The ‘Donroe Doctrine’: How Venezuela Has Become the Test Case for a New American Hemisphere Policy

Venezuela today is no longer just a Latin American crisis. It has become the arena in which a new and more explicit expression of American power is being articulated. What some analysts are calling the “Donroe Doctrine” marks a fusion of nineteenth-century hemispheric thinking with a twenty-first-century assertion of primacy — reshaping how the United States views intervention, sovereignty, and control in its neighbourhood.

From Monroe to “Donroe”: an old idea with a sharper edge

The intellectual ancestry of the “Donroe Doctrine” lies in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, articulated under President James Monroe, which claimed the Western Hemisphere as a special strategic space off-limits to external powers. That doctrine was originally framed as defensive — a warning to European empires not to recolonise the Americas.

What changes in the twenty-first century is tone and method. Under President Donald Trump, hemispheric primacy is no longer couched in restraint or multilateral language. Instead, it is expressed through readiness to use force, an open claim to supervise political outcomes, and a belief that the United States has not just influence, but guardianship responsibilities in the region.

Reasserting a sphere of influence

The first defining feature of the Donroe Doctrine is the unapologetic reassertion of a sphere of influence. The Western Hemisphere is framed not merely as a region of priority concern, but as a privileged security space. Extra-regional actors are treated less as legitimate diplomatic participants and more as intruders.

Latin America, in this telling, becomes “our neighbourhood”. Engagement by others — whether economic, political or strategic — is reframed as trespass. This marks a departure from the post-Cold War language of partnership and shared norms, replacing it with a hierarchy of rights and access.

Securitising social and economic problems

The second element is securitisation. Issues traditionally viewed as social or economic — migration, narcotics, organised crime, energy instability — are redefined as national security threats. Once narrated in these terms, coercive tools become easier to justify.

The boundary between domestic governance in another state and U.S. internal security begins to blur. Questions of development or diplomacy are recast as matters of homeland protection, legitimising interventionist responses that would once have been politically and legally contentious.

A shift away from democracy talk

The third shift is normative. Democracy promotion, once central to U.S. rhetoric in the post-Cold War era, is no longer foregrounded. Stability, predictability, and control move to centre stage.

This aligns closely with recent U.S. strategic thinking, where competition with major powers, control over strategic resources, and management of instability close to home increasingly drive policy. The Donroe Doctrine operationalises this worldview, translating strategic priorities into regional practice.

Venezuela as laboratory, not exception

The doctrine does not exist only in speeches. It is reflected in a willingness to claim oversight over political transitions and to blur the line between intervention and administration in Venezuela. Whether this evolves into sustained trusteeship or remains episodic matters less than the signal it sends: that the United States now reserves for itself an explicit supervisory role in its hemisphere.

For Latin America, this resonates with historical memory. The region is not a blank slate; it carries the legacy of interventions, coups, and externally engineered regime change. Force may alter governments, but it rarely produces consent — a lesson repeatedly learned across the continent.

Energy, resources, and the charge of imperialism

Venezuela’s vast oil reserves intensify the stakes. Senior officials in Washington have spoken openly about a major role for American energy companies in revitalising the country’s oil sector. For many in the region, this reinforces suspicions of resource-driven intervention.

The humanitarian costs are already severe. One of the world’s largest displacement crises has reshaped regional politics, and any perception of imposed external stewardship risks deepening internal polarisation rather than stabilising the country.

International law under pressure

The Donroe Doctrine directly strains the foundations of the contemporary international order. Principles of sovereign equality, non-intervention, and the prohibition on the use of force are all implicated.

The United Nations Charter allows force only in self-defence or with authorisation from the United Nations Security Council. Claims of guardianship or supervision sit uneasily within this framework, raising concerns that norms are being selectively reinterpreted rather than upheld.

Why this matters for India

For India, the Donroe Doctrine presents uncomfortable dilemmas. Sovereignty and non-intervention have long been central to Indian foreign policy — not as moral posturing, but as practical safeguards for a post-colonial state.

At the same time, India’s partnership with the United States is strategically important, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, technology, and defence. The challenge lies in balancing alignment with autonomy — deepening cooperation without endorsing doctrines that normalise external supervision of political futures.

Restraint without passivity

New Delhi’s restrained response so far may be deliberate. Silence in diplomacy is not always hesitation; it can preserve room for manoeuvre. By avoiding grandstanding, India has kept space for cooperation with Washington while withholding endorsement of hemispheric guardianship.

But restraint must be paired with quiet diplomacy — support for regional mediation, humanitarian relief, and economic stabilisation, alongside a calm reaffirmation in multilateral forums that doctrines of supervision carry long-term costs for the international system.

The arc of Latin American politics has never been linear. From the era of Hugo Chávez to today’s uncertainties, the region has repeatedly shown that imposed order rarely endures. As Venezuela becomes the test case for a new American doctrine, India’s task is to keep its balance — principled without being preachy, pragmatic without being indifferent to the norms that protect all states.