Monroe Doctrine's Ghost: Still Haunting Latin America for Fun and Profit
The Financial Times piece, "Trump, Venezuela and the doctrine that wouldn’t die," frames the resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine as a surprising development, implicitly suggesting its historical applications were merely a quirk of a bygone era. They conveniently gloss over generations of active US intervention in Latin America, from CIA-backed coups in Chile and Guatemala to the Contra wars, all
justified under the doctrine's enduring shadow. The 'doctrine that wouldn't die' didn't exactly go dormant; it just changed its wardrobe from military fatigues to 'democracy promotion' NGOs and sanctions. (Perhaps it's less a 'doctrine' and more a 'really expensive habit.') One might wonder if the Financial Times believes a doctrine of hemispheric dominance, explicitly intended to carve out a US
sphere of influence, somehow became benevolent during the interim periods they seem to recall as its 'rest.' Or is it simply easier to label it a 'resurgence' rather than admit the US has consistently treated parts of Latin America as a geopolitical plaything for two centuries? Apparently, the 'rules-based order' only applies when Washington isn't the one breaking them in its own backyard.