The Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine

Context

In January 2026, the Monroe Doctrine resurfaced prominently in global geopolitics following a dramatic U.S. military intervention in Venezuela. Under what has been described as the “Trump Corollary” (popularly termed the “Don-roe Doctrine”), the United States asserted an expanded right to intervene militarily in the Western Hemisphere to eliminate foreign influence and counter transnational threats such as narco-terrorism.

Recent Developments

Background

On January 3, 2026, U.S. special forces carried out a coordinated air-land-sea operation in Venezuela. The operation culminated in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. Both were transferred to the United States to face trial in a Manhattan federal court on charges related to drug trafficking and narco-terrorism.

Key Developments

• Regime Change: The U.S. announced a temporary transition arrangement, stating it would “run” Venezuela during the interim period. A de facto leadership council was proposed, reportedly involving U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
   
• Geopolitical Rationale: The White House justified the intervention as necessary to protect the Western Hemisphere from “foreign adversaries,” explicitly referencing Chinese and Russian military activities in Latin America.
   
• Invocation of Doctrine: President Donald Trump explicitly linked the action to the Monroe Doctrine, claiming that U.S. hemispheric dominance had “superseded” the doctrine’s original scope.
   

Historical and Legal Framework

The Original Monroe Doctrine (1823)

Announced by President James Monroe, the doctrine rested on four foundational principles:

1. Non-Colonization: European powers were barred from establishing new colonies in the Americas.
    
2. Two Separate Spheres: Europe and the Americas were to remain distinct political systems.
    
3. Non-Intervention: The U.S. would not interfere in existing European colonies or internal European affairs.
    
4. Security Principle: Any European expansion into the Western Hemisphere would be treated as a threat to U.S. peace and security.
    

Evolution of the Doctrine

• Roosevelt Corollary (1904): Asserted the U.S. right to exercise “international police power” in cases of chronic wrongdoing in Latin American states.
   
• Trump Corollary (2025–26): Expands the doctrine further to justify pre-emptive regime change, capture of foreign leaders, and removal of Chinese and Russian influence under the banner of counter-narcotics and national security.
   

Comparative Perspective: India and the Indian Ocean Region (IOR)

Unlike the U.S.’s rigid hemispheric approach, India has not adopted a formal, exclusionary doctrine for its maritime neighborhood.

Challenges and Criticism

• International Law

The United Nations Secretary-General and several states, including Spain, Brazil, and Mexico, condemned the intervention as a violation of sovereignty and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

• Regional Backlash

The perceived “bullying” nature of the doctrine has alarmed neighboring countries such as Colombia, potentially pushing them closer to China for economic and strategic security.

• Economic Concerns

U.S. plans to allow American companies to “fix and run” Venezuela’s oil infrastructure have been criticized as resource appropriation rather than post-conflict reconstruction.

Way Forward

• Diplomatic Resolution: Venezuela has requested an urgent UN Security Council meeting to address what it terms “armed aggression.”
   
• India’s Maritime Recalibration: An August 2025 parliamentary report recommends a more cohesive IOR strategy to counter Chinese expansion without adopting exclusionary doctrines.
   
• Global Precedent: The international community faces a critical question, can 19th-century “spheres of influence” coexist with a 21st-century rules-based international order?
   

Conclusion

The 2026 capture of Nicolás Maduro represents the most assertive application of the Monroe Doctrine in over a century. As the United States revives its “Big Stick” diplomacy in the Western Hemisphere, the episode raises wider implications for global order. Whether other regional powers particularly India, choose assertive yet cooperative alternatives will significantly shape the future balance between sovereignty, security, and international law.