The American historian Timothy Snyder, in his On Tyranny, outlined the threat of anticipatory obedience that occurs under authoritarian regimes. In essence, the concept involves people, organisations and companies pre-emptively conforming to what they believe is expected or desired by those in power.

Examples include how major US media have actively censored free speech and begun to uncritically repeat official propaganda; how major US corporations have pro-actively engaged in dismantling of DEI initiatives. Snyder warns us that:

“ ... individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.”

The concept of anticipatory obedience is a useful one for understanding certain developments in the US in the past 12 months. However, I also think it has application at the level of international relations. Individual states, confronted with an authoritarian hyperpower — which the US is by virtue of it bloated imperial military and garrisons around the world – are engaging in this process too. The failure of, especially European, nation states to uphold international law around the genocide against the Palestinian people is an example of this, not wishing to incur the wrath of the rogue hyperpower by enforcing international law on its client state of Israel.

The new year has thrown this into further relief, with the blatant breach of international law and naked imperialism of January 3, when the US invaded Venezuela and kidnapped its president, subsequently announcing the US would now rule Venezuela. That they are doing this by proxy, by forcing the Venezuelan government into humiliating acts of imperial tribute do not in any way change the stark reality that the US has converted Venezuela into a vassal state.

While key regional powers – Brazil, Colombia and Mexico – have taken a strong stand opposing this blatant act of imperialism, others have either failed to condemn it or have only offered the mildest of rebukes, instead engaging in victim blaming of Venezuela. With the exception of the principled stand of Spain, much of Europe adopted this supine position, including the UK, who sacrificed international law on the altar of the “special relationship”.

Closer to home, Caricom has offered perhaps the weakest statement of all, simply noting that it is firmly committed to upholding international law, while not taking any position at all on actually upholding international law. Instead, they are simply going to “monitor“ the situation. They have swapped their hot sauce for water.

International law only exists if it is enforced through collective action and international solidarity. Failure to even call out blatant breaches of international law is the politics of appeasement. It teaches the rogue state as much as the bully that they can act with impunity and this only encourages future acts of imperialist violence from them. We have already seen this in action – failure to immediately and clearly condemn the US only encouraged them to threaten Cuba, Mexico, Colombia and Denmark with threats of regime change, invasions and annexation.

From a realpolitik perspective, one can understand that Europe is desperate to keep the US “on board“ with the defence of Ukraine. And yet, this act of humiliation by Europe only encourages US imperialist threats to Europe around Greenland, as well as legitimising the actions of Russia in Ukraine. The only difference between the imperialist invocation of the Monroe Doctrine (and its ”Trump Corollary“) and Russia’s claims on its ”near abroad’“ (former Soviet and Warsaw Pact states), or China’s claims throughout East Asia are aspects of geography alone.

It encourages a move to the imperialist mindset of spheres of influence, a carve up of the globe by the great powers, in this case Washington, Moscow and Beijing. This was most hauntingly made clear, in blood red lettering, by a social-media post by the US State Department, declaring that the US considers the Western Hemisphere as the US’s alone, the self-determination and the self-governance of our people and territory only tolerated, provided we toe the line of the new imperial Rome on the Potomac.

Also from a realpolitik perspective we can see the rationale of the Caribbean region in prostrating themselves in the face of imperial power. When the British exited stage left as the imperial power, the US entered and took their place, just with less pomp, but no less real power. And in the years since, the nominal independence of much of the region we have collectively failed to wean ourselves off the plantation model of economic dependence to great powers. The only difference is that now tribute flows to DC instead of London, Paris or Madrid.

In this light, we have seen how Antigua & Barbuda and Dominica, facing US pressure, have offered them concessions, willing to receive immigrants deported from the US. Individual island states, individually weak and no match for the imperial military of the US, have taken the lesson of the kidnapping of Maduro that there is nothing stopping the US from using imperial violence to do the same in Bridgetown, Kingston, St John’s, Roseau or Santo Domingo. Better to fall in line now and offer concessions before being formally subjugated – and in the process they subjugate themselves.

And just as there’s now nothing stopping the US doing to Mia Mottley what they did to Maduro, so is there nothing stopping the US threatening to do to the UK Overseas Territories, the Dutch Caribbean or the French Caribbean what they are threatening to Greenland, a colony of Denmark. We are now confronted by the reality that, what just two years ago would have been a far-fetched thought experiment, perhaps over rum, that the US might threaten to annex Bermuda, is now no longer far-fetched but a conversation that is perhaps prudent, if not urgent, for us all to now contemplate. And the same goes for Cayman and the other colonies. That is the brave new world we live in, not even a year into the second term of Trump. And do we really expect the UK to defend us beyond rhetoric? What realistically would the UK do, after demonstrating their fealty to the US so far, in the face of blatant breaches of international law?

This is not meant to be a pessimistic opinion piece. It is an attempt at a sober reading of the consequences of January 3 and what it means for the region, and the anticipatory obedience we’ve already seen demonstrated by Caricom and Europe.

Bullies such as the US, even while commanding overwhelming military force, can and have been stopped before. They do not have the power to dominate us all, though they may try to scare us into submission. But collective action and international solidarity does have the power to hold them in check. Regional leadership will not do this unless they are forced to by their people, if they know that their people are willing to sacrifice convenience and consumerism to uphold justice and independence.

In this, organised labour is, as always, leading the way in the defence of our collective rights and freedom. The International Trade Union Conference (ITUC) has taken the clearest stand of all our so called leaders, with the ITUC General Secretary making clear that:

“Threats of abduction and the misuse of courts to attack a sovereign government undermine the rule of law, internationally, and set a precedent for imperial coercion that represents a threat to peace everywhere.”

A better world is possible and we can, collectively, resist American imperialism.

Divided we fall. United we (must) stand.

• Jonathan Starling is a socialist writer with an MSc in Ecological Economics from the University of Edinburgh and an MSc in Urban and Regional Planning from Heriot-Watt University