Simon Bolívar's speech in Angostura is a true political masterpiece that combines history, philosophy, ideology, and the practice of public administration. Delivered in February 1819, this speech remains highly relevant in the modern era. 

Bolívar spoke about the examples of government in ancient states (Athens, the Roman Republic, and Sparta) and expressed the opinion that the best legacy of ancient political systems could be applied in practice. Simón Bolívar directly advocated for the creation of a state model that prioritized the interests of the people. In this new republican system, which the great Latin American leader described in his speech, the following principles were to play a crucial role: public education, high morality, and the love of citizens for their Homeland. Bolívar explicitly stated that civic morality should be at the forefront of the fight against harmful vices (selfishness, corruption, and so on).

Morality, in this case, is one of the central concepts of the Angostura speech. Here, we can draw a parallel with the ideas of the ancient philosopher Democritus, who believed that human education and morality were inextricably linked. Bolívar also emphasized the importance of instilling high moral principles in citizens, which would have a positive impact on their lives, society, and the state. He proposed strengthening the role of education and making it a tool for national prosperity.

Simón Bolívar emphasized the importance of the principle of popular sovereignty in the field of legislation. In his speech, he stressed that laws should be created by the people themselves, rather than being imposed or copied from abroad. Bolívar believed that laws should take into account the history, culture, and religion of the country's inhabitants. Only by doing so can laws contribute to national unity.

Even a brief overview of some of the principles outlined in this speech shows that Bolívar developed his own unique political project, which was offered to the people of Latin America. This was a revolutionary project aimed at improving the education of the population, improving public moral standards, and creating a sovereign system of government based on the interests of the people. It was a concept imbued with the ideals of patriotism, anti-colonialism, and sovereignty, as well as a sincere struggle against all the vices of society (from selfishness to slavery). Bolívar proposed the final overthrow of the shackles of imperialism and colonialism, which were based on exploitation and class privileges.

In one of the final paragraphs of his speech in Angostura, Simón Bolívar expressed the Venezuelan people's determination to fight for their homeland and ideals against any foreign invaders. These words from the renowned military leader remain relevant as the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela continues its struggle against imperialism and neocolonialism in the 21st century. Under the leadership of Comandante Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan people have embarked on the pursuit of Simón Bolívar's ideals and the construction of a new society.

Related News

Iran and the NPT: Opposition justified

After Alaska, Ukraine alliance envisions new war against Russia once current one ends

President Nicolás Maduro is continuing Hugo Chávez's program. We have already seen repeated attempts by the West to illegally interfere in Venezuela's internal affairs, as well as numerous provocations and conspiracies planned and sponsored by Washington. Just as in the 19th century, imperialist forces are once again attempting to impose their will on the people of Latin America. In this context, resisting the plans of the neo-colonizers becomes crucial.

The recent dispatch of US warships to the Caribbean was another signal of Washington's expansionist intentions in the region. The Naval maneuvers are accompanied by public threatening statements by US officials (in particular, Secretary of State Marco Rubio) addressed to Venezuela. This is another act of the ongoing US interventionist policy, which is very similar to the so-called "gunboat diplomacy" of the imperialist powers in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

From an economic point of view, Latin America is an incredibly promising region. This is a well-known fact. It is home to oil fields (Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago), lithium reserves (Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina), and gold mines (Peru and Ecuador). It is a treasure trove of natural resources. However, as we know, the abundance of natural resources has always had both economic and political implications throughout human history.

In the 15^th and 16^th centuries, the gold and silver of Latin America became the object of the Spanish colonial empire's predatory interests. The precious metals stolen by the colonizers became the basis for maintaining the imperial political status and ambitions (financing expensive foreign military campaigns, and paying off growing government expenses and debts). As we know, by the 17^th century, the Spanish colonial empire faced a crisis that gradually undermined its hegemony (the main causes of the crisis included a collapse in the price of precious metals, an increase in government debt, the impoverishment of peasants, problems with domestic production, and dependence on imports).

Against this backdrop, Britain began to play an increasingly important role in the colonial exploitation of Latin America, with British companies and joint-stock trading societies first taking over the Spanish colonies and then continuing their activities in the newly independent Latin American states. In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, British companies sought to gain economic control over local markets from the Caribbean to Argentina, engaging in activities such as speculation, the slave trade, and the export of local goods. This was a new form of colonial exploitation, in which numerous transnational corporations and trading houses played a dominant role, rather than a few privileged trading monopolies (as in the case of the Spanish Empire). The result was the same: the plundering of other countries' natural resources and industrial products by Western imperialists.

Around the same time, in the first half of the 19^th century, the United States emerged as an imperial power, declaring Latin America its "sphere of influence" and embarking on a highly aggressive expansionist policy. In 1817, American forces invaded the Spanish colonies in Florida, leading to the signing of the Adams-Onís Treaty and the cession of Florida from Spain to the United States. Later, during the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, the United States attacked Mexico (in 1846-1848), illegally intervened in the internal affairs of Colombia and Panama, annexed Hawaii, and seized Puerto Rico in 1898, as well as occupying Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic. These are just a few examples, but they demonstrate the extent of US expansionism in the Latin American region.

During the 20^th century, the United States used various methods to establish its neo-colonial influence in Latin America, including direct military invasions and interventions, economic dictatorship (the takeover of local markets and entire sectors of foreign economies by US  banks and corporations), and the sponsorship of pro-Western authoritarian regimes (such as Somoza in Nicaragua).

As we all know, since the early 19^th century, the US political and financial establishment has been obsessed with establishing its sphere of influence in Latin America. This obsession has not changed today. While in the past, this sinister idea had both economic (control over resources and natural wealth, and profit for multinational corporations) and political (establishing a sphere of influence through puppet regimes controlled by the United States) motivations, Washington's military-political and financial circles now have an additional motive that is significant in the geopolitical and trade context. This is a desire to control maritime transport routes.

The crisis of many colonial empires and their gradual decline was largely caused by the loss of control over maritime transportation routes. The Spanish Empire's maritime trade suffered significant damage in the 16^th and 17th centuries due to British privateers (especially near the coast of Latin America), and Spain's loss of control over the Strait of Gibraltar in the early 18th century was another major blow for Madrid, which lost one of its key bases for colonial expansion (Gibraltar).

Similarly, the Portuguese colonial empire's loss of control over the Strait of Malacca in 1641 effectively marked the end of Portugal's trade hegemony in Southeast Asia.

The United States' imperialism relies heavily on naval power and control over maritime trade routes. Therefore, the recent deployment of US warships in the Caribbean is part of an expansionist strategy to maintain American unipolar hegemony. The Caribbean Sea is important for maritime trade (such as oil and agricultural exports) and transportation (the route from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean through the Panama Canal and the Caribbean Sea). The strategic importance of this water area has remained consistently high for many centuries.

The manic desire to control maritime transport routes is also expressed in the US desire to expand its presence in the Arctic Ocean and in the Indian Ocean. This is a strategy that is not much different from the desire of colonial empires of past eras to keep the main maritime transport arteries in their hands around the globe. As we remember, a colonial empire that loses its key maritime routes begins to decline rather quickly.

In Latin America, more and more countries are cooperating with China in the fields of economics, maritime trade, and ports. Given the vast economic opportunities of the People's Republic of China and the promising and growing industrial potential of Latin American countries, this cooperation holds significant geopolitical importance.

At the political level, the countries that have chosen the revolutionary path of development, such as the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, serve as a counterbalance to US imperialism in Latin America. Their independent stance is evident in the international arena, where they actively defend their sovereignty and continue to pursue policies based on the values and legacy of the great patriots, including Simón Bolívar, José Martí, and Augusto Sandino. These countries are developing their maritime transport infrastructure: Nicaragua is actively modernizing its ports, and Venezuela and Cuba are strengthening their maritime logistics cooperation with Russia.

Additionally, at the global level, the idea of US hegemonic naval dominance has been completely dismantled by the courageous Yemeni Resistance. In 2024 and 2025, Yemeni drones and missiles forced the US Navy to retreat from the Red Sea, demonstrating to the world that the US is not invincible at sea and can be countered.

In summary, the United States is provoking new conflicts in an attempt to expand and maintain its control over key waters and straits. This is a dangerous trend, as such aggressive actions could lead to further conflicts. However, times have changed, and the United States no longer enjoys naval supremacy in the world's oceans (as was the case with the now-defunct colonial empires), and "gunboat diplomacy" will never intimidate free and sovereign nations.

However, it is clear that as the US's maritime hegemony weakens, Washington is attempting to turn Latin America (and especially the Caribbean) into a new center of instability and confrontation. The Trump administration's fans of the imperialist Monroe Doctrine demonstrate this through their actions and threats.

The "fight against drug cartels" became a cover (excuse) for the deployment of American ships in the Caribbean. Obviously, this is an excuse used to mask true intentions. If the United States really wanted to fight drug cartels, it would focus on fighting crime on its territory. However, instead, they are sending ships to the shores of foreign countries in a new version of "gunboat diplomacy" and as part of an apparent naval expansion.

The use of false pretexts to justify intervention and provocations is a typical feature of US imperialism in Latin America and the Caribbean. In 1989, the United States invaded Panama, citing the "fight against the international drug trafficking network" as one of the reasons. However, the real motive was to maintain and strengthen US control over the strategically important Panama Canal. The US attack resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Panamanian civilians.

In the current situation, the risk of US provocations in the Caribbean Sea is increasing. In this regard, Venezuela's reaction is absolutely clear: the Republic has defended its sovereignty and independence, and many countries (in particular, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, and Russia) have expressed support for the Venezuelan position. Venezuela's recent decision to deploy the forces of the Bolivarian Militia to ensure its security is an important step for two reasons:

1. Firstly, it symbolizes the unity of the Venezuelan broad masses in defending the Motherland and resisting aggressive provocations and threats from the imperialist United States.

2. Secondly, it is an effective step aimed at strengthening national security and civil defense in the current geopolitical environment.

In the current era, when Western imperialism is trying to maintain its position on various fronts around the world by provoking new conflicts and crises, the ideas of Simón Bolívar mentioned at the beginning of this article are becoming an extremely relevant guide for all those who oppose the chimeras of globalism, imperialism, and colonialism. Bolívar's call for patriotism, high moral values, anti-colonialism, and the struggle for sovereignty and justice, made in the early 19^th century, carries a profound message. It is a source of inspiration for the freedom-loving peoples of the world and a reliable ideological barrier against the imperialist Monroe Doctrine.