We are witnessing a new "liberation(!) by the US" moment in history. It seems another of the great evils has been neutralized. Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro, taken from his bed in a flawless operation by American military and intelligence forces that instilled fear in his enemies, is the latest victim. His image, circulated in the world media wearing a Nike tracksuit and handcuffs, is heartbreaking. Undoubtedly, Maduro's authoritarianism, mismanagement, involvement in drug trafficking, and legitimacy have always been a subject of debate in international public opinion. However, it is also true that his defiant stance against US pressure has garnered a certain degree of sympathy globally.
While the arrest of the Venezuelan president in his own home by a foreign military intervention has been criticized by the public, it is noteworthy that state-level reactions have only been along the lines of "we are concerned," "we are watching with anxiety," and "we condemn." It is not surprising that people are turning to the lesser evils—the lesser of two evils—to oppose the greater evil; but what about the states? Why are they in such a state of silent waiting? What happened to diplomacy? Where are international institutions, law, norms, and global ethics?
Isaiah Berlin, in saying that "our choices are not between good and bad, but between bad and less bad," argues that concepts of freedom or morality gain meaning not as abstract ideals, but within concrete threats and necessities. Therefore, political actors are generally inclined to choose the less destructive option, not the right one. In short, in politics, choices don't seek the truth; they find the option that will cause less harm, provide more security, and be less costly, and that option is then structured as "right."
The dynamics of the international relations system are largely shaped in this way. While people are guided by emotions, political actors are forced to make rational calculations. Considering the historical memory of coups, CIA operations, puppet regimes, kidnappings, executions, and potential economic devastation, the inaction of states, especially those lacking the capacity for retaliation, is more easily understood. Moreover, when faced with a political ideology that can act without rules and behave outside the norm, an analytical approach becomes more important than a reactive one.
Simon Bolivar, the great hero and liberator leader of not only Venezuela but all of Latin American history, wrote in a letter to British diplomat Patrick Campbell in 1829: "The fate of the United States of America seems to be to plunge the American continent into disaster in the name of freedom." Bolivar had fought a great battle to keep the people of "Gran Colombia," who had emerged victorious from the war against Spanish colonialism, united, but he was among the losers. He described his life, which ended as a weary and sick man, by saying, "I am as if I have been sailing the sea" (he arado en al mar). In this region, which today comprises Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Panama, positive and negative feelings towards the US coexist.
The Trump administration, referencing the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, is reclaiming rights over a vast strip of land stretching from Venezuela to Panama. Even though the US was still a very young state when the Monroe Doctrine was announced, it was clear that it was inclined towards expansion. It viewed the entire American continent as a whole, and openly claimed Latin America, which they considered their backyard. The phrase "Western Hemisphere," which Trump has advocated in his national security strategy since 2017, is a reflection of the Monroe Doctrine, but not an exact replica.
Trump's demands, extending north through Canada and Greenland to the Arctic region, are reflected as significant pressure on the entire Caribbean Sea in the south, and on all of Central America, including Cuba and Mexico. His border policy, shaped by walls and harsh immigration policies against arrivals from those countries, keeps the US's entry into those countries open. Since the uninvited guest's demand is to become the owner of the house, it is also supported by military means.
The Trump administration views the entire American basin as an inseparable whole in terms of security, trade, and sea routes. Therefore, the Panama Canal, the Caribbean sea passages, and the Gulf of Mexico are identified as vital areas of interest. The deep penetration of China and Russia into the region, especially since the Obama era, is a major betrayal for them. They believe a swift cleanup is necessary. Some call this new approach "Donroe." This concept, described as Donald's doctrine, in my opinion also carries another meaning. As you know, the term "Don" is used for mafia bosses. Trump doesn't seem bothered by being called Don; in fact, he likes it!
The shift from Monroe to Donroe reflects certain nuances in the overall strategy. Monroe was opposed to Europe; Donroe targets China and Russia. Monroe was defensive; Donroe is offensive. Monroe viewed the American basin as a sphere of influence; Donroe asserts that the ownership of resources must belong to him, and he will control them. It is clear that Trump wants to establish a system of loyalty and obedience not only in the Americas but throughout the world. Along with his henchman Israel, he has plunged the world into chaos. Russia is already involved in this global mafia-like game. We will see how China will become involved and what kind of world order the Donroe regime will build.
