This December marks the 200th anniversary of the adoption of the Monroe Doctrine, a maxim of intervention that has been frequently used to justify U.S. foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere ever since it was first delivered to Congress in 1823. These actions have included political interventions, coups d’état, and military occupations. Two centuries later, some progressive Democrats are calling for the United States to abandon the doctrine for good.
“The 200th anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine presents the United States and the [rest of the] hemisphere [with an opportunity] to move past an outdated and ineffective foreign policy strategy,” says Representative Nydia Velázquez, Democrat of New York.
“From drug trafficking to mass migration to climate change, the many shared challenges between the United States and Latin America cannot be addressed by the antiquated Monroe Doctrine,” she tells The Progressive. “These are some of the most pressing issues of our time, and they call for a process that stresses respect and cooperation.”
In August, Velázquez was part of a U.S. Congressional delegation that traveled to Brazil, Chile, and Colombia, “not to lecture but to listen,” as Foreign Policy noted.
Led by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of New York, and joined by Representatives Joaquin Castro and Greg Casar, both of Texas, and Maxwell Frost, of Florida—all Democrats—the delegation held high-level meetings with progressive leaders in those countries, as well as local activists, who have sought to build a new type of relationship with the United States.
“These countries bear substantial scars from our foreign policy decisions over the past century,” Velázquez says. “Leaders in all of these countries continue to deal with the costs of the Monroe Doctrine.”
The delegation was organized by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), whose goal was to strengthen progressive engagement in Latin America at a time when U.S. foreign policy in the region is largely controlled by rightwing lawmakers and conservative Democrats.
From drug trafficking to mass migration to climate change, the many shared challenges between the United States and Latin America cannot be addressed by the antiquated Monroe Doctrine.
“[Certain sectors of] the right wing are very active on Latin America, dominating the policy discussion in Congress for a long time,” Alexander Main, CEPR’s director of international policy, tells The Progressive.
“Progressives will pop up here and there, especially around certain crises, but they haven’t been consistently engaged,” he says. “The best way to really engage members of Congress on stuff like this is to develop these human contacts.”
In December 1823, the Monroe Doctrine was articulated by President James Monroe, due to the perceived threat of colonization by European powers in the Western Hemisphere in the decades following the wave of independence movements across the region. But by the turn of the twentieth century, the doctrine was being used to justify military interventions to protect U.S. interests in Latin America, including in Cuba in 1899, Nicaragua in 1912, and Haiti in 1915. The doctrine would also be applied in response to the perceived threat of communism in the region, leading to brutal military coups in Guatemala in 1954, the Dominican Republic in 1965, and Chile in 1973, and the support of Latin American military dictatorships for decades. Later, the policy would be applied to failed U.S. policies like the so-called war on drugs.
In a speech before the Organization of American States in 2013, then-Secretary of State John Kerry announced an end to the use of the doctrine in U.S. foreign policy. “The doctrine that bears [Monroe’s] name asserted our authority to step in and oppose the influence of European powers in Latin America,” Kerry said. “And throughout our nation’s history, successive Presidents have reinforced that doctrine and made a similar choice.” To a round of applause, he added, “Today, however, we have made a different choice. The era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.”
Kerry’s statement followed an outcry earlier that year after he referred to Latin America as the “backyard” of the United States.
But the policy shift lasted only a few years, until the administration of President Donald Trump, which bolstered rightwing administrations in the region while increasing sanctions and other pressure on leftwing governments.
The Trump Administration “started talking about the Monroe Doctrine to mark their difference with the Obama Administration,” Main says. In essence, Trump Administration policymakers were saying “we totally disagree with being soft with leftwing governments in Latin America,” he adds.
The region saw increased influence by far-right, authoritarian populists who gained power during the years that Trump was in office, from 2017 to 2021. At the core of the Trump Administration’s engagement in the region was the perceived threat of Russia’s and China’s growing influence in the hemisphere.
This praise of the Monroe Doctrine has continued in the discourse of Republican presidential candidates who seek to challenge President Joe Biden in 2024. Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis and candidate Vivek Ramaswamy have both embraced a return to the doctrine.
The progressive Congressional delegation to South America in August sought to pursue a new relationship between the United States and Latin America that aims to move beyond a paternalistic relationship to one of mutual respect.
“If you’re getting rid of the Monroe Doctrine and everything it symbolizes, that represents a major shift in policy,” Main says. “It means you’re no longer seeing the region as your sphere of influence, you’re no longer seeing it as a zone of legitimate intervention into internal political affairs. You’re respecting the sovereignty of these countries and their sovereignty over their own policy making.”
“These countries bear substantial scars from our foreign policy decisions over the past century. Leaders in all of these countries continue to deal with the costs of the Monroe Doctrine.” — Representative Nydia Velázquez
The creation of these multilateral relationships offers a challenge to the rise of far-right networks that have found fertile ground in the region. During the whirlwind trip, Velázquez and other U.S. lawmakers shared experiences and recollections of history, acknowledging the horrors and tragedies of the past and seeking steps forward.
Members of the delegation discussed a number of topics with South American leaders and activists, including the declassification of documents related to the 1973 coup against the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende. But the primary topic that arose during the conversations was ongoing U.S. sanctions in the region—especially those against the government of Venezuela.
“[We] met with many policymakers and activists eager to turn the page on years of failed U.S. policies in Latin America,” Velázquez says. “These lawmakers have a keen understanding of history and the role the United States has had in destabilizing countries in the region.”
She adds: “Still, they want to build a collaborative relationship with the United States that treats countries as equals and helps address our shared challenges . . . . Our process must respect the sovereignty of Latin American countries and support their governments in these efforts.”