Miller states that the “free world” depends on the United States’ ability to invade

When Sovereignty Becomes Conditional

Miller’s statement on CNN reveals a radically new conception of international relations—one that makes national sovereignty entirely contingent on American goodwill. “Shouldn’t sovereign countries be able to do what they want?” asked Jake Tapper, taken aback by Miller’s confidence. The White House adviser’s response was swift: “The future of the free world depends on America’s ability to assert itself and defend our interests without any excuses.” This statement, seemingly innocuous, is in fact a conceptual revolution that threatens the very foundations of the international system established after World War II.

Modern international law is based on the principle of the equal sovereignty of states, regardless of their size or power. It is this principle that theoretically prohibits great powers from invading smaller countries on the pretext that they possess valuable resources or adopt policies contrary to their interests. By openly declaring that the capacity for unilateral military intervention is a prerequisite for the survival of the “free world,” Miller does more than violate this principle; he outright proposes replacing it with a new rule: sovereignty belongs to those who can defend it by force. Under this new paradigm, Venezuela loses its right to exist as a sovereign state simply because it possesses oil and the United States wants that oil.

The End of the Principle of Non-Interference

The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states constitutes the other pillar of international law that Miller seems determined to abolish. Since the United Nations Charter of 1945, this principle has been gradually eroded by various doctrines of “humanitarian” intervention, but no government had yet dared to reject it so explicitly in favor of a purely self-serving doctrine of intervention. By asserting that the United States has the right to intervene militarily wherever its interests are at stake, Miller paves the way for a world where force becomes the only law.

This position is all the more troubling because it does not apply only to Venezuela. Miller has confirmed that the same logic applies to other countries, notably Greenland, which he considers should be part of the United States. “Greenland should be part of the United States,” he declared without the slightest hesitation. “That is the formal position of the U.S. government.” This assertion, which concerns an autonomous territory belonging to Denmark and a member of NATO, shows that the Miller doctrine knows no bounds: neither alliances, nor recognized borders, nor even the right of peoples to self-determination can stand in the way of what Washington considers its strategic interests.

I shudder as I write these words. Here we are, back in the days when the law of the strongest was the only rule of the international game. Centuries of diplomacy, of painstakingly building common rules, of institutions designed to prevent war—all swept away by a few arrogant sentences uttered on a 24-hour news channel. It’s incredible how fragile civilization can be, how quickly our hard-won achievements can vanish. We thought we were living in a world governed by laws; we are discovering that we may simply be living in a world where the powerful have decided to ignore the laws.

The Systemic Threat to the UN

Miller’s blunt assertion may represent the gravest threat ever posed to the United Nations system since its creation. If every major power unilaterally decides that it has the right to intervene militarily wherever its interests are at stake, then the UN becomes completely obsolete. No more need for Security Council resolutions, no more need for diplomatic negotiations, no more need for international law. Force becomes the sole arbiter of relations between nations.

This development could trigger a cascade of military interventions around the world. Russia could use it to justify new actions in Eastern Europe, China to intensify its pressure on Taiwan, and Turkey to expand its influence in the Middle East. Every major power would follow the American example, invoking its own “vital interests” to justify injustice. The result would be a far more unstable, violent, and unpredictable world, where war would once again become the normal means of resolving conflicts.

The Legacy of Neoconservatism Revisited

Miller’s doctrine is part of a long tradition of American interventionist thought, but with a radicalization that fundamentally sets it apart. Neoconservatism in the 2000s, with figures such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, had already theorized the idea that the United States had the right—and even the duty—to intervene militarily to promote democracy and protect its interests. The Bush doctrine of preventive war, implemented in Iraq, was based on the idea that America could not wait to be attacked before acting against potential threats.

But classical neoconservatism at least maintained a universalist facade: interventions were presented as beneficial to the entire world, exporting democracy and freedom. The Miller doctrine, however, abandons this universalist pretense in favor of an unapologetic national self-interest. It is no longer about saving the world, but about seizing its resources. It is no longer about promoting democracy, but about imposing American will. This shift from moralizing interventionism to purely predatory interventionism marks a dangerous step in America’s imperial drift.

The Influence of the Alt-Right and Ultranationalism

More than traditional neoconservatism, it is the ideology of the alt-right and ultranationalism that seems to inspire Miller. This ideology combines aggressive economic nationalism, a deep distrust of international institutions, and a belief in the cultural and civilizational superiority of the West. For proponents of this worldview, international law is merely a tool used by weak nations to hinder the legitimate power of strong nations.

This ideology developed in reaction to what it perceives as American decline and the limitations imposed by globalization. Proponents of this ideology believe that America has submitted to external constraints for too long and that it is time to reassert its power without hesitation. The invasion of Venezuela and Miller’s theoretical justification for it represent the first concrete implementation of this revisionist vision of international relations.

The Protectionist Economic Dimension

An often-underestimated aspect of the Miller doctrine is its deeply protectionist economic dimension. The idea that natural resources located in the “American hemisphere” must belong to the United States represents a form of economic selfishness that challenges the principles of free trade and globalization. For Miller and his supporters, it is absurd that nations in America’s “backyard” could become suppliers of resources to the United States’ adversaries but not to America itself.

This expansionist economic logic goes hand in hand with a militaristic view of international trade. Trade routes, resource deposits, and energy infrastructure become matters of national security that justify military intervention. In this worldview, the distinction between economics and security disappears entirely: anything related to U.S. economic interests becomes a matter of national security—and thus a legitimate pretext for military action.

This is utter madness. We are witnessing the resurrection of the worst nightmares of the 20th century—that era when the great powers arrogated to themselves the right to determine the fate of weaker nations. I have read books about that period; I have studied the ideologies that led to disaster. I never thought I would one day see these same arguments resurface—not in the writings of some fringe ideologue, but from the mouth of a U.S. government advisor. It is as if we have learned nothing—absolutely nothing—from our darkest history.

The Rejection of the Liberal International Order

Fundamentally, the Miller doctrine represents a total rejection of the liberal international order established after 1945. That order was based on the idea that peace and prosperity depended on common rules, international institutions, and a certain degree of multilateralism. Even when the United States violated those rules, it generally maintained the language of multilateralism and continued to participate in international institutions.

With Miller, that rhetoric disappears. The liberal order is presented not as an imperfect system in need of improvement, but as an unjustified obstacle to American power. The UN, NATO, and multilateral trade agreements are all seen as shackles limiting America’s ability to act in its own interests. This ultranationalist vision, were it to prevail, would lead not only to the end of the current international order but also to a return to the system of great-power confrontation that the world experienced during the Cold War.

Europe: Out of Step and Powerless

European reactions to Miller’s statements were marked by a timidity that speaks volumes about the current state of transatlantic relations. The European Union, through its spokesperson, merely expressed its “concern” and called for “respect for international law,” without any firm condemnation or even a mention of possible sanctions. This lackluster reaction stands in stark contrast to Europe’s traditionally more assertive stances on international law, and shows just how much Europe now depends on U.S. military protection.

European countries find themselves in an extremely uncomfortable position. On the one hand, they cannot endorse a doctrine that legitimizes unilateral invasion and the seizure of resources by force. On the other hand, they cannot afford to completely break ties with the United States, their primary military ally and major trading partner. This strategic dependence leads them to a position of cautious neutrality, which, in practice, amounts to tacit acceptance of the new U.S. doctrine.

Russia and China: Between Concern and Opportunism

Authoritarian powers such as Russia and China have reacted ambiguously to the Miller Doctrine. Officially, they condemn any violation of international law and call for respect for state sovereignty. But privately, they see this development as an opportunity to legitimize their own expansionist policies. Russia, which annexed Crimea and is waging war in Ukraine, can now argue that it is merely emulating U.S. policy. China, which is intensifying its pressure on Taiwan, can use the Miller Doctrine to justify its own regional ambitions.

This convergence between U.S. policies and those of its declared adversaries creates a particularly dangerous situation. Far from reaffirming a rules-based international order, the Trump administration appears to be plunging the world into a new era of confrontation in which every major power feels entitled to pursue its own interests by force, with other powers responding in kind.

Reactions in Latin America

Latin America is undoubtedly the region most directly threatened by the Miller Doctrine. Progressive governments in the region, such as those of Colombia, Mexico, and Bolivia, have strongly condemned the intervention in Venezuela and the doctrine that justifies it. The Colombian president described the Miller Doctrine as “a return to the most brutal version of the Monroe Doctrine,” while his Mexican counterpart denounced it as “a direct threat to the sovereignty of all nations on our continent.”

Even more worrying is that some governments in the region have already begun taking concrete steps to protect themselves. Brazil has announced a significant increase in its defense budget, while Argentina and Chile have strengthened their military cooperation. These reactions show that the Miller Doctrine, far from strengthening U.S. security, actually risks triggering an arms race and an escalation of tensions in Latin America.

It is both ironic and tragic. Latin America, which suffered so much from U.S. interventions during the 20th century, thought it had turned the page. It thought that CIA-orchestrated coups, Washington-backed dictatorships, and dirty wars financed from the North were a thing of the past. And now it’s all coming back—but worse than before. Because this time, there isn’t even an attempt at ideological justification. Just the law of the jungle, raw and brutal. I think of all those people who will once again experience the fear, oppression, and violence of imperialism. It breaks my heart.

The UN: Paralyzed and Divided

The UN’s reaction to the Miller Doctrine was symptomatic of the paralysis that has plagued the organization for years. The Security Council convened an emergency session but was unable to adopt any resolution due to the United States’ clear opposition to any condemnation. The Secretary-General called for restraint and dialogue, but to no concrete effect. The UN’s powerlessness in the face of a flagrant violation of its own principles shows just how dysfunctional the collective security system has become today.

Even more seriously, the Miller Doctrine risks triggering an existential crisis within the UN. If several major powers adopt similar doctrines, the organization could find itself completely bypassed and marginalized. Some countries might even decide to leave it, considering that it no longer serves any purpose. Such a development would be catastrophic for global governance and would leave the world without any forum for dialogue and peaceful conflict resolution.

A Redefinition of the U.S. “Sphere of Influence”

The Miller Doctrine aggressively redefines the concept of the U.S. “sphere of influence.” Traditionally, this notion referred primarily to Latin America, which has been considered the United States’ strategic backyard since the days of the Monroe Doctrine. But under Miller, this sphere becomes a zone of absolute economic exclusivity: not only can countries in this region not ally themselves with U.S. adversaries, but they cannot even use their own natural resources if Washington considers those resources to be strategic.

This redefinition has far-reaching implications. It means that countries such as Brazil, Argentina, or even Mexico could see their economic sovereignty called into question if they developed industries that compete with U.S. interests or if they refused to grant U.S. companies priority access to their resources. The Miller Doctrine thus creates a situation in which Latin American countries become de facto U.S. economic protectorates, with their development contingent upon their compliance with Washington’s interests.

The Direct Threat to NATO Allies

One of the most alarming aspects of the Miller Doctrine is that it applies not only to countries considered adversaries but also, potentially, to allies. Miller’s statement on Greenland—a Danish territory and NATO member—shows that even the world’s strongest military alliance no longer offers protection against U.S. ambitions. If the United States is willing to threaten another NATO country to get what it wants, then the alliance itself loses all meaning.

This development could trigger a deep crisis within NATO. European countries might begin to doubt the value of an alliance in which collective security does not apply when faced with U.S. ambitions. Some might even consider developing their own independent defense capabilities, which would significantly weaken the alliance’s cohesion. The “Miller Doctrine,” designed to strengthen U.S. power, could paradoxically accelerate the disintegration of the alliance system that has underpinned that power for decades.

The Militarization of Economic Policy

The Miller Doctrine represents the culmination of a fundamental trend: the gradual militarization of U.S. foreign economic policy. In recent years, the United States has increasingly relied on military or coercive means to advance its economic interests: economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, military threats, and now direct interventions.

This militarization of the economy has disastrous consequences for the global trading system. It undermines the principles of free trade and fair competition, replacing them with a logic of power in which resources and markets are obtained by force rather than through economic competition. This trend could lead to the fragmentation of the global economy into rival blocs, each seeking to secure its supplies through military means rather than market mechanisms.

This is a self-destructive folly. The United States is in the process of destroying the global economic system that enabled it to become the world’s leading economic power. By prioritizing force over rules, it is undermining the very foundations of international trade, trust between nations, and the predictability necessary for investment. It is as if it were sawing off the branch on which it sits. In the short term, they may seize a few oil wells. In the long term, they are destroying the mechanisms that have brought them prosperity. It is a vision that is both brutal and incredibly short-sighted.

The Risk of Imperial Quagmire

By adopting a doctrine of aggressive and undisguised interventionism, the United States risks becoming bogged down in a series of costly and endless conflicts. The experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown just how difficult it is for an external power to control a foreign country, even with overwhelming military superiority. Each new intervention risks sparking resistance, insurgencies, and cycles of violence that could last for decades.

Such imperial quagmire would have devastating consequences for the United States itself. Exorbitant military costs, human casualties, a tarnished international image, and the radicalization of local populations—all these factors could gradually drain American power. History shows that empires that expand too rapidly and rely too exclusively on military force generally end up collapsing under the weight of their own conquests.

The Proliferation of Interventionist Doctrines

One of the most immediate dangers of the Miller doctrine is that it risks triggering a cascade of similar doctrines from other powers. If the United States can invade Venezuela for its oil, why couldn’t Russia invade neighboring countries for their resources or strategic access to the sea? Why couldn’t China justify an intervention in Taiwan or other regions in the name of its “vital interests”?

This proliferation of interventionist doctrines would radically transform the international system. International law would become completely obsolete, replaced by a logic of pure power politics. Smaller, weaker countries would find themselves completely at the mercy of the ambitions of their more powerful neighbors. The result would be a far more violent, unstable, and unpredictable world, where war would become a normal instrument of foreign policy.

The End of the Principle of Collective Security

The Miller doctrine sounds the death knell for the principle of collective security, which has been the foundation of the international security system since 1945. According to this principle, the security of each country depends on everyone’s adherence to common rules and on collective defense against aggression. By asserting that the United States has the right to intervene unilaterally wherever its interests are at stake, Miller undermines this fundamental principle.

Without collective security, each country must ensure its own defense against potential threats. This situation inevitably leads to a widespread arms race, as nations seek to develop sufficient military capabilities to deter any aggression. This arms race would be particularly intense in sensitive regions such as East Asia, Eastern Europe, or the Middle East, creating extremely dangerous situations where conflicts could erupt by accident or miscalculation.

The Risk of War Between Great Powers

By adopting a doctrine of aggressive interventionism, the United States significantly increases the risk of direct conflict with other major powers. If Washington decides to intervene militarily in a region considered strategic by Russia or China, confrontation becomes almost inevitable. Such a confrontation between nuclear powers would have catastrophic consequences for all of humanity.

This risk is particularly high in East Asia, where China’s ambitions regarding Taiwan could clash with an increasingly aggressive U.S. policy. A miscalculation, a local military incident that escalates, a decision made in the heat of the moment rather than with reason: all these factors could trigger an escalation that no one would be able to control. The Miller Doctrine, by normalizing the use of force to resolve disputes, makes this type of scenario far more likely.

I shudder to think of the consequences. We are playing with fire—a fire that could consume millions of lives. Are the leaders who advocate these doctrines even aware of the risk they’re putting humanity in? Have they given a single second’s thought to what a war between nuclear powers would mean? Or are they so intoxicated by their own power that they’ve lost all sense of judgment? I’m afraid. Truly afraid. Not afraid for myself, but afraid for our children, for the future of our species.

The destabilization of entire regions

Even if it avoids a direct confrontation between major powers, the Miller doctrine risks destabilizing many regions of the world. In Latin America, it could trigger a wave of radical nationalism and militarization. In the Middle East, it could encourage Iran or other regional powers to adopt even more aggressive policies. In Africa, it could exacerbate competition for resources between neighboring countries.

This widespread destabilization would have terrible humanitarian consequences: armed conflicts, population displacements, humanitarian crises, and the collapse of states. It would also create conditions conducive to the rise of extremist and terrorist movements, which thrive on chaos and instability. Far from strengthening global security, the Miller Doctrine could thus destroy it by creating the conditions for widespread violence.

The Fragmentation of the Global Trading System

One of the most significant consequences of the Miller doctrine would be the fragmentation of the global trading system. Since the end of World War II, international trade has been based on common rules and institutions such as the WTO, which have ensured a certain level of predictability and fairness. By asserting that resources and markets can be obtained by force rather than through market mechanisms, Miller undermines the very foundations of this system.

This fragmentation would manifest itself in the formation of rival economic blocs, each seeking to secure its supplies through non-trade means. We would witness a proliferation of preferential trade agreements, protectionist barriers, and economic sanctions used as weapons of economic warfare. Global trade, which has been a driver of growth and poverty reduction for decades, would contract significantly, with devastating effects on the global economy.

The End of Globalization as We Know It

The Miller Doctrine marks the end of the liberal globalization that has characterized recent decades. This form of globalization was based on the idea that economic interconnection between nations created interdependencies that made war less likely and fostered shared prosperity. By prioritizing security through force over security through interdependence, Miller completely reverses this logic.

This shift would have profound consequences for businesses, workers, and consumers around the world. Global supply chains would be reconfigured according to geopolitical considerations rather than economic efficiency. Production costs would rise, competition would decrease, and innovation would slow. In short, the world would become poorer, less innovative, and more conflict-ridden.

The Impact on International Financial Markets

Global financial markets would react violently to the adoption of the Miller doctrine. Increased geopolitical uncertainty would lead to high volatility in the stock, currency, and commodity markets. Investors would flee assets considered risky and seek refuge in safe-haven assets such as gold or traditionally stable currencies.

This financial instability could trigger severe economic crises, particularly in emerging economies that are heavily dependent on foreign investment and export markets. We could witness a wave of sovereign defaults, banking crises, and economic collapses across entire regions. The Miller Doctrine, designed to strengthen U.S. economic power, could paradoxically trigger a global economic crisis that would hit the United States just as hard as the rest of the world.

This is the height of absurdity. Proponents of this doctrine claim to be acting in America’s interest, but they are destroying the very foundations of American prosperity. U.S. economic power rests not only on its military strength, but on a global economic system that has allowed its companies to expand, its technology to dominate, and its currency to become the benchmark. By destroying this system, they are undermining their own power. It is a short-sighted vision that sacrifices the long term. A vision of plunder rather than construction.

Forced Relocation and Deglobalization

The Miller Doctrine would accelerate a trend toward the forced reshoring of strategic industries. Faced with the risk of conflicts and supply disruptions, countries would seek to bring back onto their territory industries considered essential to their security: energy, defense, critical technologies, and food. This forced reshoring would be driven not by economic efficiency but by national security imperatives.

This deglobalization would have mixed consequences. On the one hand, it could create jobs in certain countries and reduce their dependence on foreign sources. On the other hand, it would significantly increase production costs, reduce competition and innovation, and create major economic inefficiencies. It could also reinforce nationalist and xenophobic tendencies, with each country turning inward and becoming distrustful of others.

The Revival of Multilateralism

In the face of the threat that the Miller Doctrine poses to global peace and security, an obvious alternative would be to strengthen multilateralism and international institutions. Rather than abandoning the United Nations system and the rules of international law, the international community should seek to reform and strengthen them to make them more effective and legitimate.

This could involve reforming the Security Council to make it more representative of today’s world, strengthening the UN’s peacekeeping capabilities, or creating new international institutions to address global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, or the regulation of emerging technologies. A revitalized multilateralism could offer a credible alternative to the “law of the strongest” advocated by Miller.

Preventive Diplomacy and Mediation

Another alternative to the Miller doctrine would be to emphasize preventive diplomacy and conflict mediation. Rather than waiting for tensions to escalate into crises requiring military intervention, the international community could invest heavily in conflict prevention: development aid in high-risk regions, support for peace processes, mediation in territorial disputes, and the promotion of national reconciliation.

This preventive approach would be far less costly—in terms of both human lives and financial resources—than military interventions. It would also be more effective in the long term at creating the conditions for lasting peace. Although less spectacular than military operations, preventive diplomacy could prove far more powerful in building a safer and more just world.

Regional Cooperation and Collective Security Arrangements

Faced with a superpower that claims the right to intervene anywhere, regions around the world could develop their own collective security arrangements. In Latin America, Africa, Asia, or Europe, countries could strengthen their military and diplomatic cooperation to create autonomous zones of stability capable of withstanding external pressures and resolving their own conflicts.

These regional arrangements would not necessarily replace global institutions such as the UN, but would complement them by offering faster and better-tailored responses to regional challenges. They would also allow countries to develop their collective defense capabilities, thereby reducing their dependence on superpowers.

Sometimes, in the darkest moments, I try to hold on to hope—the hope that this madness of force will wake us up, that we will realize just how precious cooperation is, just how fragile peace is. Perhaps the threat posed by Miller will force us to reinvent our international system, to make it fairer, more balanced, and better able to withstand the ambitions of one side or the other. Perhaps a better world will emerge from this crisis. It is a fragile hope, I admit, but it is the only one I have left.

Promoting International Humanitarian Law

Another important alternative would be to strengthen respect for international humanitarian law and human rights in conflicts. Rather than accepting the logic of total war advocated by Miller, the international community could insist that even armed conflicts must adhere to certain fundamental rules: the protection of civilians, the prohibition of inhumane weapons, and the prosecution of war crimes.

This would involve strengthening international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, and ensuring that those responsible for serious violations of international law are held accountable. Such an approach would not prevent all conflicts, but it could at least limit their most devastating consequences.

Mobilization Against War and Imperialism

In the face of the emergence of doctrines as dangerous as Miller’s, civil society has a crucial role to play. In democratic countries, citizens can and must oppose policies that lead to war and imperialism. Protests, petitions, awareness campaigns, and lobbying elected officials—all these forms of action can influence government policy.

History shows that anti-war movements have often had a significant impact, even in the face of determined governments. The movement against the Vietnam War, the protests against the Iraq War, and campaigns for nuclear disarmament have all helped change policies and save lives. Today more than ever, a massive mobilization of citizens is needed to counter the logic of force advocated by Miller.

The Responsibility of the Media and Intellectuals

The media and intellectuals also bear a special responsibility in the fight against militarist doctrines. They must relentlessly expose war propaganda, critically analyze the real motivations behind military interventions, and offer alternative perspectives grounded in law, justice, and reason.

This responsibility entails resisting pressure from governments and economic interests that profit from war. It requires courage and independence of mind. But it is precisely in moments when the dominant discourse becomes aggressive and militaristic that the independent voice of the media and intellectuals becomes most valuable.

Building a Culture of Peace

Finally, the struggle against doctrines such as Miller’s requires the long-term building of a culture of peace. This involves educating new generations in the values of dialogue, tolerance, and peaceful conflict resolution. It means promoting understanding among peoples, cooperation rather than competition, and solidarity rather than nationalist selfishness.

This cultural development is a long-term endeavor that involves educational systems, civil society organizations, cultural institutions, and religious communities. It may seem modest in the face of immediate geopolitical challenges, but it is essential for creating the conditions for a world where doctrines like Miller’s would become unthinkable.

Parallels with the 1930s

The emergence of the Miller doctrine bears disturbing parallels to the 1930s, when aggressive powers such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan began to challenge the international order and justify the use of force to achieve their objectives. At that time, too, democracies wavered, torn between the desire to maintain peace and the difficulty of confronting regimes that abided by no rules.

We know today the tragic consequences of that hesitation. The lesson of history is this: aggressive and expansionist doctrines must be countered as soon as they emerge, before they become existential threats. Tolerance of injustice, compromise with aggression, and appeasement in the face of excessive ambitions—all of this leads only to more devastating conflicts.

The Experience of Modern Imperial Wars

The recent history of U.S. interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya offers important lessons about the limits of military force. Despite their technological superiority and initial victories, the United States became mired in long, costly conflicts that ultimately had no clear resolution. These experiences show that military power, however overwhelming, cannot resolve complex political problems.

These wars have also revealed the terrible human consequences of military interventions: hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, the destruction of entire countries, and lasting regional chaos. They have shown that the promise of a “quick and clean war” is always an illusion, and that military interventions almost always create more problems than they solve.

The Cost of Imperialism to Imperial Societies Themselves

History also teaches us that imperialism always ends up costing the societies that engage in it dearly. First, there are the economic costs: military adventures are extremely expensive and divert resources that could be used for domestic development. Second, the human costs: soldiers sent into combat often return traumatized, wounded, or do not return at all. Finally, the moral costs: a society that becomes accustomed to violence and domination loses its democratic values and its soul.

This threefold cost of imperialism explains why most empires eventually collapse under the weight of their own conquests. History offers numerous examples of powers that, believing they were strengthening their dominance through force, actually accelerated their own decline.

Every time I read these lessons from history, I wonder why we never learn. Why are these same mistakes repeated with every generation? Perhaps because hubris—that boundless arrogance that leads leaders to believe they can defy the laws of history and humanity—is eternal. Perhaps because the thirst for power, the greed for resources, and the desire for domination are forces so powerful that they always triumph over reason and wisdom. I’d like to believe that this time will be different. But history gives me little hope.

Resistance to Imperialism Throughout History

Finally, history teaches us that oppressed peoples have always eventually resisted imperialism, even when the power of their oppressors seemed overwhelming. From African and Asian decolonization to the independence movements in Latin America, and the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, history shows that domination by force cannot last forever.

These forms of resistance take various shapes: armed struggles, civil disobedience, popular mobilizations, and diplomatic pressure. But they all share the same fierce determination to achieve freedom and dignity. The Miller Doctrine, like all imperial doctrines before it, will ultimately come up against this unquenchable resistance from peoples who refuse oppression.

A Crossroads for Humanity

We are at a crucial moment in human history, a crossroads where two worldviews clash. On one side is the vision of Miller and the Trump administration: a world governed by force, where the powerful take whatever they want without regard for rules, justice, or human consequences. On the other, the vision of a world founded on law, cooperation, mutual respect, and human dignity.

The choice between these two visions will determine the future of humanity for decades, if not centuries, to come. Will we slide into a new age of conflict and barbarism, or will we be able to preserve and build upon the achievements of civilization that we have worked so hard to build since the end of World War II? The answer will depend on our collective choices, our ability to resist the logic of force, and our courage to defend the values of peace and justice.

The Responsibility of Today’s Generations

We, the current generations, bear a special historical responsibility. We have inherited a world that, despite its imperfections, was, on the whole, more peaceful and prosperous than at any time in human history. We have the choice to preserve this legacy or to destroy it. We have the choice to leave our children a better world or a worse one.

This individual and collective responsibility must not paralyze us, but rather mobilize us. Every action counts, every voice counts, every choice counts. Resisting the logic of war, defending international law, promoting peace and justice—all of this contributes to building the world we want for the future.

As I finish writing these lines, my heart is heavy with concern but also filled with a strange determination. Concern in the face of the rise of humanity’s worst instincts, in the face of this resurgence of violence and arrogance that threatens everything we have built. But also determination, because I know that we are not doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. I believe in humanity’s ability to learn, to improve, to choose light over darkness. The battle for peace, justice, and human dignity is an eternal battle, but it is a battle worth fighting—for us, for our children, and for the future of our world.