The ‘Donroe Doctrine’, Resource Power, and Why India Must Speak for the Global South

For five centuries, the modern world order has been shaped by conquest and extraction. From silver and gold to oil and rare earths, the wealth of the Global South has underwritten the rise of Western power. Today, as the United States revives an old logic of regional dominance under what President Donald Trump has termed the “Donroe Doctrine”, the question confronting India is not merely moral — it is strategic. Silence, in this moment, carries consequences.

From colonial conquest to modern hegemony

Europe’s global expansion from the 16th century onwards was driven by resource extraction. Empires conquered territories across Asia, Africa and Latin America to mine silver and gold, cultivate sugar and spices, and later to exploit plantations of tea, coffee and rubber. Slavery and deforestation were not aberrations but structural tools of wealth creation for the Global West.

With the advent of electricity and the automobile in the early 20th century, oil replaced precious metals as the world’s most strategic commodity. While reserves existed in North America, far larger deposits were discovered in West Asia. Control over these resources — first by Britain, later by the United States — reshaped global power. Political boundaries were drawn, monarchies installed, and new states created to ensure uninterrupted energy flows to the West.

The Middle East as a laboratory of power politics

After World War II, the United States emerged as the primary external power in West Asia. Britain and France had already laid the groundwork by carving the region into artificial nation-states. The creation of Israel — justified through selective religious narratives — served as a strategic outpost, ensuring Western leverage over regional politics and oil supplies.

When governments defied this order, consequences followed. In Iran, an elected government that resisted Western control over oil was overthrown, and a pliant monarchy installed. These interventions were rarely framed as resource grabs; they were justified as matters of security, stability, or civilisation.

The Monroe Doctrine, revived as the ‘Donroe Doctrine’

President Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine” is a modern echo of the “Monroe Doctrine”, articulated in 1823 by “James Monroe”. That doctrine declared the Western Hemisphere off-limits to European powers, signalling the United States’ emergence as a regional hegemon.

During the Cold War, this claim was challenged when the Soviet Union allied with “Fidel Castro”’s Cuba, pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war. Despite decades of pressure, Washington failed to reverse the Cuban revolution. The doctrine, however, never disappeared — it merely lay dormant.

Why Venezuela has become the latest target

Today, Venezuela — an oil-rich but economically fragile republic — finds itself at the receiving end of this revived doctrine. Whatever the flaws of “Nicolás Maduro”’s regime, the abduction of a sitting head of state and forced regime change violate the most basic principles of sovereignty and international law.

Unlike Ukraine, whose NATO aspirations were cited by Russia as a direct security threat, Venezuela poses no comparable danger to the United States. Allegations of narco-terrorism are thin justifications. By Trump’s own admission, the intervention rests on the logic of the “Donroe Doctrine” — the belief that Washington has the right to impose its will on its neighbourhood.

From oil to rare earths: the real driver

National security has often been the language of intervention, but commodities have been the motivation. From bananas in Central America to oil in West Asia, and now rare earth minerals critical for modern technology, the pattern remains consistent. Control over resources ensures not only industrial dominance but also financial power — including the privileged status of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

China’s rise has, for the first time in a century, challenged this geo-economic dominance. Unable to halt Beijing’s ascent directly, the United States appears to be reverting to regional coercion and resource control as a compensatory strategy.

India’s silence and the cost of inconsistency

India’s muted response to the events in Venezuela stands uneasily with its claim to be a voice of the Global South. While New Delhi has justified neutrality on Ukraine by citing complex security dynamics, the Venezuelan case offers no such ambiguity. If big powers are allowed to enforce regime change where no legitimate security threat exists, the principle will eventually be used elsewhere.

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi projects India as a “Vishwa Guru” and “Vishwa Mitra”, moral consistency becomes a strategic asset. Malaysia’s Prime Minister “Anwar Ibrahim” has openly called for the release of the Venezuelan leadership. India’s reluctance to do even this much weakens its credibility.

Global dissent within the United States itself

Ironically, some of the strongest condemnation of Trump’s actions has come from within the US. Democratic leaders such as “Nancy Pelosi” and “Bernie Sanders” have denounced the intervention, highlighting concerns about executive overreach and imperial overtones. Trump’s declining domestic popularity and looming electoral setbacks suggest that external aggression may also serve internal political ends.

Why India must reject the Donroe Doctrine

For India, rejecting the Donroe Doctrine is not about endorsing any particular regime. It is about defending a rules-based international order where sovereignty is not conditional on a country’s resource endowment or strategic vulnerability. As a nation that emerged from colonial exploitation, India has both historical memory and geopolitical interest in resisting doctrines that legitimise coercive dominance.

From silver to oil to rare earths, the logic of extraction has remained unchanged. The challenge before India is whether it will merely observe this continuity — or finally confront it.