The “Monroe Doctrine 2.0”: Is a New Era of US Interventionism Dawning in Latin America?
A new term is circulating in geopolitical circles: the “Donroe Doctrine,” a portmanteau of Donald Trump and James Monroe. It signifies a potentially seismic shift in US foreign policy, particularly concerning its approach to Latin America. While the original Monroe Doctrine of 1823 aimed to prevent European colonial powers from further interfering in the Americas, its modern iteration, as evidenced by recent actions, appears to be evolving into something far more assertive – and potentially destabilizing.
From Non-Intervention to Assertive Influence
President James Monroe’s 1823 declaration warned European powers against re-establishing colonies or interfering in the affairs of newly independent American nations. Initially, this was largely a defensive posture, designed to protect the US’s burgeoning interests from external threats, primarily from Spain and France. However, the doctrine underwent a significant transformation in 1904 under President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s “Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine asserted the right of the US to intervene in the domestic affairs of Latin American countries if they proved unable to maintain order or pay their debts.
Now, some analysts argue that the Trump administration, and potentially its successors, are pushing this interventionist tendency even further. The actions surrounding Venezuela, where the US openly supported opposition figures and imposed sanctions, are often cited as a prime example. This suggests a willingness to directly influence the political landscape of a sovereign nation, effectively reserving the right to dictate outcomes within the Western Hemisphere.
Security Concerns and Regional Pushback
This increased US assertiveness isn’t occurring in a vacuum. Several Latin American nations have forged strong ties with countries that are geopolitical rivals of the United States, such as China and Russia. This creates a complex web of alliances and dependencies, raising concerns in Washington about the erosion of its traditional influence. For many South American countries, maintaining relationships with multiple global powers is a matter of economic necessity and strategic diversification.
The US’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) signals a significant ideological shift, prioritizing a pragmatic “America First” approach. This strategy, as highlighted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS analysis), risks redefining long-standing alliances and embracing a “realist” worldview that prioritizes US power and prosperity, even at the expense of regional partnerships. The era of promoting democratic ideals and “manifest destiny” appears to be fading.
Brazil: A Key Test Case
The growing Chinese presence in Brazil exemplifies this shifting dynamic. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is rapidly expanding its economic footprint in Brazil, investing heavily in infrastructure, industry, and consumer markets. According to The Diplomat (China’s influence in Brazil), while the US remains the largest foreign investor, Chinese Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) surged by 113% from 2023 to 2024, compared to a mere 0.057% increase in US investment. This provides Beijing with a crucial foothold in South America, challenging Washington’s traditional sphere of influence.
Brazil, historically a non-aligned nation, maintains economic ties with the US and EU, while also cultivating relationships with China and Russia. It purchases arms from both European and American manufacturers (Italy’s Centauro II armored vehicles being a recent example – Ares Difesa report). This balanced approach, distinct from the more US-aligned positions of countries like Argentina under Milei, puts Brazil at a potential crossroads as the US implements its new security strategy.
Lula’s Response and the Venezuelan Precedent
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has been a vocal critic of US interventionism, particularly regarding Venezuela. He condemned US actions as a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and a dangerous precedent for the region, stating on X (formerly Twitter) that “a limit has been exceeded.” Lula’s stance reflects Brazil’s commitment to a renewed policy of regional cooperation and diplomatic engagement, exemplified by its role in de-escalating the recent crisis between Venezuela and Guyana over the Essequibo region (InsideOver report).
Feliciano Guimaraes, a professor of international relations at Yale and researcher at CEBRI (Centro Brasileiro de Relaçoes Internacionais), argues that Venezuela represents the biggest strategic challenge for Lula’s foreign policy. He suggests that Brazil faces three potential responses to the US’s assertive stance: resistance, conditional collaboration, or full acceptance of US dominance. Guimaraes emphasizes the need for Brazil to develop a coherent defense policy and a strategic vision for navigating a regional landscape increasingly shaped by great power competition.
Implications for Europe and the Future of Regional Order
The unpredictable nature of US foreign policy under the “Donroe Doctrine 2.0” presents significant challenges for Europe. Washington may be less inclined to accommodate European diplomatic initiatives in Latin America, potentially hindering EU efforts to strengthen ties with the region. Furthermore, Lula’s efforts to foster intra-South American cooperation could also face headwinds from a US determined to reassert its influence.
The situation demands careful consideration from European policymakers. A more assertive US approach could necessitate a recalibration of European strategies, potentially requiring greater investment in diplomatic engagement and economic partnerships with Latin American nations to counterbalance US influence and promote a more multipolar regional order.
Pro Tip:
Understanding the historical context of the Monroe Doctrine is crucial for interpreting current events. The doctrine has been invoked and reinterpreted throughout history, often serving as justification for US intervention in the region.
FAQ
Q: What was the original Monroe Doctrine?
A: The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 declared that European powers should not interfere in the affairs of the Americas.
Q: How is the “Donroe Doctrine” different?
A: The “Donroe Doctrine” suggests a more proactive and interventionist US policy, potentially involving direct influence over the political landscape of Latin American nations.
Q: What role is China playing in Latin America?
A: China is rapidly increasing its economic investment in Latin America, particularly in Brazil, challenging US influence in the region.
Q: What is Brazil’s position in this evolving geopolitical landscape?
A: Brazil is attempting to maintain a non-aligned position, balancing relationships with the US, China, Russia, and the EU.
Q: What are the potential consequences of a more assertive US policy in Latin America?
A: Increased regional instability, strained relationships with Latin American nations, and a potential shift towards a more multipolar regional order.
Did you know? The term “Donroe Doctrine” is a relatively new coinage, reflecting the growing concern over a potential return to a more interventionist US foreign policy in Latin America.
What are your thoughts on the evolving US-Latin America relationship? Share your insights in the comments below!
