Model Answer

The Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, proclaimed that any external interference in the Western Hemisphere would be considered a hostile act against the United States. Although initially presented as a defensive, anti-colonial principle aimed at preventing European imperial expansion, the doctrine gradually transformed into a strategic instrument through which the U.S. asserted political, military, and economic dominance over Latin America.

In the 21st century, the Monroe Doctrine survives less as an explicit policy and more as a strategic worldview shaping U.S. actions in its near abroad. The recent U.S. strike on Venezuela has been widely interpreted as a contemporary manifestation of this doctrine. It reflects Washington’s attempt to reassert hemispheric primacy, curb the expanding influence of extra-regional powers such as China and Russia, and secure strategic interests—particularly energy resources, given Venezuela’s vast proven oil reserves. The language of democracy promotion and regime change thus masks deeper geopolitical and economic motivations.

However, the revival of such interventionist approaches has serious consequences for sovereignty. Unilateral military action undermines the principles of non-intervention, territorial integrity, and sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter. It weakens the credibility of international law and reinforces a power-centric global order, where strategic interests override normative commitments.

The implications for regional stability are equally profound. Historically, external interventions in Latin America have contributed to political instability, social unrest, and long-term institutional fragility. Contemporary interventions risk deepening ideological polarisation within the region, destabilising fragile democracies, and encouraging Latin American states to seek counterbalancing support from rival powers. This intensifies great-power competition and reduces the strategic autonomy of the region.

In conclusion, while the Monroe Doctrine remains relevant as an underlying strategic logic, its application in a multipolar world threatens both regional stability and the rules-based international order. Sustainable peace in Latin America requires multilateral engagement, respect for sovereignty, and cooperative regional frameworks rather than unilateral assertions of power.