The 'Donroe Doctrine'

Image: US Marines and sailors from the U.S.S. Washington ashore for the capture of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, 1915  / Wiki Commons

With its present focus on Latin America, the Trump administration is initiating a shift in US foreign policy.

At the beginning of US President Donald Trump’s second term, the right-wing tabloid New York Post ran a full-page cover headlined “The Donroe Doctrine: Trump’s Vision for the Hemisphere.” Trump began the year by announcing plans to integrate Canada into the US as its 51st state and to take control of Greenland as well as the Panama Canal. The New York Post illustrated this on a map. Trump simply renamed the Gulf of Mexico, christening it Gulf of America.

The first year of Trump's presidency is drawing to a close, and the US government is bombing ships in the Caribbean. A massive fleet, including the largest and most modern aircraft carrier of the US, the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford, is cruising off the coast of Venezuela. During the summer, Trump not only imposed tariffs on Latin American countries but also issued outright threats against some governments.

The president left no doubt that he would prefer to overthrow Nicolás Maduro's authoritarian Venezuelan regime, if necessary, by deploying ground troops. The White House and the Pentagon repeatedly emphasize that the mission of the warships in the Caribbean is to combat drug trafficking. Trump even did not rule out military strikes against Mexico to stop drug trafficking. But is the US military adventurism with an armada with an aircraft carrier, three destroyers, numerous support vessels, and some 15,000 sailors needed and equipped to fight the drug trade? The mission in the Caribbean has now been officially named ‘Southern Spear’. Trump says he dislikes the Venezuelan government and stated that “we just have to take care of Venezuela," and he added that the country possesses vast oil reserves. The message is clear, even if the precise goal of his Latin America policy remains vague.

Latin America, the USA's revived backyard

Reputable newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Financial Times now use the term ‘Donroe Doctrine’ to express the radical change of course in decades of US foreign policy, namely a shift towards what is called in the USA the ‘Western Hemisphere’ (North, South and Central America).

Naming the focus on Latin America ‘Donroe Doctrine’ is, of course, a deliberate reference to the Monroe Doctrine. In 1823, President James Monroe convinced Congress, with his doctrine named after him, to curb European influence in Latin America. Theodore Roosevelt's additions to this policy in 1904/1905 justified US military interventions in the region. Latin America was henceforth considered a US sphere of influence, the US's backyard. The core of this doctrine, which shaped US foreign policy well into the last century, was the ambition to play a dominant role in the Western Hemisphere–whether as a benevolent hegemon with a sense of mission, or, if necessary, through cold-blooded imperialism and military intervention.

The US intervened to overthrow governments and install compliant satraps. At the beginning of the 20th century, the US waged the so-called ‘Banana Wars’. To protect the trade interests of American companies (especially the United Fruit Company), which imported bananas and other agricultural products from the region, the US intervened in many countries in Central and South America until the 1930s: Cuba, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, Honduras, Grenada, Peru, Guatemala, Colombia, and El Salvador. Decades later, during the Cold War, ideological reasoning, particularly the containment of communism, played a significant role in military interventions and counter-insurgency operations. The list of countries where US forces intervened during that period is long: Cuba, Haiti, Ecuador, Panama, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Honduras, and Bolivia.

Following the end of the East–West confrontation and due to democratization in many Latin American countries, the USA shifted its priorities towards economic and political cooperation.

Rewarding allies, punishing challengers

We are now witnessing a return to the gunboat diplomacy of the 20th century. Washington's intensions are enforced in Latin America, as in the last century, through military force, counter-insurgency operations, and economic coercion such as imposing tariffs. The Trump administration is not only concerned with drug trafficking. Stopping immigration to the US is also a key objective. Trump's strategies are less ideologically driven than previous US foreign policy. They do not advocate with messianic impulse and missionary zeal a morally better world. Rather, besides the drug and the refugee issue, they are strongly pecuniary in their focus: What's in it for the US (or for the president personally and his family)? Today, unlike during the Cold War, the competition between capitalism and communism no longer plays a role. The two largest economic powers, the US and China, are capitalist and compete for markets and influence. Washington is nervous about China's strong economic and political presence in Latin America. China is viewed as an alien power in the Western Hemisphere. Large natural resources in the region, security interests, and lucrative markets are likely the driving forces behind Trump's actions.

But can Trump's strongman approach work? Washington shapes its relations in Latin America in different ways: First, there is the group of authoritarian-ruled countries, primarily Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Even before the Trump administration, these countries were subject to sanctions and international isolation. The US is now intensifying this policy by deploying military forces. Trump promised his voters to stay out of the world's wars and bring troops home. So much for that. How far Trump is prepared to go with this fleet in the Caribbean remains ambiguous.

Secondly, there is a group of countries that sees no alternative to playing Trump’s game. In many countries, economic dependence on the US is simply too strong to dissociate from the US. Countries like Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Peru reacted critically, but also with uncertainty and pragmatism. They are striving for alternative trade relationships. Ecuador and Guatemala concluded new trade agreements with the US to achieve tariff reductions.

Thirdly, those who fit into Trump's agenda and behave in accordance with his policies, like Argentina's President Javier Milei, receive not only political support, as in the last election, but also financial resources to cope with the economic crisis. Argentina and El Salvador welcomed Trump's policies; they also concluded new trade agreements. El Salvador even accepted so-called illegal immigrants deported by the US and Argentina happily accepted a $20 billion loan.

Finally, there is a fourth group, including Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, which on the one hand strongly criticizes the Trump administration's coercive methods and colonial attitudes. They emphasize their national sovereignty, but on the other hand strive to reach a compromise with the US through diplomatic means. They only would be able forgo the US market at a significant economic loss. For example, when Colombian President Gustavo Petro opposed deportation flights from the US, Trump threatened punitive tariffs. Petro announced countermeasures but ultimately relented due to Colombia's heavy economic dependence. Brazil responded to US tariff policies with trade countermeasures and negotiations with the US. The reduction of tariffs on beef, coffee, and fruit in November, which was also prompted by domestic pressure due to rising prices in the US, was welcomed by Brazil as a diplomatic success.

The current revival of the Monroe Doctrine has already left its mark: Pan-American diplomacy has presently ceased to exist. That fits into Trump’s disdain for multilateralism. Tensions have arisen, and distrust of the US has grown. Whether the policy of using Latin America as a geopolitical backyard will be successful in the long run remains to be seen. Latin American countries suffered for far too long under this arrogant policy in the last century. Whether these countries will find effective ways to counter current US policy, for example, through rapprochement with China and other Asian countries or the EU, is also currently uncertain and depends, not least, on whether the international community is capable of sustainably defending itself against the blatant and sustained US attack on multilateralism.

Related articles:

The return of the Ugly American (3-minute read)

Department of War: George Orwell would feel validated (3-minute read)

Squaring the circle (3-minute read)

Is Trump adding to the backsliding of the ‘world’s biggest democracy’? (10-minute read)

Donald Trump: Self-proclaimed peacemaker lacking fortune and expertise (3-minute read)

Herbert Wulf is a Professor of International Relations and former Director of the Bonn International Center for Conflict Studies (BICC). He is presently a Senior Fellow at BICC, an Adjunct Senior Researcher at the Institute for Development and Peace, University of Duisburg/Essen, Germany, and a Research Affiliate at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand. He serves on the Scientific Council of SIPRI.