Trump’s DON-ROE Doctrine And A New Aggressive America

As US President Donald Trump completes one year of his second term, he has turned the world order upside down. Not just by the tariff wars but eyeing territory. He is reasserting raw American power across the world, even as he is a sharp critic of the endless wars that his predecessors had gotten the country into. The era of deploying US forces abroad was over. He did not wish to risk American lives and taxpayers money on foreign wars. Nor did his MAGA base. Many believed that America under Trump would be an isolationist power. But he proved the pundits wrong.

Trump sent the military on bombing raids against countries that include Iran and Yemen in West Asia and Nigeria and Somalia in Africa. And then, in an audacious military operation, the US Special Forces kidnapped Nicolas Maduro, the President of Venezuela and his wife and whisked them out of their bedroom to a waiting U.S.navy ship and on to New York to face charges of drug trafficking in a city court.

It was a stunning display of American military capability and a message to Washington's enemies: don’t mess with the USA. This blatantly illegal act and public humiliation of a sitting head of state, would have elicited international condemnation and outrage, but the response from the rest of the world was muted.

Just China and Russia publicly criticised the US. European leaders long used to giving lectures on the rule-based international order, not daring to question the US President’s military action in Caracas.

With American muscle flexing in the neighbourhood, the world must be ready for more action as Trump builds his legacy with his Don-Roe Doctrine a take-off from the Monroe doctrine of the 19th century, where the late president warned European colonial powers to keep hands off the Americas, as any attempt to do so would be considered as a hostile act against the US. The Monroe plan was to divide the world into hemispheres, with America lording over the Western hemisphere. The idea is that large powers can impose their will in their own regions and smaller countries have little choice but to comply.

Analysts believe that Trump wants to dominate the Western Hemisphere, Russia's Vladimir Putin will play a leading role in Europe and China's Xi Jinping will dictate terms in Asia. Despite what analysts say, it is highly unlikely that the US, which sees China as a challenger to its super power status, will allow Xi Jinping a free hand in Asia and more so the crucial trade routes of the Indo-Pacific.

The success of the Venezuelan operation has made Trump more ambitious. He is looking to grab Greenland, which he had eyed since his first term in office. Trump claims Greenland is important for America’s national security and to prevent China or Russia from taking it over. Yet there is no indication that either country is looking to do that. Trump is now eyeing Greenland, an autonomous region that is part of Denmark, a NATO ally. His focus on Greenland is threatening the future of Europe’s defence agreement with the US and has led the feckless European leaders to unite behind Denmark.

However, he brought down temperatures somewhat by going back on his threat to use force if necessary to take it. He emphatically declared in Davos that he would not use force. But insisted that only the US could guarantee security. "No nation or group of nations is in any position to be able to secure Greenland other than the United States," Reuters quoted Trump as saying , adding: "I'm seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United States."

So, military action is out. He would rather negotiate and buy Greenland. Would Denmark and Greenland agree to this? And what of the threatened tariffs against Denmark, France, the UK and other countries that have vowed to defend Greenland which continue to be on the table? Trump’s focus on Greenland is threatening the future of NATO, which has been in place for the defence of Europe soon after the Second World War.

Trump had also ramped up his rhetoric on Iran as protests against the regime gathered momentum on the back of rising inflation and the plunge of the rial to 45 per cent of the dollar. Looking for regime change in Iran, Trump threatened action and encouraged protests. The Iranian state came down with a heavy hand and killed thousands of protestors. For a while it seemed Iran would be the next target, but he backed off at the last moment. He may yet get back to Iran. The region is on edge as it awaits American action.

"The Trump administration is so unpredictable. But it is increasingly clear that Trump wants to focus on the Western Hemisphere and I don’t think that the US will do much in Iran as a result, apart from giving Israel a green light to do what it wants," says Ian Hall, who teaches international relations in Australia’s Griffith university.

With Trump clearly committed to stamp American authority on the Western hemisphere, the buzz following Maduro’s capture was about action in Columbia, Cuba and Mexico. The driving force behind the Venezuela attack was secretary of state Marco Rubio, the son of immigrant Cuban exiles is virulently anti-Communist. But for now Trump seems to be diverted with Iran and Greenland. Action in Latin America against Leftist regimes will follow but in a while.

"Trump, like the Russians and Chinese, is setting his own sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere as per NSS (national security strategy). Thus, more accepting of Russia in Ukraine and trying detente with China. This is a new 2.5 polar world not a multi-polar world we prefer," says ambassador Gurjit Singh. “Cuba and Mexico will be brought to heel first due to proximity. Iran may come first due to opportunity. After Venezuela if Iran too goes out of the Russia-China axis then it's an energy setback for a faltering Chinese economy and more accepting of US hand of cooperation,’’ the former diplomat adds.

Not that this is the first time the US is blatantly interfering in another country. But usually previous leaders have done so under the garb of restoring democracy or human rights or punishing rogue states. Trump has not dressed up this action. He made it clear that he was after Venezuela’s huge oil reserves. He has also allowed the previous government to continue and allowed Maduro’s vice president Delcy Rodríguez be sworn in as president. The US will oversee Venezuela till it thinks the time has come to hand over power to an elected government. How all this will pan out is difficult to say at the moment.

Venezuela presents the clearest expression of the Trump doctrine which has more to do with getting control of oil rather than regime change or national security. Trump goes for unilateral action, open contempt for international law and regime change if necessary without apology.

Past US presidents have also done interventions, as George Bush did on Iraq. His fig leaf was that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction, which anyway was made up. The justifications for interventions varied: “fighting communism” between 1947 and 1991 or containing “rogue states” was justified in the name of both strategic stability and democratic values, which were fused in a legitimation discourse. Afghanistan happened as a direct result of the 9/11 attack. The US and NATO action was seen as a part of the international war on terror. Grenada happened in 1983 and Panama in 1989. Considering all this, Trump is not the only president to embark on wars.

"Trump’s intervention is hardly new. What is new is the raw justification that it was done to secure US control of Venezuela oil reserves, not to remove an anti-democratic regime. This is economic imperialism, 19th century style," says Philip Golub Professor of International Studies at the American University in Paris.

This new aggressive America under Trump 2.0, is feared by friends and foes alike. European leaders are wary of an unpredictable Trump. His Greenland venture may end up dismantling NATO. Venezuela appears fine at the moment but these are early days, no one knows how the situation will pan out. Intervention in the form of regime change in Iran, could lead to civil war and chaos in a volatile energy -rich region. The tariff war has already lost Washington the good will of the world.

Trump’s second term marks the new norms of American foreign policy. The Trump Doctrine is not about democracy or stability but about dominance, resources and deterrence. Venezuela shows how far Washington is willing to go to enforce its dominance and the absence of meaningful global pushback will only embolden further action.