‘Donroe doctrine’ in action
Trump seeks sole control of the Western Hemisphere and its resources.
Maleeha Lodhi
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
OVERTHROWING governments in Latin America has long been the US practice from a familiar playbook. The US has for decades intervened by military force to oust governments and assassinate leaders in the Western Hemisphere. More often than not, it has succeeded. Sometimes it has failed, as in trying to kill and remove Fidel Castro in Cuba epitomised by the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. This triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis that drove the US and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war.
The US-backed coup in Chile in 1973 involved the assassination of its elected Marxist president Salvador Allende and installation of a brutal regime under Gen Augusto Pinochet. Another CIA-sponsored coup deposed Guatemala’s elected government in 1954. In 1989, the US invaded Panama to oust Manuel Noriega, capture and extradite him to stand trial in America. The US-led invasion of Grenada overthrew its government in 1983. Over 40 US interventions are said to have ‘succeeded’ in the past century and a half. This includes the invasion and capture in the mid-19th century of over half of Mexican territory. The US also engineered regime change and toppled governments in countries beyond Latin America — Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
Against the backdrop of this predatory history, the US attack on Venezuela ordered by President Donald Trump followed a well-trodden path. But that didn’t make it any less egregious. President Nicolás Maduro was captured by American forces and taken to the US for trial. The armed intervention was illegal — a breach of international law and norms and violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty. It sent shock waves across the world and invited condemnation from many countries, while legal experts and some Democratic lawmakers called it an “act of war”. Five Latin American countries and Spain issued a joint statement which said, US actions “constitute an extremely dangerous precedent for peace and regional security”. It expressed concern about any “external appropriation of natural or strategic resources”. Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodríguez declared, “we will not be anyone’s colony”.
In a blatant display of imperial ambition, Trump vowed to run Venezuela, “take back” its oil and have American oil companies exploit its oil resources. Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves. This laid bare a key motivation of the intervention, which was not strategic deterrence against drug traffickers but commercial aggrandisement. It was a throwback to the past, when in the so-called ‘banana wars’, US-armed interventions sought to secure its commercial interests. Above all, Trump’s action was about establishing dominance over the Western Hemisphere, signalling Washington would dictate policy there and control its resources.
Trump seeks sole control of the Western Hemisphere and its resources.
The US military action came after months of escalating pressure on Maduro who Trump accused of links with drug smugglers without offering evidence. He also blamed Maduro for the influx of Venezuelan migrants into the US. Maduro’s offer for talks on narco-trafficking and oil was spurned by Washington. Instead, the US carried out strikes on Venezuelan vessels alleged to be transporting drugs and imposed a naval blockade to enforce an embargo on oil exports. Maduro accused Washington of aiming to overthrow him and take control of his country’s vast oil reserves.
The attack on Venezuela can be understood in the context of the Trump administration’s recently released National Security Strategy (NSS). This made enforcing the so-called ‘Trump corollary’ of the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere a top priority. The original doctrine was to prevent European recolonisation and communist influence in the region. The ‘Trump corollary’ or ‘Donroe doctrine’ is designed to assert a proprietary claim and exclude China (whose trade and investment influence has been growing in Latin America) and other “non-Hemispheric” powers. Trump doesn’t just want the Hemisphere to be in Washington’s sphere of influence but for the US to have sole and exclusive control over its natural resources.
For all Trump’s earlier claims about non-intervention in the internal affairs of countries, also reiterated in the NSS, he has made regime change his policy. He issued warnings to Cuba, Columbia and Mexico about possible action and separately to Iran while repeating the threat to seize Greenland. The latter elicited a response from Denmark that such action will spell the end of NATO.
America’s experience with regime change has hardly been edifying, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. It has always ended badly for the US and brought grief and suffering to those countries and shed so much of their blood. When the US tried to ‘run Iraq’ it proved a disaster. No wonder that a majority of Americans express fears about the US getting ‘too involved’ in the South American country, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. Alarmingly, the survey also found two-thirds of Republicans supported the attack.
In the UN Security Council emergency meeting called to discuss Venezuela, the US was roundly condemned by China and Russia as well as American allies. Washington was accused of taking the world back to an “era of lawlessness” and undermining the “foundation of world order”. Pakistan’s envoy warned that “unilateral military” actions can lead to “unpredictable and uncontrolled outcomes” for years.
The Trump administration is unconcerned by international criticism. How Trump proposes to “run Venezuela” is the key question. As for his plan to “take over” oil resources, he announced that Venezuelan authorities will hand over up to 50 million barrels of sanctioned crude to the US. The money earned from its sale will be controlled by him. But for American oil companies to reap a bonanza is not simple, given Venezuela’s poor oil infrastructure and need for massive investment. Already US oil giant ExxonMobil has told Trump Venezuela is “uninvestable” without major changes. A private investor is cited in the Financial Times as saying, “No one wants to go in there when a random tweet can change the entire foreign policy of the country”.
The US may have bitten off more than it can chew. Venezuela can descend into chaos and greater regional instability can ensue with the US squandering whatever goodwill it has in the Hemisphere. As the New York Times put it in its editorial, Trump’s action represents “a dangerous and illegal approach to America’s place in the world”. Once again, the tactical success of the US action in Venezuela is likely to end in strategic failure.
Published in Dawn, January 12th, 2026
Trump seeks sole control of the Western Hemisphere and its resources.
Maleeha Lodhi
Published January 12, 2026
DAWN
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
OVERTHROWING governments in Latin America has long been the US practice from a familiar playbook. The US has for decades intervened by military force to oust governments and assassinate leaders in the Western Hemisphere. More often than not, it has succeeded. Sometimes it has failed, as in trying to kill and remove Fidel Castro in Cuba epitomised by the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. This triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis that drove the US and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war.
The US-backed coup in Chile in 1973 involved the assassination of its elected Marxist president Salvador Allende and installation of a brutal regime under Gen Augusto Pinochet. Another CIA-sponsored coup deposed Guatemala’s elected government in 1954. In 1989, the US invaded Panama to oust Manuel Noriega, capture and extradite him to stand trial in America. The US-led invasion of Grenada overthrew its government in 1983. Over 40 US interventions are said to have ‘succeeded’ in the past century and a half. This includes the invasion and capture in the mid-19th century of over half of Mexican territory. The US also engineered regime change and toppled governments in countries beyond Latin America — Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
Against the backdrop of this predatory history, the US attack on Venezuela ordered by President Donald Trump followed a well-trodden path. But that didn’t make it any less egregious. President Nicolás Maduro was captured by American forces and taken to the US for trial. The armed intervention was illegal — a breach of international law and norms and violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty. It sent shock waves across the world and invited condemnation from many countries, while legal experts and some Democratic lawmakers called it an “act of war”. Five Latin American countries and Spain issued a joint statement which said, US actions “constitute an extremely dangerous precedent for peace and regional security”. It expressed concern about any “external appropriation of natural or strategic resources”. Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodríguez declared, “we will not be anyone’s colony”.
In a blatant display of imperial ambition, Trump vowed to run Venezuela, “take back” its oil and have American oil companies exploit its oil resources. Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves. This laid bare a key motivation of the intervention, which was not strategic deterrence against drug traffickers but commercial aggrandisement. It was a throwback to the past, when in the so-called ‘banana wars’, US-armed interventions sought to secure its commercial interests. Above all, Trump’s action was about establishing dominance over the Western Hemisphere, signalling Washington would dictate policy there and control its resources.
Trump seeks sole control of the Western Hemisphere and its resources.
The US military action came after months of escalating pressure on Maduro who Trump accused of links with drug smugglers without offering evidence. He also blamed Maduro for the influx of Venezuelan migrants into the US. Maduro’s offer for talks on narco-trafficking and oil was spurned by Washington. Instead, the US carried out strikes on Venezuelan vessels alleged to be transporting drugs and imposed a naval blockade to enforce an embargo on oil exports. Maduro accused Washington of aiming to overthrow him and take control of his country’s vast oil reserves.
The attack on Venezuela can be understood in the context of the Trump administration’s recently released National Security Strategy (NSS). This made enforcing the so-called ‘Trump corollary’ of the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere a top priority. The original doctrine was to prevent European recolonisation and communist influence in the region. The ‘Trump corollary’ or ‘Donroe doctrine’ is designed to assert a proprietary claim and exclude China (whose trade and investment influence has been growing in Latin America) and other “non-Hemispheric” powers. Trump doesn’t just want the Hemisphere to be in Washington’s sphere of influence but for the US to have sole and exclusive control over its natural resources.
For all Trump’s earlier claims about non-intervention in the internal affairs of countries, also reiterated in the NSS, he has made regime change his policy. He issued warnings to Cuba, Columbia and Mexico about possible action and separately to Iran while repeating the threat to seize Greenland. The latter elicited a response from Denmark that such action will spell the end of NATO.
America’s experience with regime change has hardly been edifying, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. It has always ended badly for the US and brought grief and suffering to those countries and shed so much of their blood. When the US tried to ‘run Iraq’ it proved a disaster. No wonder that a majority of Americans express fears about the US getting ‘too involved’ in the South American country, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. Alarmingly, the survey also found two-thirds of Republicans supported the attack.
In the UN Security Council emergency meeting called to discuss Venezuela, the US was roundly condemned by China and Russia as well as American allies. Washington was accused of taking the world back to an “era of lawlessness” and undermining the “foundation of world order”. Pakistan’s envoy warned that “unilateral military” actions can lead to “unpredictable and uncontrolled outcomes” for years.
The Trump administration is unconcerned by international criticism. How Trump proposes to “run Venezuela” is the key question. As for his plan to “take over” oil resources, he announced that Venezuelan authorities will hand over up to 50 million barrels of sanctioned crude to the US. The money earned from its sale will be controlled by him. But for American oil companies to reap a bonanza is not simple, given Venezuela’s poor oil infrastructure and need for massive investment. Already US oil giant ExxonMobil has told Trump Venezuela is “uninvestable” without major changes. A private investor is cited in the Financial Times as saying, “No one wants to go in there when a random tweet can change the entire foreign policy of the country”.
The US may have bitten off more than it can chew. Venezuela can descend into chaos and greater regional instability can ensue with the US squandering whatever goodwill it has in the Hemisphere. As the New York Times put it in its editorial, Trump’s action represents “a dangerous and illegal approach to America’s place in the world”. Once again, the tactical success of the US action in Venezuela is likely to end in strategic failure.
Published in Dawn, January 12th, 2026
Published January 12, 2026
DAWN
WHEN Donald Trump says that his power is restrained only by “my own morality”, he is not just boasting, he is making a case for a philosophy that governs his rule.
In a recent interview with The New York Times, the US president argued that international law, treaties and institutions apply only when he decides they do. The argument has surface appeal. Rules are slow, alliances awkward and multilateral bodies frustrating. Why should a superpower bind itself when it can act?
Yet this view misunderstands the purpose of law. Rules between states were not created because leaders are naturally wise or restrained. They were created because history shows us what happens when power goes unchecked. Mr Trump’s remarks suggest that these limits are optional. If international law aligns with US interests, it applies. If it does not, it can be ignored, redefined or brushed aside.
Mr Trump’s worldview is straightforward. Strength decides outcomes; law follows later, if at all. This thinking was visible across the interview. Greenland was discussed as something to be owned rather than respected as an ally’s territory. Venezuela was treated as a problem to be solved by military action. Throughout the discussion, the underlying view appeared to be that strength gives permission. Except, there exists this contradiction: rivals, he insists, must not use the same logic. China should not act on Taiwan; Russia should not redraw borders. The objections lack principle. Whereas American power is exceptional, making the country’s actions acceptable, others’ is destabilising. Such logic cannot hold. Rules applying only to the weak vanish. Other states will take notes and copy the example. Treaties become temporary and morality becomes whatever the powerful declare it to be.
The same pattern appears within the US. Congress is respected until it resists. Courts matter “under certain circumstances”. Emergency powers stretch when challenged. A parallel can be seen closer to home.
Pakistan’s own history shows what happens when power claims to stand above law. Whether under military rulers or hybrid arrangements, decisions have often been justified in the name of stability, security or higher national interest.
Yet this reliance on personal discretion has weakened institutions, blurred accountability and left citizens unsure where authority truly lies. When leaders decide that their judgement is a better safeguard than rules, uncertainty, not order, follows. A system that rests on personal morality is a fragile one. Leaders change. Tempers flare. Incentives shift. What remains is the example set.
If law is treated as optional by those who wrote it, it will soon be ignored by those who did not. The danger is not that America will act forcefully. It always has. The danger is that it will stop explaining why force should be limited at all.
Published in Dawn, January 12th, 2026
WHEN Donald Trump says that his power is restrained only by “my own morality”, he is not just boasting, he is making a case for a philosophy that governs his rule.
In a recent interview with The New York Times, the US president argued that international law, treaties and institutions apply only when he decides they do. The argument has surface appeal. Rules are slow, alliances awkward and multilateral bodies frustrating. Why should a superpower bind itself when it can act?
Yet this view misunderstands the purpose of law. Rules between states were not created because leaders are naturally wise or restrained. They were created because history shows us what happens when power goes unchecked. Mr Trump’s remarks suggest that these limits are optional. If international law aligns with US interests, it applies. If it does not, it can be ignored, redefined or brushed aside.
Mr Trump’s worldview is straightforward. Strength decides outcomes; law follows later, if at all. This thinking was visible across the interview. Greenland was discussed as something to be owned rather than respected as an ally’s territory. Venezuela was treated as a problem to be solved by military action. Throughout the discussion, the underlying view appeared to be that strength gives permission. Except, there exists this contradiction: rivals, he insists, must not use the same logic. China should not act on Taiwan; Russia should not redraw borders. The objections lack principle. Whereas American power is exceptional, making the country’s actions acceptable, others’ is destabilising. Such logic cannot hold. Rules applying only to the weak vanish. Other states will take notes and copy the example. Treaties become temporary and morality becomes whatever the powerful declare it to be.
The same pattern appears within the US. Congress is respected until it resists. Courts matter “under certain circumstances”. Emergency powers stretch when challenged. A parallel can be seen closer to home.
Pakistan’s own history shows what happens when power claims to stand above law. Whether under military rulers or hybrid arrangements, decisions have often been justified in the name of stability, security or higher national interest.
Yet this reliance on personal discretion has weakened institutions, blurred accountability and left citizens unsure where authority truly lies. When leaders decide that their judgement is a better safeguard than rules, uncertainty, not order, follows. A system that rests on personal morality is a fragile one. Leaders change. Tempers flare. Incentives shift. What remains is the example set.
If law is treated as optional by those who wrote it, it will soon be ignored by those who did not. The danger is not that America will act forcefully. It always has. The danger is that it will stop explaining why force should be limited at all.
Published in Dawn, January 12th, 2026
Melos to Maduro's
Zarrar Khuhro
Zarrar Khuhro
Published January 12, 2026
DAWN
NOTHING truly fundamental has changed in humanity. Sure, we traded skins for suits and spears for smart bombs but at our core we have remained largely the same, especially when it comes to the dynamics of power, arrogance and empire.
There is nothing new under the sun; watching the Trump administration, flushed with victory after its kidnapping of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduros, exult in the admittedly unmatched military might of the US army, one cannot help but recall what Thucydides wrote in the Melian dialogues some 2,500 years ago. Speaking from the perspective of the arrogant Athenians as they threatened the small island of Melos: “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Considered the cornerstone of ‘political realism’ the quote encapsulates the mood prevailing in Washington, D.C., where power is the ultimate arbiter and appealing to morality, norms and law (as the Melians did) is to be despised and mocked. The ultimate arbiter of what is right and moral is now the US president himself, and only him. “The only thing that can stop me is … my own morality. My own mind,” says Trump. This is instructive, given the state of both his morals and his mind. But while we can be appalled, perhaps even a bit terrified that even the Assyrian warrior kings provided more justifications for their actions than Trump does, we should not be surprised.
After all, this is the America of Pete Hesgeth and Stephen Miller, the latter of whom recently brushed off Danish concerns about an American seizure of Greenland, saying “you can talk all you want about international niceties … but we live … in the real world that is governed by strength…force…that is governed by power”.
It was an unconscious echo of Pompey during the Roman civil war. Around 80 BC, Pompey laid siege to the Italian city of Messanna and when the governor of that city appealed to Roman law, telling Pompey his siege was illegal and that his forces must be withdrawn Pompey responded: “Cease quoting the law to men with swords.”
In a sense, the honesty is refreshing, and the reaction in Europe at least is amusing. Consider that when the Maduros were taken, European countries responded with the ‘we are monitoring the situation’ line of diplomatic non-speak, along with the ritualistic references to democracy, international law, human rights and free and fair elections.
‘Cease quoting the law to men with swords’.
But when Greenland again entered the chat, those very same countries recoiled in horror. Denmark in particular is aghast, and rightly so, given that this is possibly the most obsequiously Atlanticist and pro-US of all the European countries. Now we see the spectacle of Danish leaders and analysts reminding the US that their country has supported America’s past imperial wars, as former Danish parliamentarian Martin Henriksen complained, tweeting: “I am also surprised that an American president can refer to an ally in that way when we have sent Danish soldiers out into the world to kill Islamic terrorists before they could hit the USA.” This complaint reminds me of the old Twitter joke: “I never thought leopards would eat MY face,” sobs the woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party.”
Nor has it dawned on Europe that its unstinting support for Israel’s genocide and repeated violations of whatever remains of international law means that their protests now fall on deaf ears. After all, this is the world they themselves have helped build, more through action than inaction, and now they face the consequences. It’s also amusing to see Trump tell Denmark: “The fact they had a boat land there 500 years ago does not mean they own the land.”
The error here is that Europe somehow forgot the eternal lesson that Empire knows no allies, it knows only subjects and vassals. And there is no doubt which category Europe is in when it comes to the world according to Trump.
There are lessons for Empire as well, and these too are as old as recorded history. Take the case of Athens, so arrogant in its treatment of Melos: the Athenian military captured the island, massacred the men and took the women and children as slaves, but the afterglow was short-lived; buoyed by victory, the following year Athens launched an expedition to subdue the island of Sicily and failed miserably. The Athenian forces were utterly routed with the result that, in a decade, Athens was forced to surrender to their Spartan rivals. Similarly, Pompey, so proud with his sword unsheathed, eventually died alone and betrayed when the tide turned, as tides tend to do.
But this is cold comfort; for now, the US remains and will continue to remain the world’s pre-eminent military power with the unique ability to project power anywhere in the world, and more than its enemies, it is its allies who should beware.
NOTHING truly fundamental has changed in humanity. Sure, we traded skins for suits and spears for smart bombs but at our core we have remained largely the same, especially when it comes to the dynamics of power, arrogance and empire.
There is nothing new under the sun; watching the Trump administration, flushed with victory after its kidnapping of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduros, exult in the admittedly unmatched military might of the US army, one cannot help but recall what Thucydides wrote in the Melian dialogues some 2,500 years ago. Speaking from the perspective of the arrogant Athenians as they threatened the small island of Melos: “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Considered the cornerstone of ‘political realism’ the quote encapsulates the mood prevailing in Washington, D.C., where power is the ultimate arbiter and appealing to morality, norms and law (as the Melians did) is to be despised and mocked. The ultimate arbiter of what is right and moral is now the US president himself, and only him. “The only thing that can stop me is … my own morality. My own mind,” says Trump. This is instructive, given the state of both his morals and his mind. But while we can be appalled, perhaps even a bit terrified that even the Assyrian warrior kings provided more justifications for their actions than Trump does, we should not be surprised.
After all, this is the America of Pete Hesgeth and Stephen Miller, the latter of whom recently brushed off Danish concerns about an American seizure of Greenland, saying “you can talk all you want about international niceties … but we live … in the real world that is governed by strength…force…that is governed by power”.
It was an unconscious echo of Pompey during the Roman civil war. Around 80 BC, Pompey laid siege to the Italian city of Messanna and when the governor of that city appealed to Roman law, telling Pompey his siege was illegal and that his forces must be withdrawn Pompey responded: “Cease quoting the law to men with swords.”
In a sense, the honesty is refreshing, and the reaction in Europe at least is amusing. Consider that when the Maduros were taken, European countries responded with the ‘we are monitoring the situation’ line of diplomatic non-speak, along with the ritualistic references to democracy, international law, human rights and free and fair elections.
‘Cease quoting the law to men with swords’.
But when Greenland again entered the chat, those very same countries recoiled in horror. Denmark in particular is aghast, and rightly so, given that this is possibly the most obsequiously Atlanticist and pro-US of all the European countries. Now we see the spectacle of Danish leaders and analysts reminding the US that their country has supported America’s past imperial wars, as former Danish parliamentarian Martin Henriksen complained, tweeting: “I am also surprised that an American president can refer to an ally in that way when we have sent Danish soldiers out into the world to kill Islamic terrorists before they could hit the USA.” This complaint reminds me of the old Twitter joke: “I never thought leopards would eat MY face,” sobs the woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party.”
Nor has it dawned on Europe that its unstinting support for Israel’s genocide and repeated violations of whatever remains of international law means that their protests now fall on deaf ears. After all, this is the world they themselves have helped build, more through action than inaction, and now they face the consequences. It’s also amusing to see Trump tell Denmark: “The fact they had a boat land there 500 years ago does not mean they own the land.”
The error here is that Europe somehow forgot the eternal lesson that Empire knows no allies, it knows only subjects and vassals. And there is no doubt which category Europe is in when it comes to the world according to Trump.
There are lessons for Empire as well, and these too are as old as recorded history. Take the case of Athens, so arrogant in its treatment of Melos: the Athenian military captured the island, massacred the men and took the women and children as slaves, but the afterglow was short-lived; buoyed by victory, the following year Athens launched an expedition to subdue the island of Sicily and failed miserably. The Athenian forces were utterly routed with the result that, in a decade, Athens was forced to surrender to their Spartan rivals. Similarly, Pompey, so proud with his sword unsheathed, eventually died alone and betrayed when the tide turned, as tides tend to do.
But this is cold comfort; for now, the US remains and will continue to remain the world’s pre-eminent military power with the unique ability to project power anywhere in the world, and more than its enemies, it is its allies who should beware.
Published in Dawn, January 12th, 2026
Zarrar Khuhro is a Dawn staffer. He is a co-host of the TV talk show, Zara Hut Kay.
He tweets @ZarrarKhuhro
Zarrar Khuhro is a Dawn staffer. He is a co-host of the TV talk show, Zara Hut Kay.
He tweets @ZarrarKhuhro
