants, but they had already done research and “knew what we wanted to get out of it”.

That was to look at colonial links in botany following on from their Liverpool exhibition in 2018 where they focussed on similar narratives connected to India’s historical trade in cotton and other textile links.

“Kew was a central cog in the economic exploitation of plants, playing a key role in the Empire’s collection transportation and cultivation of commercial crops such as cotton, rubber and cinchona,” says Richard Deverell, the Gardens’ director and ceo, in an introduction to the catalogue.




Showing alongside the Twins’ works, under an overall Flora Indica title, is the first-ever public display of 52 rediscovered botanical watercolours (above) by Indian artists who were commissioned by British botanists between 1790 and 1850. Hidden for over a century, the works show how artists helped shape botanical knowledge from India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar. The Twins studied these and other archived works commissioned by Britain’s East India Company that controlled India for a century till 1858.

Over the past 17 years, the Twins have been exploring and exposing what they describe as the “exploitative nature of colonialism and empire”. They are proud of having “always spoken loudly about things we believe”.




“The Golden Bird: Envy of the West” – India is personified “with the world at her feet”, along with depictions below of European merchants, soldiers and others who invaded her

Born in the UK with a Sikh father who emigrated from India in 1947, Amrit Kaur Singh and Rabindra Kaur Singh are identical twins in their late 50s. They always dress alike and talk together, interrupting and finishing each other’s sentences. Their father, and their Sikh background, flow through many of the works.

The Twins adapt the intricate and colourful style of Mughal miniature paintings into a form of pop art where a series of individual small compositions cluster around a central image, together telling a multi-illustrated story. With up to around 15 images in a single work, the Twins estimate that the Kew exhibition has more than 200 compositions.

That was apparent when I first interviewed them, in 2011, at an exhibition in New Delhi that combined challenging the misuse of power by the Indian and other governments with recording the lives of Indians living in Liverpool and elsewhere in the UK.

“They have been fighting convention since they were at university in Liverpool,” I wrote.

The show included Partners in Crime, Deception and Lies with US president George W. Bush and UK prime minister Tony Blair standing on a burning blood-strewn globe of the world after the invasion of Iraq.

That was the year that they were both awarded an MBE, becoming Members of the Order of the British Empire. Their art had been shown in 2010 at London’s National Portrait Gallery, which describes their work as continuing “a long tradition of artistic interaction and influence between cultures”.

As students in Liverpool, they were told that the Indian miniatures style was no longer relevant and that they should be learning from Matisse, Gaugin and Picasso.

“We said that Gaugin and others had been influenced by India and other foreign works, and that we were being denied our own way of expressing ourselves,” was their reply. “There was pressure to conform to Western ideas, but we were challenging accepted notions of heritage and identity”.


A triptych dedicated to the memory of the Twins’ late father, Dr Karnail Singh, in “The Perfect Garden” with “The Arts of Botany” (left) and “The Science of Botany” (right)


A detailed picture on the “Science of Botany”

Their interest in the negative aspects of colonialism began when they were part of a British Arts Council trip in 2014 to the French city of Nantes in Upper Brittany. There they visited the Château des Ducs museum that has a large section on slavery marking the Atlantic coastal port’s significant role in the international trade, similar to Liverpoool’s.They also found displays of Indian textiles commissioned by French traders to be sold to African tribal chiefs as part of the slave trade, which made them realise the wide range of the trade beyond the transatlantic triangle

That led to the 2018 exhibition, titled Slaves of Fashion, at Liverpool’s Walker Art Gallery where the Twins developed their criticism of empire by focussing on the history of Indian textiles, especially cotton, enslavement and luxury consumerism. That is “a global story of conflict, conquest, slavery, environmental exploitation, cultural exchange and changing fashion,” they say, relating it also to current debates on ethical consumerism, racism and the politics of trade.



Another detailed picture on the “Science of Botany” including the words “Disease, Massacres, Enslavement, Displacement, Conflict

The Kew exhibition’s hard-hitting short film King Cotton: An Artist’s Tale was first shown in Liverpool and focusses on textiles. Set to a poem written by the twins and narrated by Amrit, it pulls no punches with lines like: “Torture was used to enforce taxation, and monopoly of salt caused devastation – to the mases steeped in poverty…..so that England’s exports might expand, thumbs were broken on weavers’ hands… …the tools of their trade were seized and smashed while Indian servants were routinely thrashed”.

The film’s rhyming poetry is good but there will be objections to some of the criticisms, notably weavers’ “thumbs being broken” that was first voiced in 1853 by Karl Marx. An earlier report in 1772 by William Bolts, a Dutch-born British merchant and employee of the East India Company, suggested that winders of raw silk were treated so badly that they cut off their thumbs to avoid being forced to work, though that is also represented in the film.

Critics will say that the show does not illustrate sufficiently the world-wide benefits reaped by early explorers and botanists who faced extreme challenges travelling to Asia and elsewhere centuries ago.



“Cinchona: What’s in a Name” with an “English family unperturbed by the mosquitos encircling their domesticated environment” in the centre, and “competing interests in quinine production” in the surrounding border

The exhibition includes a work, Cinchona: What’s in a Name marking how in 1860 a British expedition to South America smuggled out cinchona seeds and plants that led to the development of quinine to treat malaria.

Planted extensively in British India and Sri Lanka those stolen seeds and plants saved millions of lives, until an artificial synthesis of quinine was developed in 1944, but the Twins introduce it negatively saying it was “significant in the colonisation of tropical countries”.

“Plants are an essential resource for human survival and they are also the foundation of practically all life on earth,” says one prominent habitat conservationist. “Yes, exotic plants were collected clandestinely in colonial times, just as they are today. But the efforts of those early collectors also brought huge benefits, particularly in the field of medicine”.

That does not however reduce from the importance of the Twins work, displaying in masses of intricate and highly colourful works, the links between botany and the negative side of empire.

This article first appeared on the writer’s blog ‘Riding the Elephant’ and has been republished by permission.

 U$ IMPERIALISM TOO

Opinion: The Greenland scenarios — From the stupid to the insane and back

By Paul Wallis

EDITOR AT LARGE
DIGITAL JOURNAL
January 11, 2026


Donald Trump has coveted Greenland since his first mandate as US president - Copyright AFP Odd ANDERSEN

The “annexation” of Greenland isn’t just dumb. It’s ridiculous.

As a security proposal, this is a lame version of very old Cold War strategy, and the Cold War made it obsolete generations ago.

Against what would the US security be protected by annexing Greenland?

Hypersonic ICBMs? No.

Conventional ICBMs? No.

Nuclear attack subs? Hardly.

Sleeper agents disrupting the US from the inside with massive cyberattacks and terrorism? Not at all.

Fentanyl? No.

Other random boogeymen like pet-eating Ohioans or single mothers from Mars? Not at all.

What about those Greenland mineral assets, you ask with starry eyes?

Getting any of those assets to market, let alone all of them, would take at least a decade and cost many billions. It’s much worse than Venezuelan oil. Mining is always a heavy-duty, capital-intensive cost.

What about territorial advantages?

There aren’t any. Any degree of territorial development would take generations and require huge budget commitments from future American governments just to maintain. It’s a formula for massive failure through capital overextension alone.
A few scenarios

These scenarios are pretty bizarre.

Scenario 1: Direct military annexation

This scenario is likely to cause the most hostile and widespread long-term reactions. American forces arrive in Greenland in force. 82nd Airborne follows up special forces deployment as the US Navy effectively blockades Thule.

NATO objects strongly and deploys friendly forces elsewhere in Greenland A furious Canada stops all talks with the US and sends Canadian special forces to Greenland as a NATO exercise. NATO ground and air troops also arrive but there is no actual combat. The result is an ongoing, expensive, and utterly pointless military standoff. The US military quite rightly objects to any operations whatsoever against NATO forces. Deadlock.

American non-NATO allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia refuse to cooperate with the US. They either pull or mothball defense and a vast range of other deals.

The military option goes stale in 3 years after much expense and no actual achievements. The irony is that the US military said there was no point in the exercise from any security perspective.

Scenario 2: Diplomatic and economic factors and political maneuvers. Purchasing?

Greenland becomes the subject of political negotiations which drag on for years. Denmark and Greenland refuse to negotiate at all.

Purchasing is off the agenda before it starts. Greenland is worth trillions of dollars. Does the US have trillions of dollars to spare? Is this “impulse buying”?

The EU is by now as furious as Canada and Denmark. The rest of the world ignores the US territorial claims and refuses to recognize American sovereignty over any part of Greenland. The UN calls the US attempts to annex Greenland illegal and infringing on the rights of Greenlanders. No territory is or can be legally acquired.

US trade with the EU is poleaxed. The EU imposes sanctions on the US. EU trade with the US tanks completely. The US is about as popular for doing business as the UK was after Brexit and the result is much the same. The US is progressively excluded from global trade.

The US dollar nosedives in the furore, with some help from China and annoyed Europeans. Even US assets overseas are suddenly under threat of seizure. That’s not good news for America’s vast overseas tax havens.

Scenario 3: US internal political and administrative developments

The US political situation alone effectively derails the Greenland project. The sheer cost of annexation is prohibitively expensive. US Federal revenue stagnates and/or shrinks in real terms. Debt payments increase and blow out due to the rising cost of government.

The 2026 midterms effectively neuter the Greenland project. Political options for Greenland operations are blocked. In 2028, Greenland becomes “just another Trump thing,” which America instantly disowns. There’s no future in it.

The word is no, and there are no other words required.

_______________________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.

NATO, Greenland vow to boost Arctic security after Trump threats


“75 years Nato” patch is seen on the arm of a member of the US military at the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force headquarters in Geilenkirchen, western Germany, Nov. 13, 2025. (AFP)


AFP
January 12, 202617:29


NATO chief Mark Rutte said that the alliance was working on “the next steps” to bolster Arctic security

If US followed through with an armed attack on Greenland that it would spell the end of NATO, the Danish PM warned


NUUK: NATO and Greenland’s government on Monday said they intend to work on strengthening the defense of the Danish autonomous territory, hoping to dissuade US President Donald Trump, who covets the island.

On Sunday, Trump further stoked tensions by saying that the United States would take the territory “one way or the other.”

Confronted with the prospect of annexation by force, Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen placed his hopes in the US-led military alliance NATO.

“Our security and defense belong in NATO. That is a fundamental and firm line,” Nielsen said in a social media post.

His government “will therefore work to ensure that the development of defense in and around Greenland takes place in close cooperation with NATO, in dialogue with our allies, including the United States, and in cooperation with Denmark,” he added.

NATO chief Mark Rutte also said Monday that the alliance was working on “the next steps” to bolster Arctic security.

Diplomats at NATO say that some alliance members are floating ideas, including possibly launching a new mission in the region.

Discussions are at an embryonic stage and there are no concrete proposals on the table so far, they say.

Trump has insisted that Greenland needs to be brought under US control, arguing that the Danish autonomous territory is crucial for national security.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that if Washington followed through with an armed attack on Greenland that it would spell the end of NATO.

In a bid to appease Washington, Copenhagen has invested heavily in security in the region, allocating some 90 billion kroner ($14 billion) in 2025.

Greenland, which is home to some 57,000 people, is vast with significant mineral resources, most of them untapped, and is considered strategically located.

Since World War II and during the Cold War, the island housed several US military bases but only one remains.

According to Rutte, Denmark would have no problem with a larger US military presence on the island.

Under a 1951 treaty, updated in 2004, the United States could simply notify Denmark if it wanted to send more troops.

- Diplomacy -

Denmark is also working on the diplomatic front, with a meeting between Danish and Greenlandic representatives and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio expected this week.

According to US and Danish media reports, the meeting is set to take place Wednesday in Washington.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen on Monday posted a photo from a meeting with his Greenlandic counterpart Vivian Motzfeldt.

Denmark reportedly wants to present a united front with the leaders of the autonomous territory before the meeting with US representatives.

The Danish media reported last week on a tense videoconference between Danish lawmakers and their Greenlandic counterparts over how to negotiate with Washington.

Facing Trump’s repeated threats, Nielsen said in his message on Monday: “I fully understand if there is unease.”

In a statement published Monday, the government in the capital, Nuuk, said it “cannot accept under any circumstance” a US takeover of Greenland.

A Danish colony until 1953, Greenland gained home rule 26 years later and is contemplating eventually loosening its ties with Denmark.

Polls show that Greenland’s people strongly oppose a US takeover.

“We have been a colony for so many years. We are not ready to be a colony and colonized again,” fisherman Julius Nielsen told AFP over the weekend.

Danish PM says Greenland showdown at ‘decisive moment’ after new Trump threats


By AFP
January 11, 2026


Several European countries have backed Greenland and Denmark over Trump's claims to the territory - Copyright Ritzau Scanpix/AFP Ida Marie Odgaard


Camille BAS-WOHLERT

Denmark’s prime minister on Sunday said her country faces a “decisive moment” in its diplomatic battle with the United States over Greenland, after President Donald Trump again suggested using force to seize the Arctic territory.

Ahead of meetings in Washington from Monday on the global scramble for key raw materials, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that “there is a conflict over Greenland”.

“This is a decisive moment” with stakes that go beyond the immediate issue of Greenland’s future, she added in a debate with other Danish political leaders.

Frederiksen posted on Facebook that “we are ready to defend our values — wherever it is necessary — also in the Arctic. We believe in international law and in peoples’ right to self-determination.”

Germany and Sweden backed Denmark against Trump’s latest claims to the self-governing Danish territory.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson condemned US “threatening rhetoric” after Trump repeated that Washington was “going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not”.

“Sweden, the Nordic countries, the Baltic states, and several major European countries stand together with our Danish friends,” he told a defence conference in Salen where the US general in charge of NATO took part.

Kristersson said a US takeover of mineral-rich Greenland would be “a violation of international law and risks encouraging other countries to act in exactly the same way”.



– No ‘immediate threat’ –



Germany reiterated its support for Denmark and Greenland ahead of the Washington discussions.

Before meeting US counterpart Marco Rubio on Monday, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadehpul held talks in Iceland to address the “strategic challenges of the Far North”, according to a foreign ministry statement.

“Security in the arctic is becoming more and more important” and “is part of our common interest in NATO”, he said at a joint news conference with Icelandic Foreign Minister Thorgerdur Katrin Gunnarsdottir.

“If the American president is looking at what threats might come from Russian or Chinese ships or submarines in the region, we can of course find answers to that together,” he added.

But “the future of Greenland must be decided by the people of Greenland” and Denmark, he said.

Asked about a possible strengthening of NATO’s commitment in the Arctic, Wadephul said Germany was “ready to assume greater responsibilities”.

Earlier Sunday, German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil said: “We are strengthening security in the Arctic together, as NATO allies, and not against one another.”

He was speaking ahead of an international meeting on critical raw materials in Washington.

European nations have scrambled to coordinate a response after the White House said this week that Trump wanted to buy Greenland and refused to rule out military action.

On Tuesday, leaders of seven European countries including France, Britain, Germany and Italy signed a letter saying it is “only” for Denmark and Greenland to decide the territory’s future.

Trump says controlling the island is crucial for US national security because of the rising Russian and Chinese military activity in the Arctic.

NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Alexus Grynkewich told the Swedish conference that alliance members were discussing Greenland’s status.

While there was “no immediate threat” to NATO territory, the Arctic’s strategic importance was fast growing, the US general added.

Grynkewich said he would not comment on “the political dimensions of recent rhetoric” but talks on Greenland were being held at the North Atlantic Council.

“Those dialogues continue in Brussels. They have been healthy dialogues from what I’ve heard,” the general said.

A Danish colony until 1953, Greenland gained home rule 26 years later and is contemplating eventually loosening its ties with Denmark. Polls indicate that Greenland’s population strongly oppose a US takeover.

“I don’t think there’s an immediate threat to NATO territory right now,” Grynkewich told the conference.

But he said Russian and Chinese vessels had been seen patrolling together on Russia’s northern coast and near Alaska and Canada, working together to get greater access to the Arctic as ice recedes due to global warming.

burs-jj/des



‘American? No!’ says Greenland after latest Trump threat


By AFP
January 10, 2026


Trump has refused to rule out military action in Greenland, leaving Europe scrambling to respond - Copyright AFP SAUL LOEB


Camille BAS-WOHLERT

Greenland’s political parties said they did not want to be under Washington as US President Donald Trump again suggested using force to seize the mineral-rich Danish autonomous territory, raising concern worldwide.

The statement late Friday came after Trump repeated that Washington was “going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not”.

European capitals have been scrambling to come up with a coordinated response after the White House said this week that Trump wanted to buy Greenland and refused to rule out military action.

“We don’t want to be Americans, we don’t want to be Danish, we want to be Greenlanders,” the leaders of five parties in Greenland’s parliament said in a joint statement.

“The future of Greenland must be decided by Greenlanders,” they added.

“No other country can meddle in this. We must decide our country’s future ourselves — without pressure to make a hasty decision, without procrastination, and without interference from other countries.”

France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said in an interview published Saturday that Trump’s “blackmail must stop”.

But he also said he did not believe a US military intervention would happen.

“Greenland is a European territory, placed under the protection of NATO. I would add that the Europeans have very powerful means to defend their interests,” he said.



– Fears of invasion –



According to a poll published Saturday by Danish agency Ritzau, more than 38 percent of Danes think the United States will launch an invasion of Greenland under the Trump administration.

A Danish colony until 1953, Greenland gained home rule 26 years later and is contemplating eventually loosening its ties with Denmark.

Many Greenlanders remain cautious about making this a reality.

Julius Nielsen, a 48-year-old fisherman in the capital Nuuk, told AFP: “American? No! We were a colony for so many years. We’re not ready to be a colony again, to be colonised”.

“I really like the idea of us being independent, but I think we should wait. Not for now. Not today,” Pitsi Mari, who works in telecoms, told AFP.

“I feel like the United States’ interference disrupts all relationships and trust” between Denmark and Greenland, said Inaluk Pedersen, a 21-year-old shop assistant.

The coalition currently in power is not in favour of a hasty independence.

The only opposition party, Naleraq, which won 24.5 percent of the vote in the 2025 legislative elections, wants to cut ties as quickly as possible but it is also a signatory of the joint declaration.

“It’s time for us to start preparing for the independence we have fought for over so many years,” said MP Juno Berthelsen in a Facebook post.



– Vast natural resources –



Denmark and other European allies have voiced shock at Trump’s threats on Greenland, a strategic island between North America and the Arctic where the United States has had a military base since World War II.

Trump says controlling the island is crucial for US national security given the rising military activity of Russia and China in the Arctic.

“We’re not going to have Russia or China occupy Greenland. That’s what they’re going to do if we don’t,” the US president said Friday.

“So we’re going to be doing something with Greenland, either the nice way or the more difficult way,” he added.

Both Russia and China have increased military activity in the region in recent years, but neither has laid any claim to the vast icy island.

Greenland has also attracted international attention in recent years for its vast natural resources including rare earth minerals and estimates that it could possess huge oil and gas reserves.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that an invasion of Greenland would end “everything”, meaning the transatlantic NATO defence pact and the post-World War II security structure.



– Flurry of diplomacy –



“I’m a fan of Denmark, too, I have to tell you. And you know, they’ve been very nice to me,” Trump said.

“But you know, the fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn’t mean that they own the land.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is due to meet next week with Denmark’s foreign minister and representatives from Greenland.

A flurry of diplomacy is under way as Europeans try to head off a crisis while at the same time avoiding the wrath of Trump, who is nearing the end of his first year back in power.

Trump had offered to buy Greenland in 2019 during his first presidential term but was rebuffed.

burs-gv/jj


Pound of flesh

The cuddly US that indulged Europe’s domestic spending has gone.

Rafia Zakaria 
Published January 10, 2026
DAWN

The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.

ONE would think that everyone in the world knows that nothing is free. Every favour granted, every kindness bestowed has its cost — sometimes the payment is demanded immediately, and at other times, decades later. Europe it appears is only learning the truth of this in these feverish days of the Trump administration. Recently, the Americans carted off Nicolás Maduro and his wife from Caracas to a jailhouse in America. Careful statements came from Europe so as not to anger the American president.

It was the words that came after that were even more unnerving to the watching Europeans. No sooner had images of a handcuffed Maduro appeared on TV screens than the Trump administration officials began to assert that they would take over Greenland next. Post-Maduro, one of the first to make the claim was Stephen Miller — Trump’s Goebbels-esque immigration czar. Then it was Trump himself and also Secretary of State Marco Rubio who said that the US would not militarily take over Greenland but simply buy the country. Controlling Greenland, all three seemed to agree, was necessary for America’s security.

If Venezuela’s takeover had instigated panic attacks in Europe, these overt announcements of US plans brought on a nervous breakdown. The major European countries issued a statement against the claims to Greenland being made across the pond. At the centre of the circle was Denmark, which had laid claim to Greenland 300 years ago and still wants to hold on to it even though Greenlanders themselves do not seem to want it to do so.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has since had increasingly testy exchanges with President Donald Trump. In her words, if the US were to ‘get’ Greenland it would be the end of the international world order.

The cuddly US that indulged Europe’s domestic spending has gone.

The reality is more complex and the source of Danish fretting over every word the US says about Greenland is ironically an international treaty or a series of treaties themselves. The first dates to 1941. At that time, the Danish ambassador who had been cut off from Copenhagen owing to the Nazi takeover of Denmark signed a defence agreement on behalf of Denmark and Greenland with the then US administration.

The motivation behind this was that the Nazis could have used Greenland as a route to North America and thus it made sense for the US to be able to set up military bases there. Another treaty is from 1951 when the US looking to bolster its Cold War defences against the Soviet Union got permission to set up any number of military bases in Greenland if it wanted to.


The US is a military behemoth with a defence budget of over $900 billion. Even as Denmark’s PM dramatically decries US claims on Greenland it seems questionable whether the rest of Europe will forsake the US as a military ally over Greenland. The promise of American military support has enabled Europe to keep up a lifestyle it could not afford had European countries been required to spend gobs of money fending off a threat from the then Soviet Union. The social welfare state, free schools and healthcare for citizens, for instance, would not have been possible if military spending had not been defrayed by Nato.

The cuddly US that never raised a finger at Europe’s indulgent domestic spending is now gone. In its place is a nasty America looking to get paid for past favours. Many in Washington predict that the US plan

to thwart China is to simply get a tighter grip on South and Central America as well as most of the rest of the Western Hemi­sphere. Green­land, sitting on enormous mineral deposits, is part of Ame­rica’s new security strate­­gy. This means that even if there is no dramatic or overt capture of Green­land, it is likely that a takeover will take place quietly.

Beyond Vene­zuela, the US also has its eyes on the area known as the ‘lithium triangle’ constituting Bolivia, Chile and Argentina. The Argentinian prime minister has already sung Trump’s praises. Given Maduro’s fate, his regional counterparts know they better follow suit. America is intent on making sure it has enough oil, precious metals and other components required for technological advancements and it’s not afraid to use its military to make sure it gets just that.

Greenland with its 57,000 inhabitants is likely about to exchange the hegemony of one state for another’s. The Trump administration sees no reason why an icy hinterland of buried treasure should not be theirs. Europe, which had counted on the US remaining a friend forever, is in for a dark and disappointing time ahead. The US wants what it wants and it is Europe’s turn to realise this.

Published in Dawn, January 10th, 2026




Rafia Zakaria is an attorney and human rights activist. She is a columnist for DAWN Pakistan and a regular contributor for Al Jazeera America, Dissent, Guernica and many other publications.

She is the author of The Upstairs Wife: An Intimate History of Pakistan (Beacon Press 2015). She tweets @rafiazakaria

Trump’s Greenland talk brings opportunity, unease for business

Village of Tasiilaq, Greenland. (Image courtesy of AntoniO BovinO via Flickr.)

Greenland’s business community is split on the impact of Donald Trump’s renewed interest in the Arctic island.

While some see commercial opportunity, others say harsh rhetoric about taking control of the territory is dampening near-term activity.

The revived talk has sparked a new rush by US officials to identify business deals and other ways to deepen ties with Greenland, according to people familiar with the matter. For now, discussions are focused on mining projects, hydroelectric power and other ventures that could expand the US economic footprint on the island.

“Greenland is now in the position to decide its future, to build up its economic independence,” Eldur Olafsson, founder and chief executive officer of Amaroq Ltd, told Bloomberg Television on Thursday. “There is opportunity in this.”

The Toronto-based company operates a newly opened gold mine in Greenland and holds the largest portfolio of mineral exploration licenses in the territory. Last year, Amaroq attracted strong demand from investors on both sides of the Atlantic in an oversubscribed funding round and has since seen interest from state-backed agencies in the US and Europe.

The US president has “really put Greenland on the map” since he first touted the idea of buying the island in 2019, Olafsson said. “People saw there are resources there.”

Trump “doesn’t want to lose time to get something done,” Olafsson said. “That overall is a good thing, because Greenland needs investment.”

The island’s public finances are under mounting pressure and its fiscal position suffered a “surprisingly sharp deterioration” last year, according to an analysis published this week by Denmark’s central bank. It underscores the urgency of discovering new sources of growth as Greenland seeks greater economic self-reliance.

The Arctic island is betting on its mining sector to help diversify the economy and lay the groundwork for future independence from Denmark. Despite Greenland’s vast untapped reserves, commercial extraction remains limited so far. Harsh operating conditions, high production costs and relatively low mineral concentrations have deterred large-scale development.

To bridge that gap, support from other governments will likely be needed. The US and other nations could help projects get off the ground through purchase commitments, price floors, grants or even equity stakes.

Elsewhere in Greenland’s business community, reactions are more mixed.

“Some people do see it as an opportunity to expand into new markets in the US,” Mads Qvist Frederiksen, executive director of the Arctic Economic Council, told Bloomberg Radio. While Greenlanders are unlikely to agree to a sale, he said, companies remain open to doing business.

For now, however, the rhetoric around buying Greenland or taking it by force is proving counterproductive.

“Everything is put on hold at the moment,” Frederiksen said, with companies postponing decisions until there is more clarity about Greenland’s future. “We have to turn off this fire that is on at the moment.”

(By Sanne Wass)


Greenland miner that surged 80% says rare earth supply in focus

The Kvanefjeld rare earth project. (Image courtesy of Energy Transition Minerals.)

An Australian miner with a rare earth project in Greenland, the Danish territory attracting the interest of the Trump administration, said resource security is increasingly driving prices.

“Supply chains for critical minerals like rare earths are now not just priced based on cost, but more importantly on security of supply,” Energy Transition Minerals Ltd.’s managing director, Daniel Mamadou, said on Bloomberg Television.

“What the West is realizing, and taking steps towards now, is the fact that tough projects need to be funded,” Mamadou said, adding that the company has continued to receive interest from global investors including in Europe and China.

Energy Transition has surged nearly 80% this year in Sydney as the US mulls seeking control of Greenland. President Donald Trump has said he won’t rule out the use of military force to acquire the island, which is a self-ruling territory of Denmark.

Trump has mused about making Greenland part of the US since his first term, but has ramped up the rhetoric after launching a military operation last week to oust Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

Greenland has sizable natural resources including rare earths – the strategic minerals that have been a focal point of trade talks between China and the US – but commercial extraction in the island remains limited so far.

Energy Transition is developing a flagship rare earth project at Kvanefjeld in southern Greenland, which will consist of a mine, a concentrator and refinery. The company said last month that legal proceedings related to the grant of an exploitation license are still ongoing.

(By Annie Lee and Haslinda Amin)

Venezuela Siege: US Imperialism, Capitalist Crisis & Global Resistance
| 08 Jan 2026

Venezuela did not become a target because of “authoritarianism” but because it challenged imperial control over resources, finance, and political sovereignty.


Solidarity demonstration with Venezuela, Brussels, January 4, 2026. Source: Workers' Party of Belgium/Facebook


The sustained campaign of coercion directed against Venezuela by the United States must be situated within the historical consolidation of unipolar imperialism that followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The post–Cold War order, frequently described by Western elites as a “rules-based international system,” has in practice been characterised by the unchecked expansion of monopoly and finance capital.

Freed from the constraints imposed by a socialist counterweight, US-led imperial power has increasingly relied on military intervention, economic warfare, and the institutionalisation of coercive neoliberal governance to reproduce global hierarchies of accumulation.

Within this context, US aggression against Venezuela cannot be understood as an episodic deviation from liberal international norms, nor as a response to alleged democratic or humanitarian deficiencies. Rather, it represents a structurally determined response to the deepening contradictions of late capitalism itself.

As historical materialism makes clear, global order is not governed by abstract principles or moral claims, but by concrete relations of production, class power, and imperial domination. Where consent to neoliberal globalisation erodes, coercion emerges as the primary mechanism through which imperial authority is maintained.

The Venezuelan case exemplifies this dynamic with particular clarity. Possessing the world’s largest proven oil reserves and pursuing a development strategy centered on State control over strategic resources, Venezuela posed a direct challenge to the prerogatives of US-led capital. Its partial rupture with neoliberal orthodoxy and assertion of economic sovereignty rendered it a paradigmatic target of imperial discipline. From a Marxist perspective, such defiance threatens the conditions of imperial accumulation and, therefore, necessitates intervention, not as a matter of policy preference, but as a systemic imperative.

Consequently, Venezuela has been subjected to a multi-dimensional campaign of aggression encompassing financial sanctions, restrictions on oil exports, diplomatic isolation, and persistent regime-change operations. These measures have been accompanied by an intensive ideological offensive that seeks to delegitimise Venezuelan sovereignty through narratives of humanitarian crisis and democratic failure. Far from serving neutral or benevolent ends, such discourses function to obscure the material foundations of imperial power and to normalise coercive intervention against the Global South.

Drawing on the theoretical contributions of Marx, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, and Samir Amin, this analysis conceptualises sanctions, economic warfare, and political destabilisation not as anomalies within the international system, but as essential mechanisms through which late capitalism manages its structural crises. By externalising internal contradictions onto peripheral societies, imperialism preserves accumulation at the centre while deepening social and economic devastation at the margins.

Examined through this lens, Venezuela does not appear as a “failed state,” but as a critical terrain of intensified global class struggle. Its experience illuminates the deeper logic of unipolar imperialism: the preservation of capitalist dominance through systematic coercion in an era of escalating crisis. The Venezuelan struggle thus transcends national boundaries, revealing the limits of liberal internationalism and the violence inherent in imperial capitalism.

The essay, therefore, arrives at a decisive conclusion. Under conditions of deepening global instability, resistance to imperialism is no longer a normative aspiration or ideological preference; it is a historical necessity. The fate of Venezuela is inseparable from the broader struggle against unipolar domination and for an emancipatory, multipolar world order capable of transcending the crisis of imperial capitalism itself.



The Myth of ‘Post-Imperial’ World

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was celebrated by Western political and intellectual elites as the definitive triumph of liberal capitalism. The proclamation of a “post-imperial” or “post-ideological” world order—popularised through notions such as the “end of history”—was less an analytical conclusion than a strategic ideological intervention. As historical materialism demonstrates, social formations do not transcend contradictions; they reorganise and displace them.

As Karl Marx emphasised, history advances not through moral proclamations or abstract ideals, but through material conditions and class struggle. The disappearance of a socialist counter-pole did not abolish imperialism; it removed its principal structural constraint. What followed was the consolidation of a unipolar world dominated by the US, in which military force, financial power, and ideological coercion converged into a unified apparatus of global domination.

Venezuela’s confrontation with US power must be situated within this broader historical configuration. The country did not become a target because of “authoritarianism” or “democratic deficits,” but because it challenged imperial control over resources, finance, and political sovereignty. In this sense, Venezuela does not represent an exception, but a paradigmatic instance of 21st Century imperial aggression.

Imperialism as Structural Necessity of Capitalism

In Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Vladimir Lenin identified imperialism as a distinct phase of capitalist development characterised by monopoly capital, the fusion of industrial and banking capital into finance capital, the export of capital, and the political division of the world among competing powers.

Crucially, Lenin rejected the notion that imperialism was merely a contingent policy choice; it was, rather, a structural necessity arising from capitalism’s internal contradictions.

Late capitalism is marked by chronic crises of overaccumulation, declining profit rates, and market saturation. Under such conditions, capital must expand outward—geographically, politically, and militarily—or confront stagnation. War, sanctions, and regime-change operations thus function as mechanisms through which capital temporarily resolves these contradictions.

The US-led wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria exemplify this logic. They were not defensive responses to security threats, but offensive strategies aimed at securing strategic resources, enforcing dollar hegemony, and disciplining non-compliant states in the Global South. Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and its assertion of sovereign control over them placed it squarely within the crosshairs of this imperial strategy.

Venezuela and Crime of Sovereignty


Venezuela’s fundamental transgression lies in its assertion of sovereignty over natural resources and its refusal to submit unconditionally to neoliberal restructuring. The Bolivarian process—initiated under Hugo Chávez and continued under Nicolás Maduro—sought to redirect oil revenues toward social development, reduce dependency on US capital, and promote regional integration independent of Washington.

From a Marxist perspective, such a project constitutes a direct challenge to imperial accumulation. Control over energy resources is not merely an economic question; it is a geopolitical one. By nationalising strategic sectors and resisting privatisation, Venezuela disrupted the circuits of monopoly and finance capital.

US hostility intensified precisely as Venezuela attempted to pursue this alternative developmental trajectory. Diplomatic pressure was followed by covert destabilisation, culminating in comprehensive economic warfare. This sequence reflects a recurring imperial pattern: non-compliance is met first with ideological delegitimisation, then with economic coercion, and ultimately with the threat or use of force.

Economic Sanctions as Imperial Warfare


Contemporary imperialism increasingly relies on economic sanctions as a substitute for direct military intervention. As Amin argued, neo-colonial domination operates through unequal exchange, debt dependency, and financial control. Sanctions constitute a central instrument within this architecture.

US sanctions against Venezuela have systematically targeted oil exports, access to international finance, and the importation of essential goods. Frequently portrayed as “targeted” or “non-violent,” these measures have produced devastating social consequences. Shortages of food, medicine, and industrial inputs are not unintended side effects; they are integral to a strategy designed to induce internal collapse.

From a Marxist standpoint, sanctions amount to collective punishment—an attempt to discipline an entire population for the political choices of its government. These function as a form of siege warfare conducted through financial institutions rather than armies. In this respect, economic warfare is no less violent than conventional war; it merely renders its victims less visible.

Ideology, Media, and Manufacture of Consent


Imperialist aggression cannot be sustained by coercion alone; it requires ideological legitimation. Corporate media and liberal political discourse play a decisive role in constructing Venezuela as a “failed state” or “dictatorship,” thereby normalizing external intervention. Such narratives obscure the material causes of crisis—sanctions, capital flight, and economic sabotage—while transferring responsibility onto the victim.

Marxist theory understands ideology as a material force embedded within institutions and social practices. The demonisation of Venezuela serves to naturalise imperial violence, recasting coercion as humanitarian concern. This ideological operation is indispensable for maintaining consent within imperial core societies.

Permanent War and Luxemburg’s ‘Barbarism’

Luxemburg’s warning that capitalism confronted a historical choice between socialism and barbarism resonates with renewed urgency in the Venezuelan case. Barbarism today manifests not only through bombs and invasions, but through slow, structural violence.

Luxemburg recognised that capitalism’s drive for endless accumulation would inevitably generate war and social disintegration. The prolonged economic strangulation of Venezuela confirms this prognosis. Contemporary imperialism no longer seeks to construct stable client states; it produces fragmented, crisis-ridden societies incapable of autonomous development.

This condition of permanent crisis is not accidental. It reflects a system that can no longer reproduce itself without destruction. Venezuela’s suffering is, therefore, not an anomaly, but a symptom of a deeper systemic decay.
Israel, US Power & Architecture of Imperial Enforcement

Although Venezuela lies outside West Asia, the global architecture of imperial enforcement must be understood holistically. Israel functions as a militarised outpost of US imperial power, illustrating how settler-colonial violence is normalised within the global order.

The same legal and moral exemptions granted to Israel are extended, in different forms, to US actions in Latin America. International law is applied selectively, reinforcing a hierarchy in which imperial powers operate above accountability. This double standard is not hypocrisy; it is structural.

UN and Illusion of Liberal Internationalism


The United Nations is frequently invoked as a guarantor of peace and legality, yet its institutional architecture reflects imperial power relations. The veto system ensures that dominant powers—particularly the US—can obstruct any substantive challenge to their actions.

From a Marxist perspective, this does not represent a failure of the UN, but its function. As Lenin observed with regard to bourgeois States, institutions operating under capitalism cannot transcend the class relations that generate them. The UN manages imperial conflict; it does not abolish it.

Reclaiming Internationalism

Imperialist aggression against Venezuela exposes the fundamental logic of unipolar capitalism: when consent fails, coercion prevails. Economic warfare, ideological manipulation, and diplomatic isolation are not deviations from the system, but its normal operations under conditions of crisis.

History demonstrates that imperialism cannot be humanised or reformed. The dismantling of colonial empires and apartheid regimes was not achieved through moral appeals, but through organised resistance and international solidarity. Venezuela’s struggle must, therefore, be understood as part of a broader global confrontation between capital and human emancipation.

The present historical moment demands a renewed Marxist internationalism—anchored in anti-imperialism, class struggle, and transnational solidarity. As Luxemburg warned, the alternative remains stark: socialism or barbarism. The fate of Venezuela—and indeed of humanity—will be determined by how this choice is confronted.

The writer, an economics professor and author, is currently engaged in research on Sustainable Economic Development, Political Economy of the Global South, and India’s Socioeconomic Crisis. The views are personal. acpuum@gmail.com.

In the following year, Rosa Luxemburg pub- lished her book The Accumulation of Capital: A Contribution to the Economic Explanation of Imperialism.6 Since her ...


Oct 31, 2023 ... ... PDF) and send in corrections to the archive ... Download the original PDF version. Rosa Luxemburg Archive | Imperialism Subject Archive.


Abstract: Rosa Luxemburg's pungent honesty is evident in her critical-minded and 'unorthodox' analysis of the economic expansionism of imperialism that arose ...

Imperialism is the spatial correlate to capital's cooptation of time. II. When it came to his theory of expanded reproduction, however, Luxemburg held that Marx.


Lenin,. Imperialism, The. Highest Stage of. Capitalism, New. York, International. Publishers, 1939. 2. Rosa Luxemburg,. The Accumulation of Capital [1913], in P ...

Apr 1, 2024 ... Open the PDF for in another window ... Moreover, despite her vividly expressed moral outrage at the horrors of imperialism, Luxemburg insists on ...

Dec 5, 2024 ... On the other hand, capitalists,. Page 2. Rosa Luxemburg And The Contradictions Of Capitalism: Imperialism And Capital Accumulation. DOI: 10.9790 ...

Mar 1, 2019 ... Home » Ausgaben » Rosa Luxemburg, Imperialism and the Global South ... Download PDF. Artikel-Metriken. Um die Metriken unserer Artikel ...