Venezuela along the lines of the Monroe Doctrine: US hegemony and the struggle for influence in the Western Hemisphere
Supporters of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro gather during a demonstration in Caracas, Venezuela, on January 04, 2026. [Pedro Mattey – Anadolu Agency]
by Dr Rassem Bisharat
January 5, 2026
Middle East Monitor.
Venezuela is currently facing an extremely sensitive historical turning point, amid escalating debate over whether the United States is reviving the Monroe Doctrine in a contemporary formulation aimed at reimposing its traditional hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. Recent military and political developments between Washington and Caracas, accompanied by shocking statements and unilateral measures, have constituted a clear indication of a qualitative shift in the nature of the conflict between the two parties. This shift transcends a mere bilateral crisis, reflecting instead a broader struggle over regional and international influence.
The most striking aspect of this context was not the large-scale US military strikes that targeted sites within Venezuelan territory, including areas surrounding the capital, Caracas, but rather the subsequent political announcement claiming the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his transfer outside the country. This announcement, which lacked independent confirmation or a clear legal framework, triggered a wave of doubt and questioning, prompting the Venezuelan government to describe what occurred as a blatant assault on national sovereignty and a flagrant violation of international law. These developments have revived deeper discussions concerning the nature of the US role in Latin America and whether Washington is, in fact, seeking to reproduce the Monroe Doctrine using the tools of the twenty-first century.
The Monroe Doctrine dates back to 1823, when US President James Monroe declared opposition to any European intervention in the affairs of the American continent, in exchange for US abstention from involvement in European affairs. Although the doctrine was initially presented as a defensive measure intended to protect the independence of the newly formed states of the New World, it quickly evolved, alongside the rise of the United States as a major power, into an ideological cover that legitimized intervention in the affairs of Latin American countries. By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the doctrine ceased to function as a deterrent against external powers and instead became an instrument for the direct imposition of U.S. influence.
This transformation reached its apex during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, who introduced what became known as the “Roosevelt Corollary,” granting the United States the right to intervene under the pretext of preserving order and stability in the countries of the region. Since then, Latin American history has been filled with a series of coups and interventions supported by Washington either directly or indirectly, ranging from Guatemala in 1954 to Chile in 1973, and Panama in 1989, in addition to earlier interventions in Mexico, Cuba, and Nicaragua, as well as support for military regimes in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, and other countries during the Cold War. Despite the variation in justifications, the underlying objective remained constant: ensuring that Latin America remained within the sphere of U.S. influence.
With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, it initially appeared that the principal justification for US intervention in Latin America had disappeared. However, the American discourse did not vanish; rather, it was reformulated. The rhetoric of “combating communism” was replaced by new slogans such as the “war on drugs,” “counterterrorism,” and “the protection of national security.” In the Venezuelan case, these narratives were employed to justify a gradual military escalation, including air strikes and a heavy naval deployment in the Caribbean Sea—moves that many observers viewed as far exceeding the issue of combating drug trafficking and instead reflecting a clear intention to send a political and military deterrent message.
This escalation cannot be separated from Venezuela’s strategic position in the global energy market, as the country possesses the largest proven oil reserves in the world, in addition to other natural resources that make it a permanent target in the calculations of major powers. From this perspective, US policy toward Caracas appears to be part of a broader struggle over resources and influence, rather than merely an ideological or political dispute with a specific government. This policy has materialized in the form of intensified economic sanctions and pressure on countries that import Venezuelan oil, including China, thereby deepening the economic crisis and extending its effects to Venezuelan society as a whole.
Conversely, the Venezuelan government has sought to frame the situation as an external aggression aimed at undermining state sovereignty, rather than as a transient diplomatic crisis. It declared a state of emergency and called for popular mobilization, seeking to reinforce internal cohesion in the face of external pressure. At the regional level, the developments elicited varied reactions. Countries such as Brazil, Cuba, Mexico, and Colombia condemned the US strikes and called for emergency sessions of the United Nations Security Council. Leaders of these states argued that what was occurring constituted a threat to the sovereignty of Latin America as a whole, warning of serious humanitarian and security repercussions.
By contrast, some other governments supported the US position, as in the case of Argentina, reflecting deep divisions within the continent regarding how to address the US role in general, and the Venezuelan crisis in particular. This division underscores the fragility of the regional system and the difficulty of forging a unified Latin American stance in the face of external pressures.
In sum, what is unfolding in Venezuela cannot be understood in isolation from the long historical context of US intervention in Latin America. Despite changes in rhetoric and shifts in instruments, the strategic mindset that views the Western Hemisphere as an exclusive sphere of influence remains strongly present. Accordingly, the current crisis does not represent an exception, but rather a new chapter in a narrative extending over more than a century and a half, in which the tools of US hegemony adapt to international transformations without abandoning their core essence.
These developments pose a fundamental question for Latin American countries: to what extent are they capable of breaking away from the logic of the “backyard” and building an autonomous margin of decision-making in a world where unipolarity is in decline, while traditional instruments of hegemony have not yet disappeared? Within this framework, Venezuela appears not only as a battleground in its own right, but also as a political message directed at the entire continent, and as a test of its ability to redefine its position within a changing international system.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
Venezuela is currently facing an extremely sensitive historical turning point, amid escalating debate over whether the United States is reviving the Monroe Doctrine in a contemporary formulation aimed at reimposing its traditional hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. Recent military and political developments between Washington and Caracas, accompanied by shocking statements and unilateral measures, have constituted a clear indication of a qualitative shift in the nature of the conflict between the two parties. This shift transcends a mere bilateral crisis, reflecting instead a broader struggle over regional and international influence.
The most striking aspect of this context was not the large-scale US military strikes that targeted sites within Venezuelan territory, including areas surrounding the capital, Caracas, but rather the subsequent political announcement claiming the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his transfer outside the country. This announcement, which lacked independent confirmation or a clear legal framework, triggered a wave of doubt and questioning, prompting the Venezuelan government to describe what occurred as a blatant assault on national sovereignty and a flagrant violation of international law. These developments have revived deeper discussions concerning the nature of the US role in Latin America and whether Washington is, in fact, seeking to reproduce the Monroe Doctrine using the tools of the twenty-first century.
The Monroe Doctrine dates back to 1823, when US President James Monroe declared opposition to any European intervention in the affairs of the American continent, in exchange for US abstention from involvement in European affairs. Although the doctrine was initially presented as a defensive measure intended to protect the independence of the newly formed states of the New World, it quickly evolved, alongside the rise of the United States as a major power, into an ideological cover that legitimized intervention in the affairs of Latin American countries. By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the doctrine ceased to function as a deterrent against external powers and instead became an instrument for the direct imposition of U.S. influence.
This transformation reached its apex during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, who introduced what became known as the “Roosevelt Corollary,” granting the United States the right to intervene under the pretext of preserving order and stability in the countries of the region. Since then, Latin American history has been filled with a series of coups and interventions supported by Washington either directly or indirectly, ranging from Guatemala in 1954 to Chile in 1973, and Panama in 1989, in addition to earlier interventions in Mexico, Cuba, and Nicaragua, as well as support for military regimes in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, and other countries during the Cold War. Despite the variation in justifications, the underlying objective remained constant: ensuring that Latin America remained within the sphere of U.S. influence.
With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, it initially appeared that the principal justification for US intervention in Latin America had disappeared. However, the American discourse did not vanish; rather, it was reformulated. The rhetoric of “combating communism” was replaced by new slogans such as the “war on drugs,” “counterterrorism,” and “the protection of national security.” In the Venezuelan case, these narratives were employed to justify a gradual military escalation, including air strikes and a heavy naval deployment in the Caribbean Sea—moves that many observers viewed as far exceeding the issue of combating drug trafficking and instead reflecting a clear intention to send a political and military deterrent message.
This escalation cannot be separated from Venezuela’s strategic position in the global energy market, as the country possesses the largest proven oil reserves in the world, in addition to other natural resources that make it a permanent target in the calculations of major powers. From this perspective, US policy toward Caracas appears to be part of a broader struggle over resources and influence, rather than merely an ideological or political dispute with a specific government. This policy has materialized in the form of intensified economic sanctions and pressure on countries that import Venezuelan oil, including China, thereby deepening the economic crisis and extending its effects to Venezuelan society as a whole.
Conversely, the Venezuelan government has sought to frame the situation as an external aggression aimed at undermining state sovereignty, rather than as a transient diplomatic crisis. It declared a state of emergency and called for popular mobilization, seeking to reinforce internal cohesion in the face of external pressure. At the regional level, the developments elicited varied reactions. Countries such as Brazil, Cuba, Mexico, and Colombia condemned the US strikes and called for emergency sessions of the United Nations Security Council. Leaders of these states argued that what was occurring constituted a threat to the sovereignty of Latin America as a whole, warning of serious humanitarian and security repercussions.
By contrast, some other governments supported the US position, as in the case of Argentina, reflecting deep divisions within the continent regarding how to address the US role in general, and the Venezuelan crisis in particular. This division underscores the fragility of the regional system and the difficulty of forging a unified Latin American stance in the face of external pressures.
In sum, what is unfolding in Venezuela cannot be understood in isolation from the long historical context of US intervention in Latin America. Despite changes in rhetoric and shifts in instruments, the strategic mindset that views the Western Hemisphere as an exclusive sphere of influence remains strongly present. Accordingly, the current crisis does not represent an exception, but rather a new chapter in a narrative extending over more than a century and a half, in which the tools of US hegemony adapt to international transformations without abandoning their core essence.
These developments pose a fundamental question for Latin American countries: to what extent are they capable of breaking away from the logic of the “backyard” and building an autonomous margin of decision-making in a world where unipolarity is in decline, while traditional instruments of hegemony have not yet disappeared? Within this framework, Venezuela appears not only as a battleground in its own right, but also as a political message directed at the entire continent, and as a test of its ability to redefine its position within a changing international system.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
No comments:
Post a Comment