Since the end of the Second Opium War (1856-1860), in which the United States participated jointly with France in support of Great Britain, the Americans learned of the benefits of arbitrarily achieving what they proposed using the force of cannons once the commercial and political blackmail failed.
After one hundred and fifty-eight years, the technique remains the same.
The United States often resembles a two-year-old boy with a very large and powerful club who goes around hitting everyone who doesn´t agree with the unilateral conditions imposed on their business partners.
Also through blackmail tries to impose these conditions on the so-called non-aligned countries.
In the XIX Century, we saw the beginning of these strategies in the way of doing businesses of the so-called giants of the North American industry.
Many people think that Rockefeller or J.P. Morgan were business gentlemen when on the contrary, they amassed their fortunes based on the violent domain of business and the markets they served.
This way of doing business has not changed over time.
Nevertheless, the government of the United States of America has misinterpreted the role it plays in the international concert, fearing that its armament power can arbitrarily impose its economic policies on the rest of the world.
The causes are predictable and the consequences are always the same
This policy has varied over time depending on the government in office.
However, at this time, we are in the presence of a visible backwardness in the US foreign policy, which seems to have returned to the policy of the iron and the club in an open manner.
Since 2017, there has been an increase in pressure from the United States against European markets and especially against trade with China.
A constant in these pressures has been the intention of the US government to seek advantages for its citizens without evaluating aspects such as competitiveness and cost-benefit.
From their point of view, Americans have the “right” to buy cheap and sell expensive in the world, just because they have the largest guns.
In addition, this way of doing business has been observed in the near past in conflicts such as Libya.
Libya was invaded and the structure of a very complex society was eliminated, due to the (veiled) fact that the Libyan government was promoting a change in international trade by abandoning the dollar standard for its international transactions, assuming the euro as a currency of use.
The European Union did not take part in the pre-war plot since by migrating from the dollar to the euro.
The economy of the union benefited, the euro was being strengthened.
The real problem arose when Libya tried to create its own international currency and started negotiations with countries like Iraq and Iran to take on this new currency.
This situation made the European Union stop being indifferent to these ideas of economic autonomy of Libya and it was then when they gave in to the intrigues generated by the United States that they claimed as always that Libya harbored terrorism.
Ultimately, whenever the United States feels that its conditions for trade are not the most beneficial (whether true or false) they go to war.
They begin altering the economy of a country and in time they turn to conventional war, to impose their will, which shows that certainly that one with the biggest stick, imposes the rules.