By Carmen Navas Reyes
The famous Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which the peoples of the South know very well, is the first major unilateral declaration by the United States: “America for Americans.”
Under its hegemony, the sphere of influence and the right to intervene in this vast region stretching from Mexico to Argentina were established. This doctrine is the grandmother of the Trump doctrine in its intention to place the sovereignty of this country above that of the region.
The Roosevelt Corollary of 1904: President Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09) extended Monroe’s doctrine, justifying pre-emptive military intervention in the region to prevent instability. It is the clearest expression of US interventionism. With this thesis, he invaded Panama and Haiti in our region, and the Philippines in Asia. It could be said that this is the most direct lineage of “peace through strength” prior to Trump.
The Truman Doctrine, 1947, and containment: Here, for the first time, unilateralism gives way to multilateralism led by the US. A system of alliances (Nato) is built, and action is taken under the umbrella of international institutions (UN) to contain a rival. It is the opposite of Trump’s approach.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
The Bush Doctrine (post-9/11): Preemptive war and the promotion of democracy by force, especially after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers. Similar to Trump in the use of force but different in its objective, George Bush sought to transform regions with nations more to his liking (nation-building). In contrast, Trump has no interest in pretending to care about other countries.
‘Peace through strength’ vs multilateral peacebuilding mechanisms
According to what was ideally the UN multilateral model, which turns 80 this year, peace is built through diplomacy, international law, cooperation and development aid.
The use of force is always a last resort and is exercised under the mandate of the Security Council.
The UN Charter is based on the equal sovereignty of states and the prohibition of the use of force except in self-defence or with express authorisation.
The Trump model (peace through strength) has come to try to put a definitive end to the UN.
On 29 January 2014, in Havana, Cuba, during the second summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac), the commitment to peace and stability was reaffirmed by declaring Latin America and the Caribbean a zone of peace. This was to consolidate an area free of conflict and tension, promoting dialogue and cooperation as key tools for resolving any dispute.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s latest tour of the Caribbean and other Latin American nations was aimed at breaking this consensus.
On 15 September, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro called for an extraordinary meeting of Celac in an attempt to restore this spirit.
In the first months of his second term, Trump has given us indications that, for him, peace is a byproduct of overwhelming military power (peace through strength), thereby giving a nod to the Ronald Reagan administration.
Deterrence through the threat of military force replaces diplomacy and is a tool of first choice – not a last resort – and is exercised unilaterally if a threat to national interests is perceived.
The war on drugs in the Caribbean as an expression of the Trump doctrine
The Caribbean as a “third border” and narcotics transit zone. Traditionally, the approach to this region has been mixed (security cooperation plus development aid).
Under the new Trump doctrine, military operations are being intensified to an unprecedented level. Interdiction is being prioritised over cooperation programmes to combat or treat addiction. And countries are being pressured with the threat of sanctions if they do not fully cooperate with US security agendas (reminiscent of the ‘big stick’).
This is the context for the current operations in the Caribbean basin under purely military and security command, with less emphasis on coordination with civilian agencies or local governments in terms of cooperation and with the incentive of being able to advance its regime change strategy by identifying Venezuela as its main enemy in this area.
The region is treated as a stage on which to apply force to protect the southern border, backyard or vital zone of the US – not as a community of partner nations with which to build long-term peace and stability. It is ‘peace’ imposed through strength.
Symbolism of power: Department of ‘War’ and the security-diplomacy merger
The idea of renaming the Department of Defense to the historic Department of War (DoW) is not just anecdotal. The Trump administration is attempting to create a symbol of its power.
The DoW implies an openly offensive, aggressive, and active stance. It unambiguously expresses the desire to revive the spirit of the US, the world’s greatest military power, and once again put an end to the post-World War Two model, including the UN and international law.
Rubio undoubtedly symbolises the deliberate weakening of diplomacy for the US. His dual role as secretary of state and main national security advisor puts him in the same sinister position as Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. This does not bode well, as the past has shown for countries such as Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, but also for the popular movements of the Global South that have already glimpsed what these decisions entail.
US foreign policy is increasingly based on security criteria (migration, drug trafficking, terrorism and communications). Diplomacy is limited to lobbying for interests and adding satellite countries.
Finally, these changes suggest a profound and lasting transformation in the mindset of US foreign policy, which will likely continue to influence the future, regardless of the administration. So we may be facing a new doctrine: Trumpism.
Trump is attempting to leave this legacy to the world as a guiding principle, characterised by an attempt to reposition the US as the holder of absolute military power, national sovereignty and contempt for multilateralism.
This is because we are no longer dealing with the world’s leading economic power. This proportionally affects its military and other capabilities, which is why Trump also finds himself in a sprint, which only he seems to want to take on, fighting on several fronts at the same time.
The incipient Trump doctrine, outlined in his speech to the 80th UN General Assembly, would then be a hybrid that, on the one hand, revives Monroe’s isolationist unilateralism and Roosevelt’s big stick, rejects Bush’s responsibility for nation-building, while burying Truman’s multilateral framework for containing rivals or adversaries. – Globetrotter
Carmen Navas Reyes is a Venezuelan political scientist with a master’s degree in ecology for human development (UNESR). She is currently pursuing a doctorate in Latin American studies at the Rómulo Gallegos Centre for Latin American Studies Foundation Celarg in Venezuela. She is a member of the international advisory council of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research.
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
