The Monroe Doctrine: History, Revival, and Contemporary Geopolitics

The Monroe Doctrine remains one of the most enduring and flexible constructs in international relations. Originally established as a defensive framework in the 19th century, it evolved into a symbol of hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and, more recently, a blueprint for managing American decline in a multipolar world.

1. Origins and Historical Context

President James Monroe articulated this doctrine on December 2, 1823, during the post-Napoleonic era when the "Holy Alliance" (Russia, Prussia, and Austria) threatened to restore Spanish colonial rule in newly independent Latin American republics. * Original Objectives: It established two pillars: non-colonization (no new European colonies in the Americas) and non-intervention (Washington would remain neutral in European wars in exchange for Europe staying out of American affairs). * Expansionist Evolution: While initially a "shield," by the mid-19th century it transformed into a "sword" for expansion, justifying the Mexican-American War and the displacement of indigenous populations. * Historical Reinterpretations: * The Roosevelt Corollary (1904): Theodore Roosevelt asserted "police power" to intervene in Latin American nations to prevent European creditors from doing so, turning the doctrine into a mandate for military intervention. * The Cold War: It was used to justify the containment of Soviet influence (e.g., the 1954 Guatemalan coup and the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis). * Post-Cold War: Secretary of State John Kerry declared in 2013 that the "era of the Monroe Doctrine is over," before its recent resurgence.

2. Consequences and Legacy The doctrine's legacy is defined by a deep tension between protective intent and imperial practice. * Interventionism: It provided the ideological architecture for over 50 U.S. military interventions in the region, reinforcing "dependency structures" where Latin American economies were integrated as raw material exporters.

* Normative Impact: Historically, the doctrine challenged the Westphalian concept of absolute sovereignty by creating a regional legal system that sometimes superseded international law under the guise of a "special relationship."

3. The Trump Revival: From "Monroe" to "Donroe"

Donald Trump explicitly revived the doctrine to signal a return to "principled realism" and the consolidation of regional influence.

* Context of Revival: Trump first cited it during his 2018 UN General Assembly speech: "It has been the formal policy of our country since President Monroe that we reject the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere." * The "Trump Corollary": As of late 2025 and early 2026, the administration rebranded it the "Donroe Doctrine." Unlike previous iterations based on ideology, this version is pragmatic and resource-driven. * Strategic Intent: It serves as a tool for decline management. By relinquishing "global policeman" roles elsewhere, Trump seeks to fortify "Fortress Americas" against Chinese economic penetration and Russian security ties.

4. Alexander Dugin and the "Eurasian Monroe Doctrine"

Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin has long advocated for a "Eurasian Monroe Doctrine" as a cornerstone of his Neo-Eurasianist ideology. * Logic: Dugin argues that if the U.S. claims the Western Hemisphere, Russia must claim "Great Eurasia" as its exclusive civilizational sphere. * Multipolarity: This vision is not for global hegemony but for a "world of many Monroes," replacing universalism with regional spheres led by dominant powers.

* Comparison: While the U.S. version historically claimed to spread republicanism, Dugin’s version is rooted in "civilizational values" and the rejection of liberal democracy as a universal norm.

5. Implications for Europe and the EU

The rise of competing "Monroe-style" doctrines poses a structural threat to European "Strategic Autonomy." * Strategic Decoupling: As the U.S.

�prioritizes its own hemisphere, the EU is forced to choose between being a junior partner in an American-led Atlanticist bloc or developing independent military capabilities. * Eastern Europe: This region becomes a "shatter zone" where [Russian](https://t.me/observer_5/336) and Western spheres overlap, leading to constant instability and a return to "buffer state" politics.

6. Latin America and Future U.S. Policy

Events in 2025–2026 indicate that the active re-application of the doctrine under Trump is now a reality. * Targeting China: The focus has shifted from "anti-communism" to "anti-Chinese infrastructure," with Washington using the doctrine to block "Belt and Road" projects.

* Military Dimensions: U.S. movements in early 2026 suggest a readiness to use force to "clear" the Western Hemisphere of external influence.

7. Theoretical and [Normative](https://t.me/observer_5/336) Assessment

The re-normalization of Monroe doctrines signals a retreat from a rules-based international order toward a neo-mercantilist imperial system. Multipolarity is not resulting in a "global village," but in a world fragmented into fortified spheres of influence, undermining the sovereignty of small states in the "near abroad" of great powers. Extension to the Arab and Islamic World: The "Eisenhower Doctrine" Although the Monroe Doctrine was geographically designed for the Americas, its "geopolitical logic" (enforcing exclusive spheres and barring foreign powers) migrated to the Middle East in the mid-20th century. * The Eisenhower Doctrine (1957) as a "Middle Eastern Monroe Doctrine": Following the 1956 Suez Crisis, President Dwight Eisenhower declared the U.S. would use military force to aid any Middle Eastern state requesting help against "communist aggression." This was a clone of the Monroe Doctrine; Washington sought to fill the "vacuum" left by British and French colonialism. * Application to Muslim Peoples: This logic justified interventions in Muslim-majority states under the pretext of protecting regional sovereignty while securing oil flow and supporting allied regimes (e.g., [Lebanon](https://t.me/observer_5/336) in 1958). * The Carter Doctrine and Gulf Security: In 1980, Jimmy Carter expanded this, declaring any attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf as an "attack on the vital interests of the United States." Analysts view this as an "Oil Monroe Doctrine." * Impact on Sovereignty: Like in Latin America, this led to the marginalization of national sovereignty and turned the region into an arena for Great Power competition, fueling resistance movements that rejected American tutelage.

Conclusion

The logical conclusion of this analysis is that the return of "Monroe Doctrines"—whether "Donroe" in Washington or "Eurasian" in Moscow—heralds the end of liberal globalization and the beginning of an era of "Geopolitical Feudalism."

In this new system, superiority is no longer measured by the ability to impose universal values, but by the ability to draw clear geographical boundaries and prevent rivals from crossing them. For the [Arab](https://t.me/observer_5/336) and Islamic world, this logic means the region will remain a hostage to the struggle over "vital spheres." The future of international stability depends on the ability of emerging powers in Latin America and the Middle East to break this "Monroe Cordon" and seek a true multipolar system based on sovereign balance rather than imperial protectorates.