By
Nze David N. Ugwu
A Doctrine from the Grave
When the United States launched a military invasion of Venezuela under President Donald Trump, it did more than intervene in a troubled Latin American state. It resurrected a doctrine long thought buried by history — the Monroe Doctrine — and reintroduced it not as diplomatic posture, but as operational military policy. What was once a 19th-century warning against European colonial ambitions has been reborn as a 21st-century justification for unilateral force.
The implications are profound. This is not merely about Venezuela. It is about the future of international order, the credibility of global norms, and the safety of smaller states everywhere — including those in Africa.
From Defensive Principle to Offensive License
The Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, was framed as a defensive principle: Europe should not interfere in the Western Hemisphere, and in return, the United States would avoid European affairs. Over time, however, it mutated into a tool of dominance — used to justify interventions in Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Chile.
What President Trump has done is strip away even the pretense of restraint. The modern version no longer hides behind democracy promotion or collective security. It is blunt: the Western Hemisphere is America’s sphere, and Washington will act unilaterally when it chooses.
This shift is critical. When doctrines move from implied influence to open enforcement by force, they cease to be principles and become imperial instruments.
Venezuela: Intervention Without Consensus
The invasion of Venezuela was not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. It was not preceded by a multilateral peacekeeping mandate. It was not justified by an imminent threat to international peace. Instead, it was framed around regime change, narcotics allegations, and U.S. strategic interests.
This matters because international law is not optional. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in self-defense or with Security Council approval. The Venezuela operation met neither condition.
When powerful states discard these rules, they do not merely break them — they weaken them for everyone else.
The Ukraine Contrast and the Double Standard Problem
When Russia invaded Ukraine, the global response was swift and largely unified. Russia was condemned, sanctioned, isolated, and portrayed — correctly — as violating international law and state sovereignty. The principle was clear: borders cannot be changed by force.
Yet when the United States invaded Venezuela, that clarity vanished. Condemnation was fragmented, cautious, and in some cases absent. The reason is uncomfortable but obvious: power shapes morality in global politics.
This double standard is fatal to the credibility of the international system. If invasion is wrong only when committed by adversaries, then the rules are not rules at all — they are weapons of convenience.
Gaza, Selective Outrage, and the Hierarchy of Suffering
The prolonged Israeli siege of Gaza has also drawn widespread condemnation, particularly for its humanitarian consequences. Yet here too, enforcement has been inconsistent. Condemnation exists, but accountability does not.
Taken together — Ukraine, Gaza, Venezuela — a pattern emerges: the global system reacts not to violations themselves, but to who commits them. Suffering is filtered through geopolitical alliances. Justice is negotiated. Law is conditional.
This creates a hierarchy of victims and a hierarchy of aggressors — a world where some states are punished for force while others are excused for it.
A Green Light for Other Powers
The most dangerous consequence of the U.S. action in Venezuela is not what it does to Latin America, but what it signals to the rest of the world.
If the United States can openly revive a sphere-of-influence doctrine and enforce it militarily, what prevents China from doing the same in East Asia? What stops Russia from asserting permanent control over its near abroad? What restrains France from re-intervening militarily across Francophone Africa under the banner of “historic responsibility” or “security necessity”?
Nothing — except power balances.
This is how international order collapses: not in chaos, but in precedent.
Africa’s Historical Memory and Present Vulnerability
Africa understands the logic of external domination better than most regions. Colonialism was built on doctrines of civilizing missions, protectorates, and strategic necessity. The language has changed; the impulse has not.
In recent decades, Africa has seen foreign interventions justified by counter-terrorism, peacekeeping, humanitarian protection, and stability operations. While some were necessary, many blurred the line between assistance and control.
The revival of doctrines like the Monroe Doctrine should alarm African policymakers. It suggests a return to explicit spheres of influence — where powerful states feel entitled to act decisively within “their” regions.
For Nigeria, a country that aspires to continental leadership, this moment demands clarity, not silence.
The Death of Multilateralism by a Thousand Cuts
Multilateral institutions do not usually collapse in dramatic fashion. They erode gradually as states bypass them, undermine them, and ignore them.
The Venezuela invasion is one more cut. So was Iraq in 2003. So was Crimea. So is Gaza. Each time a major power acts outside collective frameworks, it teaches the world that rules are optional for the strong.
Eventually, smaller states stop believing in the system altogether. When that happens, they hedge, militarize, align opportunistically, or seek nuclear deterrence. Instability becomes rational behavior.
Might Is Right: The Old World Returning
What we are witnessing is not innovation, but regression. The principle that “might makes right” predates international law. It governed empires, conquests, and colonial expansion. The post-World War II order was an attempt — imperfect but necessary — to restrain it.
By openly embracing unilateral force and resurrecting imperial doctrines, the United States risks normalizing a world where power, not principle, determines legitimacy.
That is a world far more dangerous than the flawed one we already inhabit.
The Moral Cost to the United States
Beyond geopolitics, there is a moral cost. The United States has long claimed leadership based not only on power, but on values — rule of law, democracy, restraint, and accountability.
Actions like the Venezuela invasion hollow out those claims. They turn American leadership into American dominance, and influence into coercion. Allies become uneasy. Adversaries become emboldened. Neutral states become cynical.
Leadership that relies solely on force is not leadership; it is management by fear.
What Nigeria and the Global South Must Do
For Nigeria and other middle and small powers, this moment calls for strategic realism and principled diplomacy.
First, Nigeria must consistently defend international law — regardless of who violates it. Selective outrage undermines our own security.
Second, African states must strengthen regional institutions, collective security mechanisms, and diplomatic coordination to reduce vulnerability to external coercion.
Third, the Global South must speak with a clearer voice against the revival of imperial doctrines, whether Western, Eastern, or otherwise.
Silence today becomes subjugation tomorrow.
Conclusion: A World at a Crossroads
The U.S. reactivation of the Monroe Doctrine through military force in Venezuela is not an isolated event. It is a signpost — pointing toward a world where spheres of influence return, multilateralism weakens, and power speaks louder than law.
The question is not whether this world will be fair. It will not.
The question is whether smaller states will prepare for it — or pretend it is not coming.
History has seen this movie before. It never ends well.
Nze David N. Ugwu is the Managing Consultant of Knowledge Research Consult. He could be reached at [email protected] or +2348037269333.
