UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2 –International Relation.
Introduction
The year 2026 opened with a strong signal that the post-1945 international order is weakening. The U.S. military capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro marked a return to power-based geopolitics. This action, termed the ‘Donroe Doctrine’, reflects declining respect for sovereignty, international law, and multilateral institutions.
What is Donroe Doctrine?
Origin and meaning: The “Donroe Doctrine” (a blend of “Donald” and “Monroe”) is a modern interpretation of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, shaped by President Donald Trump’s foreign policy approach. Unlike the original doctrine, which was defensive in nature, the Donroe Doctrine openly supports coercive intervention and regime enforcement.
Core principle: The doctrine asserts that the United States is the sole security guarantor of the Western Hemisphere. It rejects interference by non-Hemispheric powers such as China and Russia.
- Tactics: It involves a mix of policies, including:
◦ Economic Tools: Sanctions, tariffs, and economic bailouts.
◦ Military Posturing: Threats and interventions, notably in Venezuela.
◦ Pressure Campaigns: Against governments seen as violating U.S. interests or aligning with rivals.
Triggering event: U.S. airborne forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a swift operation. They were incarcerated in the U.S. on charges of threatening American security.
Policy foundation: The U.S. National Security Strategy (November 2025) clearly states Washington’s intent to reassert pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere after years of neglect.
Strategic objective: The strategy seeks to deny rival powers the ability to deploy forces or control vital assets in the Hemisphere, treating regional dominance as a core U.S. interest.
Signals of expansion: Implicit threats were issued toward Cuba, Colombia, and Mexico, while Greenland was described as a security necessity due to its strategic location.
Concern of Donroe Doctrine?
Violation of sovereignty: The forcible detention of a sitting head of state represents a direct breach of national sovereignty and diplomatic norms.
Muted global response: Worldwide protests remained limited, indicating declining faith in collective international resistance.
Breakdown of rules-based order: The episode reinforces the belief that the post-Second World War system is no longer effective in restraining major powers.
Normalisation of force: Military abduction is now projected as a legitimate policy tool, encouraging coercive regime change.
Precedent for other powers: Such actions risk encouraging China and Russia to enforce dominance within their own zones of influence.
Taiwan implication: China’s claim over Taiwan gains indirect justification in an environment where force replaces law.
Global Implications of the Donroe Doctrine
United States: The doctrine marks a formal return to military interventionism and hemispheric dominance. It places national power above international law, reviving coercive “shock and awe” tactics as legitimate policy.
Venezuela: The capture of its President shows the complete erosion of sovereignty for smaller states. It establishes regime change through force as an acceptable international practice.
Europe: The doctrine shifts U.S. strategic focus away from Europe and demands that it assume primary responsibility for its defence. This weakens security assurances built after 1945.
Ukraine: U.S. pursuit of strategic stability with Russia increases pressure for a negotiated settlement. Any outcome may remain unsatisfactory to both sides, risking future escalation.
Russia: The doctrine enables transactional engagement between Washington and Moscow. Russia gains leverage as U.S. priorities move from Europe to hemispheric control.
Israel: Strong U.S. interventionism provides political and military backing. It creates conditions to complete the unfinished conflict of 2025 under favourable circumstances.
Iran: The doctrine emboldens U.S.–Israel action amid Iran’s internal unrest. It increases risks of sanctions, destabilisation, and external intervention.
Afghanistan: The weakening of global restraint allows extremist groups to regain operational space. Regional instability expands under reduced international accountability.
Pakistan: Renewed U.S. strategic interest strengthens the military establishment. Arms supplies and diplomatic support reinforce military dominance over democratic institutions.
China: The doctrine legitimises zone-of-influence politics, strengthening China’s argument for coercive regional control. It reinforces Beijing’s strategic confidence.
Taiwan: A permissive global environment increases coercion risks. China may interpret U.S. actions as validation of force-based territorial claims.
Indo-Pacific Region: U.S. concentration on the Western Hemisphere reduces exclusive dominance. The Eastern Pacific and Indian Ocean witness rising multipolar competition.
India: The doctrine deepens India’s strategic squeeze. U.S. pressure on Russian oil, renewed U.S.–Pakistan alignment, and China’s trade leverage narrow India’s diplomatic and economic space.
India at the Crossroads
Strained India–U.S. relations: The U.S. continues to criticise India for importing subsidised Russian oil despite India supporting Washington on most global issues. This has created visible friction in bilateral ties.
Diplomatic isolation in conflict regions: The cooling of India–U.S. relations has affected India’s engagement with other countries. This has reduced India’s influence in conflict zones such as West Asia.
Pakistan’s renewed U.S. backing: The U.S. endorsement of Field Marshal Asim Munir and removal of restrictions on arms supplies have strengthened Pakistan’s military position. This directly worsens India’s security environment.
China-related economic pressure: China’s advantage in trade and tariff disputes leaves India little room to hedge against possible U.S. tariff escalation. This increases India’s economic vulnerability.
Conclusion
The Donroe Doctrine reflects a decisive shift from rules-based cooperation to power-driven geopolitics. Sovereignty and international law are steadily weakening. Regional instability is rising across continents. For India, 2026 offers limited strategic comfort, demanding cautious diplomacy, balanced partnerships, and sustained strategic autonomy in an increasingly uncertain global order.
Question for practice:
Discuss how the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ reflects the breakdown of the post-1945 international order and examine its implications for global geopolitics and India’s strategic position.
Source: The Hindu
