In a return to the tragic “Monroe Doctrine”, which led the United States to support several de facto governments in the region, the government of Donald Trump published, on Friday, a document that redefines its national security strategy, calling for combating “mass migrations” and restoring “American hegemony in Latin America.”
The document, titled “National Security Strategy,” strictly states the goal of strengthening US influence in Latin America, where the Trump administration launched a massive naval and air operation against Nicolas Maduro’s regime in Venezuela, using as an excuse the need to dismantle drug trafficking gangs.
The new US strategy, conceived within the framework of Trump’s “America First” vision, represents a reorientation of its policy in recent years, which was focused on Asia. In any case, it continues to identify China as its main competitor globally.
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.
Anti-immigration. The document states that the “Trump corollary” will apply to the Monroe Doctrine, starting in the 1820s, when Washington consolidated its hegemony against the Europeans in Latin America, which it considered the United States’ “backyard.”
The text states that Washington will readjust its “global military presence to confront pressing threats in our hemisphere, and move away from scenarios whose relative importance to American national security has diminished in recent decades or years.”
The Trump administration also wants to put an end to mass migration around the world and make border control “the key component of American security,” according to the document.
“The era of mass migration must end. Border security is a key component of national security,” the new strategy states.
He adds: “We must protect our country from invasions, not only against uncontrolled migration, but also against cross-border threats such as terrorism, drugs, espionage and human trafficking.”
The end of Europe. In the document, Washington also strongly criticizes European allies and indicates that the United States will support those who oppose the values promoted by the European Union, especially regarding immigration.
The government says it will work to develop “resistance to the current European path” within European countries themselves. Germany responded quickly, saying it did not need “external advice.”
The document noted Europe’s declining participation in the global economy – largely due to the rise of China and other emerging powers – and said: “This economic decline is overshadowed by the real and stark possibility of the demise of civilization.”
“If current trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less,” he points out.
While Trump seeks to end the war in Ukraine with a plan that favors Russia, his government accuses the Europeans of weakness in the document and asserts that the United States should focus on “ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as an ever-expanding alliance.”
China and the Middle East. The text adds that the United States will also prevent other powers from dominating the world, but specifies: “This does not mean wasting blood and resources to limit the influence of all major and middle powers in the world.”
Regarding China, the strategy reiterates the call for a “free and open” Asia-Pacific region, but focuses more on the economic competition imposed by the Asian giant.
After much speculation about whether Trump would concede on the issue of Taiwan, a democratically governed island that Beijing claims, the strategy makes clear that the United States supports the status quo, but urged its allies Japan and South Korea to contribute more to ensure Taiwan’s defense.
This strategy pays relatively little attention to the Middle East, which has long monopolized Washington’s attention.
Based on increased energy production in the United States, the document states that “the historical reason that led the United States to focus on the Middle East will diminish.”
The Middle East is no longer “the potential source of impending disasters it once was,” but rather “is emerging as a place of partnership, friendship and investment,” the document said, noting that Israel’s security remains a priority for Washington.
Political consequences in the region
The Monroe Doctrine is a declaration of United States foreign policy, announced by President James Monroe in 1823.
It arose in a context in which the new Spanish American republics were struggling to consolidate their independence, and there was fear in Washington that the European powers, especially the Holy Alliance, would attempt to re-establish colonies or expand their monarchy on the American continent.
The essence of the principle was summed up in the phrase “America for Americans,” although its critics interpreted it as “America for Americans.”
Among his main points is that the American continents should no longer be considered targets for future colonization by any European power. And that any attempt on the part of the European powers to extend their political system to any part of the continent would be considered dangerous to the peace and security of the United States.
In parallel, the United States pledged not to interfere in the internal affairs of wars between European powers or in the affairs of existing European colonies.
Effects and consequences. Initially, many Latin American leaders viewed this principle as a gesture of support for their independence.
However, over time, it became a tool to ensure American hegemony over the continent, promoting a new form of intervention in the region.
This principle directed the displacement of European influence (especially Spain and England) to be replaced by the influence of the United States and its companies in Latin America.
President Theodore Roosevelt added a corollary that changed doctrine. He assumed that internal turmoil in the Latin American republics could justify US intervention to “reestablish order” and lay the foundations for a “big stick” policy. It has been used to justify many military interventions.