Venezuela is currently facing an extremely sensitive historical turning point, amid escalating debate over whether the United States is reviving the Monroe Doctrine in a contemporary formulation aimed at reimposing its traditional hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. Recent military and political developments between Washington and Caracas, accompanied by shocking statements and unilateral measures, have constituted a clear indication of a qualitative shift in the nature of the conflict between the two parties. This shift transcends a mere bilateral crisis, reflecting instead a broader struggle over regional and international influence.

The most striking aspect of this context was not the large-scale US military strikes that targeted sites within Venezuelan territory, including areas surrounding the capital, Caracas, but rather the subsequent political announcement claiming the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his transfer outside the country. This announcement, which lacked independent confirmation or a clear legal framework, triggered a wave of doubt and questioning, prompting the Venezuelan government to describe what occurred as a blatant assault on national sovereignty and a flagrant violation of international law. These developments have revived deeper discussions concerning the nature of the US role in Latin America and whether Washington is, in fact, seeking to reproduce the Monroe Doctrine using the tools of the twenty-first century.

The Monroe Doctrine dates back to 1823, when US President James Monroe declared opposition to any European intervention in the affairs of the American continent, in exchange for US abstention from involvement in European affairs. Although the doctrine was initially presented as a defensive measure intended to protect the independence of the newly formed states of the New World, it quickly evolved, alongside the........

© Middle East Monitor