From the Monroe Doctrine to the Donroe Doctrine

Jan 08, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – Over the past few days, the phrase “The Monroe Doctrine” has been bandies about to explain the US decision to bomb Venezuela and to kidnap that country’s President, Nicholas Maduro. So, what exactly is this Monroe Doctrine and how is it related to the present US actions in Venezuela?

The Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. policy announced in 1823. It was first promulgated under the presidency of James Monroe. In simple terms, it asserted that Europe should stay out of the Americas. The United States warned European countries not to create new colonies or interfere in North, Central, or South America.

The Monroe Doctrine thus enunciated the position that the Americas – South, North and Central America – were off-limits to new European colonisation. If European powers tried to take control of any country in the Western Hemisphere, the U.S. would see it as a hostile act. In return, the Doctrine committed that the U.S. would stay out of Europe’s affairs, including not to interfere in European wars or politics.

At the time, many Latin American countries had just won independence from European empires, and the U.S. wanted to help keep them free from being recolonised. Or this was how the US tried to make noble the objectives of the Monroe Doctrine.

But over time, the Monroe Doctrine was sometimes used to justify U.S. influence or intervention in the region, which is why many Latin American countries later viewed it as a cover for American dominance rather than protection.

In the early 1800s, the U.S. did not have the power to enforce the doctrine on its own; Britain’s navy helped discourage European interference. But by the late 1800s: The doctrine was used more assertively to block European involvement in disputes in Latin America.

At the turn of the 20th century ( 1900s), the United States, expanded the doctrine with the Roosevelt Corollary, claiming the right to intervene in Latin American countries to prevent European powers from stepping in. This led to U.S. involvement in places like Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua. During the Cold War period, the doctrine was invoked to oppose Soviet influence in the Americas, most notably during the Cuban Missile Crisis. While not formally abandoned, the doctrine is less explicitly cited today, though the idea of limiting outside powers’ influence in the hemisphere still appears in U.S. policy discussions.

Cheddi Jagan had long held the view that the original Monroe Doctrine was not about protecting Latin American but was being used as a pretext for future U.S. expansionism in the region. He eventually said that Simón Bolívar himself viewed the doctrine with suspicion, worrying that Latin American nations might simply trade one powerful outside influence (Spain) for another (the United States).

But Jagan, ever the profound leftist thinker that he was, also saw the Monroe Doctrine as having an economic component. According to him, “…from the time of the Munroe Doctrine, the Latin American economy has been placed in a straitjacket. Its economy is in imbalance with a deformed type of capitalism and a backward agrarian structure. US strategy is to maintain Latin America as a raw material producer with dependence on one crop or one mineral.”

To understand whether the Monroe Doctrine has any influence on the present aggression between the United States and Venezuela, one has to look at the United States policy towards that country over the past two decades or more

The classic idea echoed in U.S. rhetoric is that the Western Hemisphere is the U.S.’ sphere of influence, and hostile governments or actors there could face consequences. This echoes the spirit (but not the letter) of the old doctrine.

At present, the U.S. government is framing its military action and capture of Maduro as necessary to address alleged drug trafficking and national security threats — while also signaling that a government hostile to the United States in the region won’t be tolerated.

At the United Nations Security Council, two days ago, the United States framed it actions against Venezuela, which murdered more than 50 innocent persons, as being typically a law enforcement operation. However, this position has been strongly rejected by several countries, including Cuba. Cuba’s representative cautioned the Council that the United States’ hegemonic and criminal agenda toward Venezuela has already led to grave and unpredictable repercussions for regional stability. Referring to Washington’s long-running use of unilateral sanctions, economic strangulation, and even acts of maritime terrorism, he said the latest developments only reinforce the pattern of imperialist and fascist aggression inspired by the obsolete Monroe Doctrine.

The Cuban representative insisted that the United States must immediately free President Maduro and his wife, and called on the international community to take a firm stand against this act of state terrorism.

Other critics argue that the United States actions against Maduro represents a renewal or extension of Monroe-Doctrine-type thinking is actually classic interventionism or hegemony — the U.S. acting directly in another sovereign nation’s affairs rather than simply warning off European powers. Some have even referred to Trump’s present stance as the Donroe Doctrine.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• bomb, Donroe Doctrine, Nicholas Maduro, Peeping Tom, Venezuela

---