The Donroe Doctrine in Venezuela: Will it ignite a global power struggle?
In a surprising move that reshaped US foreign policy, President Donald Trump justified the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as an absolute necessity to restore complete US hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. Trump dubbed this new approach the “Donroe Doctrine,” a clear reference to the historic “Monroe Doctrine,” raising profound questions about the future of the international order and its impact on the behavior of rival great powers like China and Russia.
From Monroe to “Dunroe”: Historical Roots
To understand the dimensions of what Trump called the “Donroe Doctrine,” one must return to the historical roots of the “Monroe Doctrine,” proclaimed by President James Monroe in 1823. This doctrine was originally intended to prevent European colonial powers from interfering in the affairs of newly independent states in the Americas. Over time, however, this doctrine transformed from a defensive stance into a tool for justifying American interventions in Latin America, which is considered Washington’s “backyard.” Today, Trump is redefining this concept to go beyond mere non-intervention, aiming instead to impose direct control that precludes any strategic presence of rival powers, particularly China, which has become the largest trading partner and creditor for many countries in the region.
The new national security strategy: resources and influence
Trump explained that the military operation in Caracas was not an isolated event, but rather a practical application of the new “National Security Strategy.” Documents associated with this strategy indicate a fundamental shift in US priorities, focusing on securing strategic resources in Latin America and ensuring the stability of regimes allied with Washington to prevent mass migration. Most importantly, the strategy explicitly states that no military or strategic presence of rival powers (China and Russia) will be tolerated in this geographic area, which explains the targeting of Maduro, who had strengthened his country’s ties with Beijing and Moscow.
Serious repercussions: Is the era of spheres of influence returning?
Observers and international relations experts believe that reviving this doctrine in its expansionist form could erode the rules-based international order. If the United States grants itself the right to change regimes in its geographic vicinity under the pretext of national security, this could provide its adversaries with an ideal justification to follow suit. Attention is focused with concern on China, which considers Taiwan an integral part of its territory and sphere of influence, and on Russia, which views Ukraine and the countries of Eastern Europe as an inviolable strategic depth.
Recent Chinese military exercises around Taiwan, simulating a blockade of the island, have heightened concerns that Beijing might interpret the US move in Venezuela as a tacit green light to assert its dominance in the South China Sea. Similarly, Moscow might find in the Donroe Doctrine justification for tightening its grip on its immediate neighborhood, potentially reverting to the Cold War-era logic of spheres of influence.
International reactions and the future of the conflict
This shift has sparked widespread international concern, with UN Secretary-General António Guterres warning of a “dangerous precedent.” While Trump supporters, such as researcher Alexander Gray, argue that this move is necessary to end two decades of appeasement toward Chinese and Russian expansion in the Americas, other voices, like Jennifer Kavanagh of the Defense Priorities Center, warn of the chaos that could result from legitimizing regime change by force. With Trump hinting at further expansionist ambitions, such as the potential purchase of Greenland, the world appears to be entering a new phase of open geopolitical conflict, where diplomacy is being sidelined in favor of imposing a fait accompli through military force.
