Monroe Doctrine of US Foreign Policy
Content
- Latest News
- What is the Monroe Doctrine?
- Evolution of the Doctrine
- Why Did the US Intervene in Venezuela?
- Regional Reactions and Concerns
- Impact of the US-Venezuelan Conflict on India
- Conclusion
Latest News
The United States recently conducted a military operation in Venezuela, codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve, which reportedly resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, his wife Cilia Flores, and several senior officials. This action was justified by Washington under what has been projected as a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine (1823).
The development marks a sharp escalation in US interventionism in Latin America and signals a renewed assertion of American strategic dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
What is the Monroe Doctrine?
The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in 1823 by US President James Monroe as a foundational principle of American foreign policy toward the Western Hemisphere. It emerged in a context where European colonial powers were attempting to reassert influence in Latin America after the Napoleonic Wars. The doctrine rested on three core principles.
- First, it proclaimed non-colonisation, asserting that European powers should not establish new colonies in the Americas.
- Second, it laid down the principle of non-interference, warning that any attempt by external powers to influence or intervene in the affairs of Western Hemisphere nations would be viewed as hostile to the United States.
- Third, it committed the US to restraint in European affairs, stating that America would not interfere in European wars or internal political conflicts.
Although initially framed as a defensive policy to protect newly independent Latin American states, the Monroe Doctrine gradually evolved into a tool for advancing US strategic interests in the region.
Evolution of the Monroe Doctrine
The doctrine underwent significant transformation in the early twentieth century with the introduction of the Roosevelt Corollary (1904) by President Theodore Roosevelt.
- This expansion asserted the US right to exercise “international police power” in Latin American countries facing chronic wrongdoing, political instability, or governance failures. It effectively legitimised direct US intervention in the internal affairs of neighbouring states under the pretext of maintaining order and stability.
- During the Cold War era, the Monroe Doctrine was invoked to counter Soviet influence in the Western Hemisphere. The United States used it to justify interventions in Cuba, Central America, and South America, portraying communist expansion as a direct threat to American security.
- In the post–Cold War period, the doctrine was largely de-emphasised as the US shifted towards multilateralism, regional cooperation, and diplomacy.
However, in recent years, the doctrine has witnessed selective revival, especially in response to growing extra-regional influence in Latin America.
The contemporary phase reflects an effort to reassert US primacy in the Western Hemisphere. The so-called “Trump Corollary” has been projected as a restoration of American power and strategic priorities, aimed at safeguarding US security interests in the region through more assertive measures.
Why Did the US Intervene in Venezuela?
The US intervention in Venezuela has been justified through a combination of security, geopolitical, and economic narratives.
Narco-terrorism and Security Narrative
- Washington charged President Nicolás Maduro and senior Venezuelan officials with narco-terrorism and drug trafficking. Portraying the regime as a direct security threat to the United States.
- The U.S. linked the Maduro government to the fentanyl crisis, using this claim as a legal and political justification for military action under counter-narcotics and security frameworks.
- This narrative allowed the US to frame the intervention not merely as regime change. But as a necessary measure to protect American public health and national security.
Oil and Resource Geopolitics
- Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves, exceeding 300 billion barrels. Which account for nearly one-fifth of the world’s proven oil reserves.
- Despite this vast resource base, Venezuela contributes less than 1% of global oil production. Years of US sanctions, economic collapse, and infrastructure decay have severely restricted output.
- The United States views control over Venezuelan oil infrastructure as strategically important for ensuring energy security, stabilising global oil prices, and maintaining leverage in international energy markets.
In this context, the intervention also reflects resource geopolitics rather than purely ideological or security motivations.
Countering Extra-Regional Powers
- Washington perceived Venezuela’s deepening ties with China, Russia, and Iran as a direct challenge to U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
- These partnerships threatened to undermine American strategic influence in its traditional sphere of control.
- Consequently, the US reasserted its primacy through a revived Monroe-style framework aimed at limiting external powers’ presence in Latin America.
Regional Reactions and Concerns
The US-Venezuela conflict has raised serious concerns in Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba. As it is signalling a renewed phase of American interventionism in the region. These countries fear the erosion of national sovereignty through military pressure, economic sanctions, and security-based justifications framed around counter-narcotics operations.
The developments have revived historical anxieties about US dominance and unilateralism in Latin American affairs.
Impact of the US-Venezuelan Conflict on India
Minimal Trade Impact
According to the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), the conflict is expected to have a negligible impact on India’s trade. Bilateral commerce between India and Venezuela had already collapsed due to US sanctions. India’s exports to Venezuela stood at only USD 95.3 million in FY2025, primarily consisting of pharmaceuticals.
Limited Energy Exposure
India’s crude oil imports from Venezuela declined by 81.3% in FY2025, falling to USD 255.3 million from USD 1.4 billion in FY2024. As a result, the current conflict is unlikely to significantly affect India’s short-term energy security.
However, if sanctions on Venezuela are eased or recalibrated, discounted Venezuelan crude could re-enter global markets. This would strengthen India’s long-term crude supply diversification and enhance its procurement flexibility. It would also improve India’s bargaining power with West Asian suppliers. And it will offer an alternative amid US pressure to reduce reliance on Russian oil.
Strategic Autonomy
India has consistently advocated for non-interventionism. It supports regime change through democratic processes rather than external military force. The US action complicates India’s diplomatic balancing act between the Global South, which generally opposes intervention and its strategic partnership with the United States. Maintaining strategic autonomy while preserving strong bilateral ties with Washington remains a key challenge for Indian foreign policy.
Conclusion
The Monroe Doctrine, originally conceived as a defensive policy to protect the Americas from European colonialism. Now has evolved into a powerful instrument of US strategic assertion. Its contemporary revival, reflected in the so-called “Trump Corollary,” demonstrates a shift toward renewed unilateralism and interventionism in Latin America.
The US intervention in Venezuela illustrates how security narratives, energy geopolitics, and great-power competition now shape American foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere. For countries like India, such developments present both strategic constraints and economic opportunities. Underscoring the need for careful diplomatic balancing in an increasingly polarised global order.
