Answer

Introduction

The ‘Donroe Doctrine’ marks a definitive departure from post-Cold War “liberal internationalism” toward a hyper-transactional realism. Unlike previous policies of ideological regime change (democratization), this doctrine prioritizes “Regime Management”—where the U.S. secures its economic and security interests through coercive bargains with foreign leadership, regardless of their domestic legitimacy.

Body

Assertion Reflected in U.S. Actions in Venezuela (2025–26)

The recent U.S. military operation “Absolute Resolve” and the capture of Nicolás Maduro provide a stark template for this transactional shift.

• Decapitation over Democracy: By removing Maduro but leaving figures like Diosdado Cabello in place, the U.S. aims for a controlled transition rather than a systemic overhaul.
  Eg: The Trump administration bypassed the popular opposition leader María Corina Machado, citing her lack of military support as a barrier to “stability”.
• Resource Extraction as Policy: Foreign policy is framed as a “real estate” or “commodity” deal.
  Eg: President Trump announced that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela’s oil policy until 30–50 million barrels of sanctioned oil are transferred to the U.S. as “reimbursement”.
• Law Enforcement as War: Military strikes are justified as “extra-territorial law enforcement” rather than traditional warfare.
  Eg: The U.S. utilized narco-terrorism indictments to justify the Caracas raid, treating a sovereign head of state as a common criminal fugitive.
• Transactional Security: The U.S. focus has shifted to measurable metrics—migration control and drug interdiction rather than human rights or free elections.

Positive Implications for Global South Sovereignty

• Pragmatic Stability: Some nations may find “transactional management” more predictable than long-term “nation-building” wars, allowing for quicker returns to trade.
• Reduction in ‘Endless Wars’: The lack of interest in ideological conversion means fewer long-term boots on the ground, potentially reducing the scale of regional destabilization.
• Bargaining Power: Resource-rich middle powers can leverage their assets (oil, minerals) to strike bilateral deals, bypassing the rigid “Washington Consensus”.

Negative Implications for Global South Sovereignty

• Erosion of Non-Intervention: The “Donroe Doctrine” sets a precedent where power asymmetry justifies the violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
• Commodified Sovereignty: National resources and policy outputs (oil, migration) are treated as U.S. property, effectively turning sovereign states into de facto protectorates.
  Eg: The U.S. claim to “run” Venezuela’s energy sector undermines the core sovereign right of a nation to manage its own resources.
• Precedent for Expansionism: Selective enforcement of international law by Washington provides cover for other powers to pursue similar territorial or coercive agendas.

What Can Be Done: Strengthening Multipolarity

• South-South Cooperation: Strengthening blocs like BRICS+ or CELAC to create collective bargaining power against unilateral “deal-making.”
• Adherence to UN Primacy: Insisting that any regime transition or stabilization force must have a UN Security Council mandate to ensure international legitimacy.
• Diversifying Partnerships: Global South states must diversify their technological and energy dependencies to avoid becoming “single-buyer” clients of a transactional superpower.
• Legal Shielding: Utilizing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to challenge the legality of “law enforcement raids” on sovereign soil.

Conclusion

The “Donroe Doctrine” replaces the “Big Stick” of the 20th century with a “Bill of Sale.” While it may deliver short-term security gains for Washington, it hollows out the normative rules-based order. For the Global South, this represents a dangerous return to a 19th-century “spheres of influence” model, where sovereignty is not an inherent right but a tradable commodity.

DOWNLOAD PDF