Trump’s Focus on the Western Hemisphere Is Astute, but His Policy Needs Adjustment
In its global strategy, the Donald Trump administration should be commended for emphasizing the areas closer to the United States, namely the Western Hemisphere, and allowing wealthy Europeans to do more to guarantee security in the United States. Well … Europe.
Trump has wisely reduced the possibility of conflict between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S. over the war in Ukraine by providing weapons to the Ukrainians indirectly through European sales. Additionally, Trump pressured the Europeans to substantially increase their defense budgets. This development is decades overdue.
However, Trump’s focus on the Western Hemisphere requires adjustment. His policy has involved bravado and tariffs, not to mention the fact that he has gone so far as to threaten the military conquest of Greenland and the Panama Canal. He has also ominously demanded that Canada become the 51st state of the United States.
Trump’s threats have been known to turn into actual violence, which can escalate rapidly. He has promised to increase U.S. military action in the war on drugs; without due process of law, attacked alleged drug-trafficking ships in the Caribbean that are not near or heading toward the U.S.; and has accused Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of being a drug lord (with a $50 million reward for his arrest). Now, Trump is accumulating forces, including an aircraft carrier group, near Venezuela for a potentially significant military strike.
Major powers often want spheres of influence (security zones). The U.S. declared the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere as early as 1823, despite lacking the military resources to enforce it. The doctrine pledged not to interfere in European affairs, while warning European powers against new colonization or recolonization of the New World.
According to the doctrine, U.S. presidents have used various combinations of diplomacy, economic pressure and military force to achieve their objectives. Some presidents have been more aggressive than others. For example, in the early 20th century, Teddy Roosevelt used military coercion to allow rebels to separate the new country of Panama from Colombia, which would not accept a new transoceanic canal built and controlled by the United States. The weak, nascent nation quickly agreed, leading a later U.S. senator to joke, “We stole it fairly.” William Taft, Roosevelt’s successor, preferred economic power, “dollar diplomacy,” to military intervention when it came to achieving U.S. political goals. Woodrow Wilson, Taft’s successor and the biggest fan of using military force in the region, engaged in wasteful martial interventions. After these violent reactions, Herbert Hoover began to use a softer tactic, continued by his successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, called the “Good Neighbor” policy. This helped to prevent the majority of Latin America from sympathizing with the Nazis during World War II.
More recently, U.S. policy toward the region has also oscillated between military interventions and more enlightened policies. In 1977, Jimmy Carter put an end to U.S. colonial control over a strip of Panama called the Canal Zone by returning the canal to Panama. In 1983, Ronald Reagan, ostensibly to rescue a few medical students during a revolution, invaded the small and insignificant island of Grenada, curiously at the same time that his armed peacekeeping mission in Lebanon ended with the death of 241 military personnel. George H.W. Bush, tired of being called weak, invaded Panama in 1989 to remove former CIA agent and drug lord President Manuel Noriega.
Trump’s return to blatant imperialism is likely to be counterproductive. The U.S. militarized war on drugs failed a long time ago; if force is necessary (doubtful considering better means are available), it should be employed by civilian law enforcement, not the military. Venezuelan Maduro may well be involved in drug trafficking, but he has destroyed his economy so thoroughly with socialism that he poses no significant threat to U.S. hegemony.
As Taft, Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Carter discovered, paying attention to the old wives’ tale that “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar” could yield greater benefits for the United States in Latin America.
Trump has wisely reduced the possibility of conflict between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S. over the war in Ukraine by providing weapons to the Ukrainians indirectly through European sales. Additionally, Trump pressured the Europeans to substantially increase their defense budgets. This development is decades overdue.
However, Trump’s focus on the Western Hemisphere requires adjustment. His policy has involved bravado and tariffs, not to mention the fact that he has gone so far as to threaten the military conquest of Greenland and the Panama Canal. He has also ominously demanded that Canada become the 51st state of the United States.
Trump’s threats have been known to turn into actual violence, which can escalate rapidly. He has promised to increase U.S. military action in the war on drugs; without due process of law, attacked alleged drug-trafficking ships in the Caribbean that are not near or heading toward the U.S.; and has accused Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of being a drug lord (with a $50 million reward for his arrest). Now, Trump is accumulating forces, including an aircraft carrier group, near Venezuela for a potentially significant military strike.
Major powers often want spheres of influence (security zones). The U.S. declared the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere as early as 1823, despite lacking the military resources to enforce it. The doctrine pledged not to interfere in European affairs, while warning European powers against new colonization or recolonization of the New World.
According to the doctrine, U.S. presidents have used various combinations of diplomacy, economic pressure and military force to achieve their objectives. Some presidents have been more aggressive than others. For example, in the early 20th century, Teddy Roosevelt used military coercion to allow rebels to separate the new country of Panama from Colombia, which would not accept a new transoceanic canal built and controlled by the United States. The weak, nascent nation quickly agreed, leading a later U.S. senator to joke, “We stole it fairly.” William Taft, Roosevelt’s successor, preferred economic power, “dollar diplomacy,” to military intervention when it came to achieving U.S. political goals. Woodrow Wilson, Taft’s successor and the biggest fan of using military force in the region, engaged in wasteful martial interventions. After these violent reactions, Herbert Hoover began to use a softer tactic, continued by his successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, called the “Good Neighbor” policy. This helped to prevent the majority of Latin America from sympathizing with the Nazis during World War II.
More recently, U.S. policy toward the region has also oscillated between military interventions and more enlightened policies. In 1977, Jimmy Carter put an end to U.S. colonial control over a strip of Panama called the Canal Zone by returning the canal to Panama. In 1983, Ronald Reagan, ostensibly to rescue a few medical students during a revolution, invaded the small and insignificant island of Grenada, curiously at the same time that his armed peacekeeping mission in Lebanon ended with the death of 241 military personnel. George H.W. Bush, tired of being called weak, invaded Panama in 1989 to remove former CIA agent and drug lord President Manuel Noriega.
Trump’s return to blatant imperialism is likely to be counterproductive. The U.S. militarized war on drugs failed a long time ago; if force is necessary (doubtful considering better means are available), it should be employed by civilian law enforcement, not the military. Venezuelan Maduro may well be involved in drug trafficking, but he has destroyed his economy so thoroughly with socialism that he poses no significant threat to U.S. hegemony.
As Taft, Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Carter discovered, paying attention to the old wives’ tale that “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar” could yield greater benefits for the United States in Latin America.
Previous article![]( "US Ambassador Resents Meddling in Foreign Electoral Politics, but Trump Doesn’t Seem To Mind Doing So")
Next article![]( "4 Points from the Meeting between Mohammed bin Salman and Trump")