Invoking the Monroe Doctrine for modern policy isn’t strategic clarity but a misreading of history. The doctrine arose in a specific moment, when a weak U.S. warned European empires against intervention in the Western Hemisphere. Reviving it now ignores how the international system has changed. The U.S. is no longer a young republic guarding its margins. It operates in an interconnected world where legitimacy, alliances, and economic integration shape influence as much as force.
The consequences are strategic. Treating Latin America as a sphere of entitlement rather than a region of sovereign partners weakens American standing where influence is contested. China’s presence is driven by infrastructure, trade, and long-term engagement more than ideology. When Washington signals that pressure outweighs partnership, it invites comparison and yields ground. Power now accumulates through institutions, predictability, and trust, not assertions of dominance.
A foreign policy anchored in outdated assumptions narrows rather than restores American leadership. In an interdependent world, influence depends on credibility and consent, not coercion. When legitimacy is treated as secondary, power doesn’t expand. It erodes…
 |
| Source : LinkedIn |
