The Risk That the Premier Makes Us Subjects of the USA: A Growing Concern Among Citizens and Politicians
March 29, 2025
In recent months, a growing political debate has emerged in the nation about the potential risks of increased dependence on the United States, sparked by actions and policies associated with the current prime minister. Critics argue that the direction taken by the premier could lead the country into becoming a de facto subject or satellite state of the USA—one where national sovereignty, decision-making, and independence are significantly compromised in favor of American interests.
This growing concern is being voiced by a broad spectrum of politicians, analysts, and ordinary citizens who fear that the country’s future could be irrevocably tied to Washington’s agenda. As tensions rise, the question becomes: Is the current government’s pro-American stance jeopardizing the nation’s autonomy?
Increasing Alignment with U.S. Foreign Policy
Under the leadership of the current premier, the country has increasingly aligned itself with U.S. policies on multiple fronts, ranging from economic agreements to military alliances. While some view these steps as necessary for ensuring global security and fostering strong international relationships, others argue that the compromises made by the government are too great.
One of the most contentious areas of concern is the expanding military cooperation between the two countries. Recent defense agreements have allowed U.S. troops and military assets to be stationed within the country, with minimal debate or resistance from the government. These agreements, critics argue, could lead to the country’s involvement in conflicts that primarily serve American interests rather than the nation’s own.
Additionally, there have been reports of U.S.-influenced trade deals that many feel prioritize American corporations over domestic businesses, further tying the country’s economy to American policies. This growing dependence on U.S. military, economic, and political support has led to fears that the country could lose its ability to make independent decisions, instead serving as a pawn in the broader geopolitical game dominated by the U.S.
Cultural and Economic Influence: The Americanization of National Identity
Another area of concern is the cultural and social impact of deeper ties with the U.S. Many feel that the premier’s policies have encouraged an “Americanization” of national identity, from the increased presence of U.S. media to the promotion of American-style capitalism and consumerism. The proliferation of American fast food chains, entertainment, and even educational systems that mirror those of the U.S. has led some critics to worry that the country’s unique culture, values, and traditions are being eroded in favor of American norms.
This “soft power” dynamic is often seen as just as significant as political or economic influence. In a world increasingly dominated by American media, entertainment, and technology, there is growing concern that the country could lose its cultural distinctiveness, resulting in citizens more aligned with U.S. ideals than their own.
Political Maneuvering: The Risk of Losing Autonomy
Politicians and critics across the political spectrum have expressed alarm at the growing influence of the U.S. in domestic policy-making. Some claim that the government has been too quick to capitulate to American interests without properly considering the long-term consequences for national sovereignty.
“The prime minister’s actions seem to be creating a situation where we have less control over our own policies, whether in trade, foreign relations, or security,” said Rajiv Kapoor, a former foreign policy advisor. “It’s as if we’re being drawn into an orbit around the U.S., where decisions are increasingly made based on what is beneficial for them, not us.”
The risk of losing political independence is not just theoretical. Observers point to instances where the country has aligned itself with U.S. foreign interventions and policy decisions that do not necessarily align with national interests. From involvement in international conflicts to backing U.S.-led sanctions against countries with whom the nation has historically had neutral relations, critics argue that the government is making decisions that undermine the country’s autonomy in favor of U.S. geopolitical interests.
Public Reactions: A Divided Nation
As concerns over the nation’s growing dependence on the United States mount, the public has become increasingly divided. On one hand, some citizens view the alliance with the U.S. as essential for national security, particularly given the global rise of authoritarian regimes and geopolitical tensions. They argue that the benefits of such alliances, including economic aid, military protection, and global influence, outweigh the potential risks to sovereignty.
“I see our ties with the U.S. as a way to strengthen our position on the world stage,” said Neha Patel, a supporter of the government’s foreign policy. “Having the backing of the U.S. means we are safer and more secure in an increasingly unstable world. We need their support to ensure our prosperity.”
On the other hand, there are growing concerns among citizens who fear that this alignment is not sustainable in the long term. Protests have erupted in major cities, with many rallying under the slogan, “Keep Our Sovereignty.” These protestors argue that the country should prioritize its independence, make decisions based on its own needs, and be wary of becoming a puppet of American foreign policy.
“We’ve worked hard for our independence, and now it feels like we’re handing that away piece by piece,” said Amit Singh, a political activist who organized a recent protest. “We cannot afford to let the U.S. dictate our future.”
A Fine Balance: Navigating National Interests and International Alliances
While many recognize the importance of international alliances, the concern is whether the premier is overreaching by aligning too closely with one nation. The challenge lies in striking a delicate balance—strengthening ties with global powers like the U.S. while ensuring that the country retains its independence and the ability to make decisions that are in the best interest of its citizens.
As the political landscape continues to evolve, it remains to be seen how the premier will respond to growing calls for a reassessment of foreign policy. Will they continue to deepen ties with the U.S., or will they heed the warnings of those who fear the risks of becoming a subject rather than a sovereign nation?
In the coming months, as elections loom and tensions rise, the question of sovereignty versus security will undoubtedly become a central theme of national debate. One thing is certain: the stakes are high, and the future of the nation’s autonomy hangs in the balance.
