I am surprised by how quickly the world has changed in the last two months. Six months ago, when I wrote that the Monroe Doctrine should be dead and buried, I said that it would never again become possible for anyone to openly talk about major powers carving up the world to satisfy their imperial ambitions. I was completely wrong. In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has talked about taking over the Panama Canal, buying Greenland, and making Canada the 51^st state of America. He has also publicly stated that he will use force to accomplish some of those goals if he had to.

It is bad enough that President Trump made these brash statements. What is shocking is the rather muted reaction to those absurdities. I thought most people would be horrified by the things he said and push back on them immediately. Instead, there has been nothing but silence. As things stand, James Monroe’s creed is alive and well in America today.

We are the most powerful nation on the planet and so as an American citizen, I shouldn’t have much to worry about this emergence of a world in which the mighty rule and all else either take instructions, or suffer what they may. But I have to speak out because in a previous life, my homeland was one of the choices on the restaurant menu. As a native Ghanaian who was born in the country soon after it gained independence from Britain, my childhood and early adult years were significantly impacted, negatively, by the effects of colonialism.

When President Monroe gave that infamous speech to Congress in 1823, his expressed desire was to establish, for the U.S., a sphere of influence in the Americas. The U.S. would have the freedom to do what it pleased not only in countries like Mexico and the Caribbean states, but also in Brazil, Argentina, and elsewhere in South America. The European powers of the day such as Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal could then satisfy their appetites in the rest of the world without having to worry about competition from America.

President Monroe at least limited his dinner choices to whatever meats and foods he could find in his own backyard. Our current president wants to enjoy fine cuisine all over the world. Greenland should theoretically be left to the Europeans, but he wants it as well.

Brazil and Argentina, the behemoths of today’s South America, were there for the taking in 1823. They were weak nations that had just gained independence from their colonial masters, Portugal and Spain. It is unlikely that President Monroe spent even a few minutes to consider what the Brazilians and Argentines would think about the things he was going to say about them to Congress. I would love to walk up and down the streets of Brasilia and Buenos Aires today and interview people. It would be fascinating to hear their thoughts on the suggestion by the current U.S. president that it will soon be 1823 all over again.

It is fast approaching a century since African countries like Ghana and Nigeria gained independence from Britain. Even after all that time, they continue to be stuck in the positions that Brazil and Argentina were in the early 19^th century. The overwhelming majority of African nations are weak and still heavily dependent on external powers for their survival. Africans will therefore be particularly vulnerable in this new world that these nouveau imperialists are trying to create. But rather inexplicably, some Africans are gleefully championing this slide into cannibalism.

Over the last half-century, I have listened to incessant talk by some Africans about how every single problem on the African continent is the fault of colonialism. In the beginning, I largely agreed with that assessment. But in the past couple of decades, I have grown tired of the constant blaming of others for Africa’s many woes. I have learned enough about life to know that many of the wounds have been self-inflicted. Some of my friends have called me all kinds of names when I have expressed this view. In some people’s eyes, I am an apologist for past imperialism. But I have remained comfortable holding that unpopular opinion.

For decades, I have watched one crop of Ghanaian political leaders after another sell the nation’s precious resources not to the highest bidders, but to the lowest. The fastest way to attain wealth in Ghana is through corruption. To any close observer of the country, about the only reason most people enter politics is to have access to state assets and loot them. There certainly are some honest citizens who try to seek public office to do the right things, but they form a tiny minority. Because most public officials are always looking for ways to make a quick buck, many don’t even bother to scrutinize contracts to ensure they are in the national interest before signing them. They just take bribes and put pen to paper. The same thing happens in Nigeria and all across the continent. These asset giveaways constitute the primary reason that Africa has been stuck in neutral for so long.

To be fair to some of those friends of mine who disagree with my views about the causes of Africa’s socio-economic stagnation, they at least acknowledge the roles that corruption and lack of proper due diligence in contracting have played. That is why I have been flabbergasted by some of the things they have said about the minerals deal that President Trump has been trying to strike with Ukraine. Since the disastrous Oval Office meeting last Friday between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a chorus of voices, belonging to these same Africans, have used stupid and all kinds of nasty adjectives to describe Zelenskyy for his refusal to sign the deal.

I have no idea what is in that deal. From what I have been able to gather from scouring all kinds of news sources, it appears that not even members of the U.S. Congress know much about what the Ukrainians have been offered in exchange for their minerals. I don’t know how these folks in Africa learned that it is a great deal for Zelenskyy and his compatriots. These wiseasses have also said all along that it was extremely foolish for Ukraine to even think about joining the EU or NATO. To them, Russia is a major power that is entitled to its own sphere of influence and the Ukrainians should have known better and remained under that umbrella quietly. Those smart alecks like to refer to themselves as realists. Having listened to them for five decades complaining about how colonialism robbed them of the glorious life that they would have had otherwise, it is clear to me that they didn’t like it one bit when “real” things happened to them.

Who is the apologist for imperialists now, me or them? Wonders will never end.