Resource Nationalization: The Two Words That Threaten Western Hegemony

Nationalization of natural resources—two words that have sent shockwaves through the corridors of power in the United States and France. It is a concept that has reshaped global politics, economies, and military strategies, posing a significant threat to the hegemony of these nations. For countries rich in oil, minerals, and other valuable assets, the decision to take control of their industries rather than allowing American and French corporations to exploit them has been framed as an existential threat. This framing has justified countless invasions, military interventions, and regime changes under the guise of national security. But is this truly about defense, or is it about protecting corporate interests? The evidence suggests the latter, revealing imperialism in its highest form, thinly veiled as a concern for national security.

The United States’ invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was ostensibly a response to the 9/11 attacks. However, the almost two-decade-long occupation raises questions about the true motivations behind this prolonged military presence. Afghanistan, often described as the “graveyard of empires,” is also home to vast untapped mineral wealth, including rare earth elements critical to modern technology. While the U.S. government claimed its presence was necessary to combat terrorism, the economic potential of Afghanistan’s minerals cannot be ignored. The lengthy occupation allowed for extensive exploration and exploitation opportunities for American companies under the guise of reconstruction and aid.

Iraq presents an even clearer example of intervention driven by economic interests. The 2003 invasion, justified by the false claim of weapons of mass destruction, quickly morphed into a war for oil. Iraq, sitting atop one of the world’s largest petroleum reserves, became a battleground where U.S. and European companies jockeyed for lucrative contracts to develop the country’s oil infrastructure. The invasion effectively transferred control of Iraq’s oil from a nationalized state system to foreign corporations, ensuring that the wealth generated from this industry would benefit Western interests rather than the Iraqi people.

Libya, under Muammar Gaddafi, was a nation that dared to challenge Western dominance by nationalizing its oil industry. Gaddafi’s vision of a united Africa, free from Western exploitation, was a direct threat to the economic interests of France, the United States, and their allies. His efforts to establish a gold-backed African currency, which would diminish the power of the U.S. dollar and the euro in the region, further antagonized these powers. In 2011, under the pretext of protecting civilians during the Arab Spring, NATO forces intervened in Libya. The result was the overthrow and brutal killing of Gaddafi, followed by the disintegration of Libya into a failed state plagued by civil war. The real beneficiary? Western corporations, who gained access to Libya’s vast oil reserves and the opportunity to re-establish a pliant regime more amenable to their interests.

France’s history of intervention in Africa is deeply rooted in its colonial past. From Algeria to Mali, France has consistently portrayed its military interventions as efforts to stabilize the region and combat terrorism. However, these actions are often driven by the need to maintain control over the continent’s vast natural wealth. Africa is rich in minerals, oil, and gas—commodities essential to the French economy.

In recent years, France has faced growing resistance from African nations tired of neo-colonial exploitation. Countries like Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger have witnessed a resurgence of nationalist movements seeking to reclaim control over their wealth. These movements view French military presence not as a force for good but as an occupying force protecting corporate interests rather than national security. As France finds itself increasingly forced out of its former colonies, the true nature of its interventions becomes clear: they are about maintaining economic control rather than protecting the people.

The question then arises: are these military interventions truly about national defense? When the United States and France invade or violate the sovereignty of nations thousands of miles away, it is difficult to argue that these actions are about protecting their own citizens from immediate threats. Instead, these interventions are often about safeguarding corporate interests—specifically, the interests of oil companies, mining corporations, and financial institutions.

The military-industrial complex in both the United States and France has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth of existential threats posed by nations rich in oil and minerals. This narrative justifies the enormous military budgets and the continued presence of American and French troops in strategic locations around the globe. The reality is that the true role of these militaries is often to protect the profits of multinational corporations, ensuring that resources remain accessible to Western markets and out of the hands of those who would dare to nationalize them.

Nationalization is, at its core, a challenge to the economic hegemony of the United States and France. When a country decides to reclaim control over its natural assets and prioritize its own development over the interests of foreign corporations, it disrupts the global balance of power. For the United States and France, this is more than just an economic threat—it is an existential threat to their ability to project power and influence on the global stage.

Take the example of Venezuela, a country with some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world. The late Hugo Chávez’s decision to nationalize Venezuela’s oil industry and redirect profits towards social programs was met with fierce opposition from the United States. Sanctions, covert operations, and support for opposition groups were all part of a broader strategy to destabilize Chávez’s government and bring Venezuela’s wealth back under Western control. The ongoing economic crisis in Venezuela, exacerbated by these external pressures, serves as a warning to other nations considering a similar path.

The true danger of nationalization is not to the security of the United States or France but to their dominance over the global economy. If more nations were to follow the path of nationalizing their assets, it would signal the end of the era of Western imperialism. These countries would no longer be beholden to foreign powers or multinational corporations, and the wealth generated from their natural wealth could be used to benefit their own populations rather than enriching a select few in the West.

The world must ask itself: what real threat do nations like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Venezuela pose to the United States, France, or Britain? The answer is clear: none. The invasions and interventions we have witnessed are not about protecting the homeland but about protecting profits. The military might of these superpowers is wielded not in defense of their citizens but in defense of their corporations.

Nationalization is arguably the most dangerous concept to the United States, France, and their allies because it represents a direct challenge to their control over the global economy. As more nations assert their right to manage their own assets, the façade of national security begins to crumble, revealing the true nature of Western imperialism. The world stands at a crossroads: continue down the path of exploitation and domination, or embrace a future where nations are free to develop their own wealth for the benefit of their people. The choice is clear, and the stakes have never been higher.