By Ephraim Agbo
When President Donald Trump told The New York Times that he had “made it clear” to Xi Jinping he would be “very unhappy” if Beijing moved militarily against Taiwan, the comment sounded like a blunt personal warning. But read in the broader context of U.S. history and recent operations, the remark is more than rhetoric: it signals the revival of a modern Monroe Doctrine, sometimes called the “Donroe Doctrine” — a policy framework in which the Western Hemisphere is treated as a U.S. sphere of influence, enforceable by law, coercion, and, if necessary, military intervention.
This doctrine is not just theoretical. In January 2026, U.S. forces seized the Russian-flagged tanker Marinera, accused of carrying Venezuelan oil in circumvention of sanctions. The operation was framed as legal interdiction but functioned as a clear message: Washington will assert control over hemispheric affairs and deny others influence — by whatever means necessary. From Venezuela to Greenland and beyond, Trump’s revival of Monroeist logic signals a willingness to operate unilaterally in the Americas while simultaneously warning China to refrain from similar actions in Asia. This contradiction mirrors the logic Moscow applied in Ukraine, and it is exactly the type of precedent that rivals are now studying.
Historical roots of the Monroe/Donroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was initially a warning to European powers to refrain from colonizing or intervening in the Americas. It was largely rhetorical at first — the United States lacked the naval power to enforce it — but the principle established a hemispheric expectation: Europe stays out; the Americas belong to the U.S. sphere.
Over the 19th and 20th centuries, the U.S. applied the doctrine selectively, often expanding its reach through the Roosevelt Corollary (1904), which justified intervention in Latin American nations to “stabilize” the region and prevent European involvement. Classic examples include:
- Dominican Republic (1905): The U.S. took control of customs revenues to manage debt repayment, effectively controlling the country’s finances.
- Nicaragua (1912–1933): Marines were stationed to maintain political order and protect U.S. interests.
- Haiti (1915–1934): U.S. forces occupied the country under the rationale of preventing European or local instability from threatening American security.
These interventions illustrate a recurring principle: the U.S. reserves the right to act in its hemisphere to protect its strategic and economic interests — and enforces this principle when necessary. Trump’s recent moves in Venezuela and explicit comments on Greenland reflect a continuity of this logic, albeit in a modern guise.
The Donroe Doctrine in practice: precedent and power
The Marinera tanker seizure represents a modern operationalization of this doctrine. Legal arguments framed it as sanctions enforcement, but operationally it was a demonstration of reach and coercion. Washington showed it could interdict a vessel on the high seas, seize resources, and reassert control over economic flows — all hallmarks of hemispheric primacy.
From the perspective of Beijing, the operational precedent is clear: the U.S. asserts unilateral rights in its backyard; why may China not do the same in its neighborhood? Taiwan, like Venezuela, occupies a zone of proximate strategic importance. Moscow applied the same logic in Ukraine: buffer zones, spheres of influence, and regime survival justify coercion. Great powers do not respond to words alone — they respond to demonstrated capability and institutional backing.
Russia’s Ukraine and the logic of spheres
Russia’s intervention in Ukraine demonstrates the structural logic at play: the Kremlin argued that NATO expansion and Western influence threatened its strategic depth. Moscow acted to reassert control, normalize legal and political narratives, and change facts on the ground — a textbook application of backyard logic. Analysts note that this mirrors U.S. enforcement of Monroeist principles in Latin America: unilateral action framed as law, executed as coercion, justified as necessity.
Historical parallels reinforce the lesson:
- Cuba (1898–1902; 1906–1909): Following the Spanish-American War, U.S. forces occupied Cuba to protect American interests and ensure political outcomes aligned with U.S. preferences.
- Panama (1903): U.S. supported Panama’s independence from Colombia to secure the Panama Canal zone, a strategic economic and military asset — a literal carving of a backyard for American influence.
- Venezuela (1902–1903): European blockades over debt were countered with the Roosevelt Corollary, signaling U.S. intervention as the hemisphere’s ultimate arbitrator.
Trump’s “very unhappy” warning to Xi sits on top of these historical precedents, a rhetorical extension of a two-century-old principle: the U.S. reserves the right to shape its hemisphere. But in modern international politics, words without enforcement are insufficient; rivals see precedent and calculate opportunities accordingly.
Why rhetoric alone cannot enforce the Donroe Doctrine today
Deterrence depends on three pillars: capability, clarity, and credibility.
- Capability: Washington must demonstrate forward-deployed forces and mobilizable power in the region of concern.
- Clarity: Actions must map consequences in a tangible, observable way.
- Credibility: Rhetoric must align with institutions, alliances, and sustained operational practice.
Trump’s admonition to Xi offers rhetorical clarity but lacks observable enforcement in Asia. Beijing, like Moscow in Ukraine, will assess costs, weigh precedents, and act if the balance favors strategic advantage.
Policy implications: modernizing Monroe for the 21st century
If the Donroe Doctrine is to remain a credible deterrent rather than a symbolic play, it must evolve:
- Institutionalize enforcement: Align actions with alliances to avoid perceptions of unilateralism.
- Clarify thresholds: Joint exercises and contingency plans make potential costs predictable.
- Consistent legal framing: Avoid ad hoc reinterpretations of law; inconsistency erodes credibility.
- Visible sustainment: Demonstrate enduring capability, not ad hoc gestures.
Without these steps, Washington risks creating the very logic it claims to oppose: other powers will cite precedent to justify similar interventions in their backyards.
Conclusion — history as warning and guide
Trump’s revival of Monroeist logic in the Donroe Doctrine is a clear statement: the Western Hemisphere is America’s exclusive sphere, enforceable by law and coercion. But history and contemporary geopolitics illustrate the danger: actions taken unilaterally set precedents that rivals will study and potentially emulate. From Cuba to Panama, Venezuela to Ukraine, great powers have always acted to secure proximate strategic interests. The lesson is timeless: words alone do not enforce backyards — precedent, practice, and credible institutional enforcement do.
If Washington wants its admonitions to Xi to carry weight, it must not rely on rhetoric alone. It must demonstrate the operational, legal, and multilateral backbone of hemispheric control — or risk the global replication of the very logic it claims to oppose.
No comments:
Post a Comment