Beyond the Monroe Doctrine: A New Path for U.S.-South America Relations

Monroe Doctrine was articulated in 1823, being one of the cornerstones of US foreign policy for more than a century. The Monroe Doctrine strived to prevent European powers from interfering in the Western Hemisphere by claiming the United States as the only great power in the region. Trying to revive or reinterpret this doctrine for the 21st century, especially to South America, would be an act proving ineffective in that region, which has changed so much politically, economically, and culturally.

The first Monroe Doctrine was born in a time when newly independent nations in South America were still easy prey for European colonization. The U.S.A. emerged as the protector that ensured that the continent remained free from the influence of others. This story often masked some of the interventionist impulses of the United States, as U.S. interests took precedence over Latin American ones.

Fast forward to today, South America is no longer a collection of fragile states seeking protection. Countries like Brazil, Chile, and Argentina have developed robust economies and diplomatic frameworks, enabling them to assert their own regional agendas. Moreover, organizations such as Mercosur and CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) promote regional integration, reducing reliance on the U.S.

One of the primary reasons a new Monroe Doctrine would flounder is the multipolar nature of global geopolitics. South America no longer operates in isolation like it did during the 19th century; it engages with a wide array of international partners. China has become the top trading partner and investor on the continent. Whether it’s Belt and Road infrastructure projects or importing massive volumes of commodities, Beijing’s influence parallels that of Washington.

Besides, countries like Russia and India are increasingly penetrating South America, offering alternative choices against U.S.-centric policies. Such diversification of partnership enhances the bargaining power of South American nations in their resistance to pressure from Washington. The United States risks further alienating such nations if it ignores their aspirations for sovereignty and equitable partnerships in an attempt to reassert its dominance.

Public opinion in South America also complicates any potential revival of Monroe Doctrine-style policies. Historical grievances over U.S. interventionism—such as the support for authoritarian regimes during the Cold War or involvement in coups—still resonate deeply. Many South Americans view these actions as a betrayal of their sovereignty and a hindrance to democratic development.

On top of that, South America is very politically diversified. Its governments vary from being leftists-populists to center-right conservatives. While some administrations might try to be close to the U.S., others are bent on maintaining their independence and do not want to bow to foreign pressure. Blanket policies aimed at reasserting dominance over U.S. might not find any support, but instead face stiff opposition.

The global economy has woven complex webs of interdependence, which makes unilateral policies such as a modern Monroe Doctrine even more complicated. South American nations have diversified their economic ties, thus reducing their dependence on the United States. For instance, China’s demand for South American commodities has stimulated economic growth in countries like Peru and Brazil. Moreover, intra-regional trade agreements and partnerships with the European Union provide alternative economic routes.

For the United States, an attempt to confine South America’s economic access to other world powers might prove a boon. Trade restrictions or coercive diplomacy would probably exert pressure rather than produce strength. A wiser course of action would be to engage in cooperation and mutual benefit, rather than in outdated suppositions of domination.

Instead of revitalizing the Monroe Doctrine, the United States could focus on building genuine partnerships with South American nations. That would involve, for example, working together to address shared challenges such as climate change, migration, and organized crime. Policies based in paternalism would probably not get the same kind of results as initiatives that respect autonomy and have mutual benefit.

For instance, investment in sustainable development projects, support for regional institutions, and promotion of fair trade agreements would strengthen ties without appearing coercive. In addition, recognition of the importance that South America’s relationships with other global powers possess and seeking complementary roles could add credibility to the U.S. in the region.

There will no new Monroe Doctrine in a South America that is imbued with sovereignty, diversity, and multipolar engagement. The political and economic maturity of the region, together with increasing global partnerships in the region, makes singular U.S. dominance both impractical and undesirable. For this reason, the United States needs a strategy that is premised on collaboration, respect, and shared goals-a shift from dominance to partnership-that answers some of the realities of the 21st century.

Read More: How to Make Money from Canva: 6 Proven Ways to Turn Your Designs into Profit