## The Monroe Doctrine is Back: How Trump is Reviving a Controversial US Policy
Two centuries ago, US President James Monroe declared the Western Hemisphere off-limits to European powers in what would become known as the “Monroe Doctrine”.
The proclamation established the foundation for a new era of US dominance and “policing” of the region.
In the decades that followed, almost a third of the nearly 400 US interventions worldwide took place in Latin America. The United States toppled governments it deemed unfavourable or used force later ruled illegal by international courts.
In 2013, then-Secretary of State John Kerry announced “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over”.It signalled a shift towards treating the region as partners rather than a sphere of influence.
Now, however, the National Security Strategy released last week by the Trump governance has formally revived that old doctrine.
It helps explain the administration’s interventionist actions in the region over the past couple months, from it’s deadly boat strikes in the caribbean to its selective use of sanctions and pardons.
Why Latin America is so critically important
Table of Contents
In typical hubristic fashion, the document openly announces a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, elevating the Western Hemisphere as the top US international priority. The days when the Middle East dominated American foreign policy are “thankfully over”, it says.The document also ties US security and prosperity directly to maintaining US preeminence in Latin America. For example, it aims to deny China and other powers access to key strategic assets in the region, such as military installations, ports, critical minerals and cyber communications networks.
Crucially,it fuses the Trump administration’s harsh rhetoric on “narco-terrorists” with the US-China great power competition.
It frames a more robust US military presence and diplomatic pressure as necessary to confront Latin American drug cartels *and* protect sea lanes, ports and critical infrastructure from Chinese influence.
How the strategy explains Trump’s actions
For months, the Trump administration has been striking suspected drug boats in the caribbean Sea and eastern pacific Ocean, killing dozens of people.International law experts and human rights officials say these attacks breach international law. The US Congress has not authorised any armed conflict.
US Influence in Latin America: A Resurgent Monroe Doctrine?
Recent diplomatic events and ongoing US policy in Latin America suggest a continued assertion of influence in the region, echoing historical patterns reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine. while a recent CELAC-EU summit emphasized the need for peace, it avoided direct condemnation of US military actions near Latin American shores. This comes as individual Latin American governments navigate complex relationships with the US, seeking either cooperation or attempting to avoid being labeled negatively. The historical context of US intervention in the region, coupled with current events, raises questions about whether Washington still views Latin America as its sphere of influence.
The Historical Context: The Monroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine, articulated by President James Monroe in 1823, declared that European powers should no longer colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly autonomous nations of the Americas. While presented as a defense of Latin American sovereignty, the doctrine was quickly interpreted as a justification for US dominance in the hemisphere. As historian jay Sexton explains,the doctrine “served as a convenient rationale for American expansionism and intervention” https://www.cfr.org/blog/monroe-doctrine-turns-200-what-does-it-mean-today. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the US intervened militarily and politically in numerous Latin American countries, often to protect US economic interests or to counter perceived threats to regional stability.
Current Dynamics: Individual Engagements and US Policy
Today,the US approach to Latin America appears to be shifting away from broad regional agreements towards bilateral engagements. As noted in the original source, governments are now dealing with the US “one by one,” attempting to forge individual relationships. This strategy allows the US to exert pressure and influence on a case-by-case basis.
This individualized approach is often framed around concerns about drug trafficking and security. The threat of being labeled a “narco-state” is a powerful tool used by the US to influence policy in countries like Venezuela and Colombia. Though, critics argue that this framing frequently enough serves as a pretext for intervention and the imposition of US priorities.
Furthermore, the US continues to engage in military exercises and security cooperation with various Latin American nations, often with the stated goal of combating drug trafficking and terrorism. However, these activities can also be seen as a means of maintaining a US military presence in the region and projecting power.
A “Backyard” Mentality?
The perception that the US views Latin America as its “backyard” – a phrase frequently used to describe this dynamic – remains prevalent. Political scientist John Mearsheimer, in a recent interview, suggested that the US believes it has a right to “roam free” and intervene in the region as it sees fit https://nationalinterest.org/feature/we-asked-john-mearsheimer-what-should-be-the-purpose-13642. This perspective stems from a belief in US exceptionalism and a long-standing tradition of asserting dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
The recent CELAC-EU summit, while calling for peace, highlights the difficulty of achieving a unified Latin American response to US actions. The lack of condemnation of US military activity suggests a reluctance to directly confront the US,likely due to economic and political considerations.
Key Takeaways
* Historical Precedent: The Monroe Doctrine established a long history of US intervention in Latin America.
* bilateral Focus: Current US policy emphasizes individual relationships with Latin American countries rather than regional agreements.
* Security Framing: Concerns about drug trafficking and security are often used to justify US involvement in the region.
* Perception of Dominance: The US is often perceived as viewing Latin america as its sphere of influence.
* Limited Regional Unity: A unified latin American response to US actions remains challenging.
Looking Ahead
The future of US-Latin American relations remains uncertain. the continued assertion of US influence, coupled with the rise of new geopolitical actors like China, will likely shape the region’s trajectory. Whether the US can move beyond a “backyard” mentality and embrace a more equitable and collaborative relationship with Latin American nations will be a key determinant of long-term stability and prosperity in the hemisphere.
Worth a look