Ridwan Kamil
Venezuela’s complex relationship with the United States, particularly through the lens of the Monroe Doctrine, continues to be a significant factor shaping its internal politics and its standing on the global stage, reflecting a long-standing dynamic of hemispheric power and sovereignty.
The Monroe Doctrine, first articulated in 1823, was a bold declaration by U.S. President James Monroe asserting that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open to further European colonization and that any interference by European powers in the affairs of independent nations in the Americas would be viewed as a hostile act. While initially conceived as a protective measure against foreign encroachment, its subsequent interpretations and applications by successive U.S. administrations have often blurred the lines between protection and intervention, particularly in Latin America. This doctrine has become a recurring motif in Venezuela’s historical trajectory, influencing periods of both cooperation and profound tension with the United States.
For much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Venezuela, like many of its Latin American neighbors, navigated a precarious geopolitical landscape. The nascent South American republics, having recently thrown off the yoke of Spanish colonial rule, were vulnerable to external pressures. European powers, particularly Great Britain and France, maintained significant economic interests and territorial claims in the region. The United States, increasingly asserting its dominance in the Western Hemisphere, utilized the Monroe Doctrine as a justification for its growing influence. This often manifested in diplomatic pressure, economic leverage, and, at times, military interventions designed to safeguard U.S. interests and prevent European resurgence.
Venezuela’s own internal political instability and its vast natural resources, particularly oil, made it a focal point for external attention. During the early 20th century, the burgeoning oil industry attracted significant foreign investment, primarily from American companies. This economic interdependence, coupled with Venezuela’s strategic location, meant that U.S. policy towards the nation was often viewed through the prism of the Monroe Doctrine, with Washington keen to ensure stability that favored its economic and strategic objectives. Any perceived threat to these interests, whether from internal unrest or external influence, could trigger a response informed by the doctrine’s underlying principles.
The historical application of the Monroe Doctrine has been a source of considerable debate and resentment throughout Latin America. Critics argue that it has been selectively applied to justify U.S. hegemony, undermining the sovereignty of regional nations. From the Roosevelt Corollary in the early 1900s, which asserted the U.S. right to intervene in Latin American countries to prevent European intervention or to stabilize their finances, to later interventions during the Cold War era, the doctrine has been a tool for projecting American power and influence. For Venezuela, this has meant periods where its internal affairs were significantly impacted by U.S. foreign policy, often leading to strained diplomatic relations.
The mid-to-late 20th century saw Venezuela emerge as a major oil producer, becoming a crucial supplier to the United States. This economic symbiosis, while beneficial, also increased U.S. interest in Venezuelan political stability. However, the doctrine’s relevance shifted with the rise of anti-colonial and nationalist movements across Latin America. Venezuelan leaders, including those in the post-World War II era, often viewed the Monroe Doctrine with suspicion, seeing it as a relic of American imperialism that hindered their nation’s ability to chart its own course.
The ascendancy of Hugo Chávez in 1999 marked a significant turning point in Venezuela’s relationship with the United States and its stance on the Monroe Doctrine. Chávez, a fervent critic of U.S. foreign policy and a champion of Latin American sovereignty, explicitly denounced the doctrine as an instrument of domination. His Bolivarian Revolution sought to forge new alliances, reduce U.S. influence, and promote regional integration through initiatives like ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America). Under Chávez, Venezuela actively sought to diversify its international partnerships, engaging more deeply with countries like China and Russia, and challenging the traditional U.S.-centric order in the hemisphere.
The Chávez era was characterized by escalating tensions with Washington. The U.S. government, in turn, expressed concerns over Venezuela’s democratic backsliding, human rights record, and alleged support for anti-U.S. regimes. While the Monroe Doctrine was not explicitly invoked by name as frequently as in earlier periods, its underlying spirit of U.S. concern for regional stability and its perceived sphere of influence remained a silent, yet potent, factor in bilateral relations. U.S. sanctions and diplomatic pressure on Venezuela during the Chávez and subsequent Maduro administrations can be seen, by some analyses, as a modern manifestation of the U.S. asserting its interests and influence within the hemisphere, even if not explicitly framed by the historical doctrine.
The ongoing political and economic crisis in Venezuela has further complicated its relationship with the United States. The U.S. has been a leading proponent of international pressure on the Maduro government, supporting opposition leader Juan Guaidó and advocating for democratic transition. While these actions are often framed in terms of promoting democracy and human rights, they inevitably intersect with the historical dynamics of U.S. involvement in the region, which the Monroe Doctrine has long symbolized. Critics of U.S. policy often point to these interventions as further evidence of the doctrine’s enduring legacy, arguing that it continues to shape U.S. actions in Latin America, regardless of the specific rhetoric employed.
The debate over the Monroe Doctrine’s relevance in the 21st century is ongoing. Some argue that in an era of globalized challenges, the doctrine is an anachronism, ill-suited to addressing complex issues such as transnational crime, migration, and economic interdependence. Others contend that its core principles, particularly regarding the prevention of external military intervention by non-hemispheric powers, remain pertinent. However, for nations like Venezuela, the historical baggage of the doctrine is undeniable. It represents a period of perceived external imposition and a struggle for genuine self-determination.
Venezuela’s future trajectory will undoubtedly continue to be shaped by its internal political dynamics, its economic recovery prospects, and its complex relationship with global powers, including the United States. The lingering shadow of the Monroe Doctrine, whether invoked or not, serves as a reminder of the historical power imbalances and the ongoing quest for sovereignty and autonomy within the Americas. Understanding this historical context is crucial for comprehending the nuances of current U.S.-Venezuelan relations and the broader geopolitical landscape of the Western Hemisphere. As Venezuela seeks to navigate its path forward, its engagement with the principles and historical applications of the Monroe Doctrine will remain a significant, albeit often unstated, element in its foreign policy considerations and its struggle for a more equitable and independent standing on the world stage. The legacy of this foundational U.S. foreign policy tenet continues to resonate, influencing perceptions of American intent and shaping the aspirations for regional autonomy among Latin American nations.
Aura Kasih
Safa Marwah