As already observed in practice, the new US National Security Strategy places on paper the priority of ensuring “hemispheric” hegemony, within a general framework of strategic withdrawal at the global level. The document even presents a “Trump corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine: like the corollary announced by Roosevelt in 1904, the “America for (North) Americans” hypothesis now carries a more assertive and aggressive charge.
The map of global powers has changed radically. This is evident not only in the rise of the major emerging powers in Eurasia, but also in the massive shift in material power, which reflects the reversal of the “Great Divergence” in favor of the European powers starting in the nineteenth century. We are not only in a period of systemic transition like the period between 1910-1914 and 1945-1949, but we are in a transformation of the world system itself, at the center of which the Western capitalist countries were.
“The Indo-Pacific region already generates nearly half of global GDP on a purchasing power parity basis,” the document notes. We can add to this that China is already 30% larger than the United States after this indicator. He continues: “There is no doubt that this percentage will increase during the twenty-first century. This means that the Indo-Pacific region is already, and will remain, one of the main economic and geopolitical battlefields in the next century.”
Authoritarians don’t like this
The practice of professional and critical journalism is an essential pillar of democracy. This is why it bothers those who believe they are the bearers of the truth.
Collapse of hegemony and “imperial overextension”. Italian sociologist Giovanni Arriggio notes that a crisis of hegemony occurs when a dominant state loses the ability, either due to a lack of resources (means) or decision (will) – or both – to continue leading the system of states in a direction that benefits its power and the collective power of the dominant groups in the world system.
If there is one thing that Trump makes clear, it is that the United States can no longer, and does not want to — the subjective expression of an objective position — support the material and institutional pillars of the cycle of hegemony that began in 1945. Moreover, for Trumpism, the attempt to preserve these pillars leads to the famous problem of imperial overexpansion, with endless wars, huge expenditures for the defense of “protectorates” or “vassals,” unsustainable trade and fiscal deficits, etc.
As the New Strategic Strategy put it, “After the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy elites became convinced that permanent dominance over the entire world was in our country’s interest (…) They overestimated the ability of the United States to finance a massive welfare state, organization, and administration, along with a massive military, diplomatic, intelligence, and foreign aid complex.” This is no longer possible.
That’s why the Trump 2.0 administration is pushing hard for “burden sharing and shifting,” the document states, because “the days when the United States held up the entire world order like Atlas are over.” Of course, he maintained this for his own benefit and advantage, but what was expressed as a symptom of decline was that the system created (and recreated) by the United States and the interests of the United States no longer coincided.
Trump is the corollary of the Monroe Doctrine. After the war against Spain, which allowed the United States to wrest positions of declining power in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam, and after Panama’s secession from Colombia with Washington’s support, Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1904) was established. This confirmed the right of the United States to intervene militarily in Latin America in the face of “flagrant errors,” justifying its numerous interventions in the Caribbean and Central America under the “big stick” policy. In doing so, Washington sought to consolidate its regional dominance as a rising power in the context of growing strategic competition before World War I.
The so-called Trump corollary shares features with the Roosevelt corollary, but it arises at a time of relative US decline on the global stage. It is more than just a call for development; it is a call to bear the costs of this decline. This is evidenced by the exacerbation of protectionism and the inability to offer alternatives similar to those offered by China, especially in infrastructure. The new strategy presents Trump’s “corollary to the Monroe Doctrine,” which states that the United States will reassert and apply said doctrine to restore its hemispheric superiority, protect its territory and deny extra-hemispheric rivals the ability to station forces or control strategic assets.
The document thus formalizes the transition from informal imperialism to regional imperialism. It defines the continent as America’s vital space, in which Washington must ensure exclusive hegemony. This is evident with increasing regional militarization, which is essential in the absence of material incentives. As Corey Payne and Beverley Silver argue, this leads to a scenario of hegemony without hegemony: a sovereignty increasingly supported by coercion, and therefore fragile.
It is not surprising that the first focus of the section on the “Western Hemisphere” is the military axis. The new emergency memorandum proposes reconsidering the US military presence and implementing a “global readjustment” to prioritize the region. Measures include enhancing the presence of the Coast Guard and Navy to control sea routes, halting migrations deemed undesirable, reducing illicit trade, securing vital roads and expanding access to strategic facilities.
Finally, the corollary for Trump means open intervention that ignores territorial sovereignty. It is said that the United States must be superior in the hemisphere to ensure its security and prosperity and be able to impose itself “wherever and whenever necessary.” In addition, it is proposed to take control of military installations, ports and key infrastructure and expel foreign companies building infrastructure in the region.
The “Trump corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine has already been expressed in facts: proposals to annex territories, an attempt to restore the Panama Canal, an increased presence in the Strait of Magellan and the South Atlantic, the militarization of the Caribbean and the blockade of Venezuela. In addition to this, there is interference in regional electoral processes, a financial bailout for the government of Javier Miley, and the establishment of a new trade framework that resembles the old unequal treaties. Trump may not be able to stop the global power shift. It could even accelerate America’s decline. But it threatens to drag Latin America into repeating a well-known role: that of its backyard.
*UNLP teacher/CONICET researcher