When President James Monroe articulated his doctrine in 1823, European powers viewed it as a warning that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open for colonial expansion. The doctrine was meant to protect the sovereignty of newly independent Latin American states. However, two centuries later, the doctrine seems to have undergone a quiet transformation. Ongoing US adventurism in Venezuela resembles an assertion of US dominance rather than an act of protection against external interference. The old guard is the new insurgent.
The current confrontation between Washington and Caracas did not emerge out of thin air. Venezuela has been a strategic US partner providing the global superpower much-needed energy security. Venezuela was a guarantor of American oil interests in the region and was a significant player in the political economy the US had developed around this precious global commodity. However, this strategic relationship changed after the rise of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, two assertive Venezuelan statesmen who steered the OPEC giant away from American interventionism. Their governments openly challenged US influence and aligned with rival powers attracting economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation.
The Monroe Doctrine evolved from a deterrent to European colonialism into a justification for US intervention in Latin America. It gave Washington the license to intervene under the excuse of maintaining order. During the Cold War, the doctrine underpinned coups and regime changes from Guatemala to Chile and though the ideological justifications shifted over time, the underlying assumption remained consistent: Latin America remained within an exclusive US sphere of influence. The rhetoric surrounding Venezuela might have changed, but the power logic is still the same. Where past interventions were justified in the name of anti-communism, today's language emphasises human rights and democratic restoration.
While the rhetoric has shifted from Cold War fears to human rights, the underlying logic remains that Latin America falls within an exclusive US sphere of influence
Today, Venezuela has fallen victim to this doctrine, as the US justifies its interventions through several arguments defending democracy, combating drug trafficking, and protecting regional security. However, these justifications sit uneasily alongside the methods employed. Consequently, broader economic sanctions have devastated Venezuela's economy, worsening humanitarian suffering without producing effective political reforms. Furthermore, naval interdictions and oil seizures have also effectively acted as a stumbling block. Orchestrated through military force, these actions have done more harm than good.
The authoritarian governments elsewhere rarely elicit comparable responses, particularly when they fall outside Washington's strategic neighbourhood. The sovereignty, it appears, is defended vigorously when violated by rivals, but treated as conditional when applied to smaller states central to American interests. Unilateral action, regardless of moral justification, undermines the sanctity of the international legal order that the United States claims to uphold globally.
Beyond legal concerns, there are several regional consequences of this act. As Latin America has long struggled to assert autonomy in a world shaped by great power rivalry, the US sanctions in Venezuela risk reinforcing historic mistrust, validating fears that sovereignty in the region remains negotiable. Rather than isolating Caracas, such actions may push other states to hedge their bets, deepening ties with China and Russia as counterweights to US dominance.
Ironically, this dynamic weakens the influence Washington seeks to preserve. History shows that power exercised without legitimacy rarely produces stability. A region treated as a geopolitical backyard is unlikely to respond with trust or cooperation. Instead, it will accelerate the erosion of US authority in its own hemisphere. In an increasingly multipolar world, unilateralism is not only controversial but strategically short-sighted. At the same time, none of this is to deny Venezuela's internal failures, which include democratic backsliding, economic mismanagement, and human rights abuses.
These are real and serious issues in Venezuela. Yet, acknowledging these realities does not automatically imply an endorsement of external coercion as the primary solution. History suggests that regime change imposed from outside rarely produces a durable democracy. More often than not, such moves are counterproductive as they destabilise societies and leave them more paralyzed than before.
At its core, the Venezuelan crisis forces a reckoning with an uncomfortable truth. The Monroe Doctrine was never fully abandoned, but it was merely rebranded. It is not wrong to say that the language of empire has been replaced with the language of norms, but the hierarchy of power endures. Henceforth, the United States continues to reserve for itself a decisive role in shaping the political futures of its neighbours, often without their consent and sometimes without legal sanction.
If the doctrine continues to gain traction, the main question is not whether Venezuela meets democratic standards or fails, but whether it raises international concerns about power and its misuse, specifically, whether Latin America, two centuries after independence, is still permitted full sovereignty. In answering that question, the United States must decide whether it wishes to lead by example in a rule-based order or return to a past where power, rather than principle, determined whose rules matter.