For over five centuries, global power politics has revolved around the control of resources. From silver and spices to oil and rare earths, the quest for commodities has shaped empires, redrawn borders, and justified intervention. Recent debates around the so-called “Donroe Doctrine” revive this long history, raising uncomfortable questions about sovereignty, regional dominance, and India’s role as a voice of the Global South.
From Colonial Extraction to Modern Hegemony
European expansion from the 16th century onwards was driven less by civilisational exchange and more by material extraction. Colonies across Asia, Africa, and Latin America were reorganised to supply gold, silver, spices, plantation crops, and later fossil fuels to imperial centres. Enslavement, deforestation, and monoculture economies were not side-effects but core features of this system.
In the 20th century, oil replaced precious metals as the most strategic resource. While reserves existed in North America, the largest concentrations were found in West Asia. Control over these regions became central to global power, first for European empires and later for the United States, particularly after the Second World War.
The Original Monroe Doctrine and Its Strategic Logic
The intellectual roots of contemporary American regional dominance lie in the Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823. It declared the Western Hemisphere off-limits to European imperial powers, effectively asserting the United States’ primacy over North and South America.
During the Cold War, this doctrine was contested by the Soviet Union, most notably through its alliance with Cuba under Fidel Castro, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear conflict. Yet, despite decades of pressure, the US failed to reverse the Cuban revolution, illustrating the limits of coercive regional control.
Oil, the Dollar, and Global Economic Power
The strategic control of oil-producing regions helped entrench the US dollar as the world’s primary reserve currency. Energy trade denominated in dollars sustained American economic influence even during periods of domestic fiscal stress.
In the 21st century, this model faces pressure. The rise of China has challenged long-standing US economic and technological dominance. Rare earth minerals, essential for clean energy and digital technologies, have joined oil as critical resources shaping global competition.
The ‘Donroe Doctrine’: Old Ideas in New Language
Against this backdrop, former US President Donald Trump invoked what he termed the “Donroe Doctrine”, an apparent revival of regional hegemony doctrines in response to shifting global power balances. The doctrine echoes the logic that great powers have a legitimate right to impose their will within their neighbourhoods.
This framing has been used to justify coercive actions in Latin America, particularly against resource-rich but politically vulnerable states such as Venezuela.
Venezuela and the Question of Sovereignty
Venezuela possesses some of the world’s largest proven oil reserves. While its domestic political system under Nicolás Maduro has been widely criticised, regime change through external coercion raises serious questions under international law.
Unlike cases where states invoke imminent security threats, Venezuela poses no comparable challenge to US national security. This weakens claims that intervention is driven by defence concerns rather than strategic and economic interests.
NATO, Security Narratives, and Selective Principles
Comparisons are often drawn between India’s muted response to developments in Venezuela and its position on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In the latter case, Russia cited security concerns arising from NATO’s eastward expansion, involving the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Whether or not such justifications are accepted, the contrast highlights how principles of sovereignty are often applied selectively in international politics, shaped by power asymmetries rather than consistent norms.
India’s Global South Commitments Under Scrutiny
India has increasingly projected itself as a champion of the Global South, emphasising strategic autonomy and moral leadership. This posture sits uneasily with cautious or non-committal responses to overt assertions of regional dominance by major powers.
As a nation that experienced colonial exploitation firsthand, India’s long-term interests lie in resisting doctrines that legitimise intervention without clear security justifications. Silence risks normalising precedents that could one day be turned against its own neighbourhood.
Domestic Politics and Foreign Adventurism
Historically, leaders facing declining popularity at home have often turned to assertive foreign policy to rally domestic support. The strong criticism of recent US actions by senior Democratic leaders suggests that such strategies also provoke internal resistance, underlining the contested nature of hegemonic doctrines even within powerful democracies.
What to Note for Prelims?
- Monroe Doctrine (1823) and its relevance in US foreign policy
- Resource geopolitics: oil and rare earth minerals
- Concept of Global South and strategic autonomy
- Role of NATO in contemporary security debates
What to Note for Mains?
- Continuities between colonial-era resource extraction and modern geopolitics
- Legitimacy and limits of regional hegemony doctrines
- India’s foreign policy choices as a Global South leader
- Sovereignty versus intervention in international relations
The debate around the “Donroe Doctrine” is not merely about one country or one region. It reflects enduring tensions between power and principle in world politics — and poses a test for emerging powers like India that seek both influence and moral credibility on the global stage.
