What Is the Monroe Doctrine—and Why It Still Shapes Global Power Today

Nearly two and a half millennia ago, the ancient Greek world was torn apart by a brutal conflict between two dominant powers. Athens ruled the seas with unmatched naval strength, while Sparta commanded land through military discipline and territorial control. Surrounding them were dozens of smaller city-states—politically fragile, militarily weak, and strategically insignificant by comparison. Most were forced to align with one side or the other to survive.

One small island state, Melos, chose a different path. It declared neutrality, refusing to assist either Athens or Sparta. As the war intensified and losses mounted on both sides, Athens decided neutrality was no longer acceptable. Athenian forces arrived at Melos with an ultimatum: submit to Athens or face annihilation.

Melos protested, citing neutrality and non-aggression. The Athenian response was brutally concise and historically immortalised: the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.

That single sentence has echoed through international politics for over 2,500 years.

Power Politics Never Died—It Just Changed Its Language

In the modern world, the same principle continues to operate beneath diplomatic vocabulary and institutional façades. Today, one or two superpowers collectively shape global order, while weaker nations are left with limited agency. Earlier eras sold domination under the banner of democracy and freedom. The present era dispenses with even that pretence.

The forced political intervention in Venezuela and the seizure of its oil leverage exposed this reality in its rawest form. What once required ideological justification is now executed openly, later wrapped in doctrinal language. This modern coercion is increasingly described as a revivalist policy—popularly referred to as the “Donroe Doctrine”, a contemporary, personalised mutation of the Monroe Doctrine, where unilateral force replaces multilateral norms.

The Monroe Doctrine: From Defence to Domination

In 1823, less than fifty years after independence, the United States announced the Monroe Doctrine. At the time, the nation was neither a global power nor a naval giant. The doctrine declared that European powers would no longer be allowed to interfere in the Western Hemisphere—North and South America.

Initially dismissed by Europe, the doctrine gradually transformed into a cornerstone of American foreign policy. As the United States expanded westward to the Pacific and consolidated continental dominance, geography became its greatest shield. Two vast oceans turned the country into a natural fortress, nearly immune to invasion.

But security bred ambition.

Observing how European empires utilised naval dominance to control trade and territories, the United States recognised that control of the seas meant control of the global economy. Military growth soon translated into interventionist behaviour across Latin America.

Roosevelt Corollary and the Birth of Interventionism

Nearly a century later, President Theodore Roosevelt expanded the Monroe Doctrine through the Roosevelt Corollary. It asserted that if Latin American nations failed to maintain stability or honour international obligations, the United States reserved the right to intervene as an “international police power.”

From that moment onward, intervention ceased to be an exception—it became policy. Marines, soldiers, and covert operations entered multiple Latin American states over the next hundred years. The doctrine evolved from a defensive shield into an offensive weapon.

From Continental Power to Global Architect

The two World Wars shattered isolationist illusions. Remaining confined to one continent was no longer viable. Strategic thinkers understood that dominance required presence in Europe and Asia. British geographer Halford Mackinder’s Heartland Theory argued that whoever controlled Eurasia would control the world.

Unable to dominate the Eurasian landmass from the sea alone, the United States adopted a permanent overseas military presence after World War II. But ruling the world directly was neither sustainable nor safe.

This dilemma produced one of the most influential geopolitical frameworks in modern history.

Spykman’s Three-Layer Strategy

Geopolitical strategist Nicholas J. Spykman proposed a three-layer system to preserve American supremacy:

First Layer: Absolute Control of the Western Hemisphere

Complete military dominance over North and South America, without negotiation or compromise.

Second Layer: Power Balancing in Eurasia

Prevent any single power from dominating Europe or Asia by supporting regional rivals—Europe against Russia, Japan and South Korea against China, and regional actors against regional threats. The objective was simple: block the rise of a second superpower.

Third Layer: Control of the Rimland

The coastal regions of Eurasia—Western Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia—contain population density, industrial output, energy resources, and global trade routes. Power must be diffused here through indirect intervention and managed rivalry.

This strategy worked. The Soviet Union collapsed. No challenger emerged. By 1990, the United States stood as the sole global superpower.

Overreach and Decline

Unchecked dominance bred overconfidence. NATO expanded eastward. Military interventions followed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then came the 2008 financial crisis, exposing the financial limits of global overreach.

As American power plateaued, new actors gained confidence—China, India, Russia, Brazil. The international system began shifting from unipolarity toward multipolarity. Institutions like BRICS and the G20 gained relevance.

Only one challenger truly mattered: China.

China’s Rise and the Emergence of the “Chunro Doctrine”

Over two decades, China modernised its military, expanded its economy, and embedded itself globally through infrastructure financing, strategic lending, and trade dependence. This expanding worldview is increasingly described as the “Chunro Doctrine”—a conceptual parallel to Monroe, where China seeks exclusive influence over its surrounding regions and resists external interference.

China’s strategy follows Deng Xiaoping’s principle: hide strength, bide time. Economic leverage was built quietly. Today, global supply chains depend on China. Trade withdrawal alone could trigger inflation, unemployment, and recession in rival economies.

Infrastructure projects, port acquisitions, market dumping, and debt leverage now mirror the same tools once used by earlier imperial powers. Territorial ambitions remain explicit—Taiwan, the South China Sea, Central Asia, and border regions.

If the Western Hemisphere is claimed under Monroe and its modern Donroe variant, China increasingly asserts influence over the Eastern Hemisphere through its own Chunro logic.

A World Without Rules

International law now offers limited protection. Enforcement mechanisms remain weak. The rules-based international order—deeply imperfect yet stabilising—has fractured.

History’s oldest law has returned: big fish consume small fish.

Athens consumed Milos. Vietnam and Afghanistan followed. Ukraine and Venezuela now stand as modern examples.

The question is no longer if the next move will come—but where.

India at the Crossroads: Neutrality, Autonomy, or Deterrence

Expansionist powers do not think in moral terms. They think in systems, leverage, and historical momentum. When dominance is embedded into a nation’s strategic code, doctrines inevitably emerge.

India officially follows Strategic Autonomy, a more assertive evolution of classical neutrality—maintaining flexibility without formal alignment. However, autonomy without economic and industrial depth risks sliding back into vulnerability.

India faces structural challenges: manufacturing contributes roughly 15–17% of GDP, far below the levels seen in industrial powers; real wage growth has stagnated; employment generation lags behind demographic expansion. Growth narratives increasingly rely on headline GDP figures while underlying productivity struggles to keep pace.

History offers a sobering lesson: neutrality alone does not protect the weak—only credible deterrence, economic resilience, and internal cohesion do.

In an era shaped by Monroe, Donroe, and Chunro doctrines, survival belongs not to those who trust global rules—but to those who prepare for a world where rules bend to power.

---

Follow Storyantra for more deep-dive geopolitical analysis, power politics, and global affairs decoded.