Venezuela today is no longer only a Latin American crisis. It has become a theatre in which a new, more explicit expression of American power is taking shape. What commentators have begun to describe as the “Donroe Doctrine” reflects a fusion of two ideas separated by two centuries: the nineteenth-century Monroe Doctrine and the twenty-first-century worldview associated with Donald Trump. Together, they point to a sharper claim — not merely to influence outcomes in the Western Hemisphere, but to exercise a form of guardianship over them.
From Monroe to “Donroe”: a doctrine reborn
The original Monroe Doctrine, articulated by James Monroe in 1823, asserted that the Western Hemisphere was a distinct strategic space in which external powers had no legitimate role. Its logic was defensive, rooted in preventing European re-colonisation.
The contemporary variant goes further. Under the “Donroe Doctrine”, primacy is asserted openly, force is treated as a viable instrument, and the United States claims not only the right to intervene but also to supervise political outcomes. Influence is replaced by guardianship, and oversight becomes an explicit ambition rather than an implicit practice.
Reasserting spheres of influence
The first defining feature of the doctrine is the return of the sphere of influence as an organising principle. Latin America is framed as a privileged security zone — “our neighbourhood” — where extra-regional actors are viewed not as normal diplomatic participants but as intruders.
This language marks a shift. It signals that engagement by other powers is no longer simply competition, but trespass. In doing so, it weakens the idea that all states, regardless of size or geography, are equally entitled to shape their external relationships.
Securitisation of social and economic issues
The second element is securitisation. Migration, narcotics, organised crime, and even energy volatility — once treated as social, developmental, or regulatory challenges — are reframed as national security threats.
Once narrated in these terms, coercive tools follow naturally. The line between another country’s domestic governance and U.S. internal security begins to blur. What was once the terrain of diplomacy or development is repositioned as a matter of homeland protection, legitimising interventionist responses.
A shift away from democracy language
The third feature is normative. Democracy promotion, central to post-Cold War American foreign policy, recedes into the background. In its place come stability, predictability, and control.
This reflects the logic of the recent U.S. National Security Strategy: competition with major powers, management of instability close to home, and control over strategic resources. The emphasis is less on how governments are chosen and more on how reliably they align.
Venezuela, energy, and legitimacy
The doctrine is not theoretical. It is reflected in claims of oversight over political transitions and in the blurring of lines between intervention and administration. Venezuela’s vast oil reserves intensify the stakes. The country holds one of the world’s largest proven reserves, and senior officials in Washington have spoken openly about a major role for American energy companies in revitalising its oil sector.
For many in Latin America, this reinforces suspicions of resource imperialism. Combined with one of the largest displacement crises in recent history, external stewardship risks deepening internal polarisation if it is seen as imposed rather than owned.
Implications for the international order
The broader consequences extend well beyond Venezuela. First, the normalisation of spheres of influence weakens the principle of sovereign equality. Second, legitimacy becomes fragile. Latin America carries a long historical memory of intervention and regime change; force may alter governments, but it rarely manufactures consent.
Third, precedent matters. Once doctrines of supervision are accepted in one region, they travel. Other major powers will claim analogous rights in their own neighbourhoods, accelerating the erosion of restraint in international politics.
International law under strain
The Donroe Doctrine sits uneasily with the foundations of international law. The principles of non-intervention, sovereign equality, and the prohibition on the use of force are cornerstones of the United Nations Charter. Force is permitted only in self-defence or with Security Council authorisation.
External oversight of governance, however carefully framed, strains these norms. These are not abstract legal debates but questions that shape how power is exercised and contested globally.
India’s dilemma: principle, partnership, and posture
For India, the Donroe Doctrine raises difficult choices. Sovereignty and non-intervention have been central to Indian foreign policy, not out of sentiment but as practical safeguards for a post-colonial state. A world comfortable with externally supervised transitions does not automatically serve India’s long-term interests.
At the same time, India’s partnership with the United States — across the Indo-Pacific, defence, technology, and maritime security — is real and valuable. Convergence exists, but doctrines of guardianship underline a familiar truth: American foreign policy is deeply shaped by domestic politics, and tone can shift abruptly.
India’s current restraint — avoiding grandstanding while preserving cooperation — may be prudent. Silence can be strategy. But restraint should be matched with quiet diplomacy: support for regional mediation, humanitarian relief, economic stabilisation, and a steady reaffirmation in multilateral forums that guardianship carries long-term systemic costs.
What to note for Prelims?
- Monroe Doctrine: 1823 assertion of U.S. primacy in the Western Hemisphere
- “Donroe Doctrine”: informal term combining Monroe Doctrine and Trump-era primacy
- Key concepts: spheres of influence, securitisation, non-intervention
- UN Charter limits use of force to self-defence or Security Council approval
What to note for Mains?
- Analyse the return of spheres of influence in contemporary geopolitics
- Discuss how securitisation reshapes foreign intervention
- Examine tensions between guardianship doctrines and international law
- Evaluate India’s strategic choices between partnership and autonomy
