Ideas - Why the Monroe Doctrine has world leaders on edge

Episode Date: February 4, 2026

Firstly, you might ask: What is the Monroe Doctrine? It's a U.S. policy created in the 19th century that opposes foreign interference in the affairs of the "Western Hemisphere." It was understood to be a defense of autonomy but its interpretation is mixed. Various presidents over time have used the doctrine for their own purposes, writing their own political agenda onto it. Now is no different, as Donald Trump's government turns to the policy as a way to control the Western Hemisphere.Guests in this episode:Richard Drake is the Lucile Speer Research Chair in politics and history at the University of MontanaMax Cameron teaches in the department of political science at the University of British Columbia and is president of the Latin American Studies Association

This program is brought to you in part by Specsavers. Every day, your eyes go through a lot. Squinting at screens, driving into the bright sun, reading in dim light, even late-night drives. That's why regular eye exams are so important. At Specsavers, every standard eye exam includes an advanced OCT 3D eye scan, technology that helps independent optometrists detect eye and health conditions at their earliest stages. Take care of your eyes. Book your eye exam at Specsavers today from just $99, including an OCT scan.

Book at Spexsavers.ca.c-savers.com. Iexams are provided by independent optometrists. Prices may vary by location. Visit specksavers.cavers.ca to learn more. This is a CBC podcast. Before we start this Ideas podcast, could you follow us on the app you're using? It's the easiest way to find out about new episodes as they drop. On ideas, there's something for everyone. We talk to deep thinkers and produce compelling stories that help us better understand the world in which we live. The podcast is available every weekday, so our feed has lots to choose from. If you already follow us, thank you so much. Maybe you can give us a review or a rating.

And if there's an episode you can't stop thinking about, please recommend it to a friend. Every little bit you do helps other listeners find ideas. Thank you for listening. Now, on to today's podcast. Welcome to Ideas, I'm Nala Ayyad. In 1823, the Latin American nations were gaining their independence from Spain. It had been less than 50 years since the United States declared its independence from the British Crown. Looking to keep other European monarchies out of the U.S.'s orbit,

then President James Monroe put forth what came to be known as the Monroe Doctrine. It was a document that in some respects was a defense of the United States. idea of Republican government, not only in the United States, but also in Latin America. And so what the doctrine said was, leave the Americas for the Americans. At its outset, the doctrine was understood to be a defense of autonomy. But over the course of the last two centuries, the meaning and importance of Monroe has been both more and less certain. Was it basically a positive and completely up?

upstanding attempt to play a constructive role in Latin America? That's one side of the debate. The other side of the debate is that from the very beginning, the Monroe Doctrine was a manifesto of the American Empire. Various presidents over time have used the doctrine for their own purposes, writing their own political agendas onto it. This moment is no different. There are many corollaries and many memoranda over the years

adding various other interpretations and applications of the Monroe Doctrine. But the Rosseville Corollary is the most famous. I should say it was the most famous until the Trump corollary came along. The Monroe Doctrine, historically applied to Latin American nations, is now for Donald Trump. a hemispheric policy. This episode looks at the history, impact, and new life of the Monroe Doctrine. It's part of an occasional series we're calling Ideas in the News.

We begin with Richard Drake, Professor of History at the University of Montana. The origin story of the Monroe Doctrine is that the United States, in 1823, issued a promulgation, really, to two effects. One, that the Americas would be off limits to European colonization in the future. And the second point was that the United States, for its part, would not interfere with existing European colonies in the Americas.

Now, what's also interesting about this period in American history is that the United States in 1823 did not have the military power to back up its desires in the Monroe Doctrine. And really it was with the assistance of the British, whose economic interests in Latin America in that period made it desirable for them to go along with the United States and the Monroe Doctrine, to enable the British to continue their economic activities as the Spanish Empire. in Latin America was crumbling in the post-Napoleonic period. The various nations of Latin America were rebelling against the mother country.

And so the Monroe Doctrine appeared in a moment of great turmoil during which the interests of the United States and Britain coincided. That's the launching point of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. So it wasn't exactly a projection of U.S. power, but can we understand it as a perhaps a way to define separate spheres of influence in the world? I think so. There's a great debate among historians over the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine, what the intentions of its author. were the chief author, of course, was Secretary of State in the Monroe administration, John Quincy Adams, himself a future president as well. But in the 1820s, what the United States was aiming at was a matter of dispute. And historians have been debating with each other

ever since over just what the goal was with this doctrine. And was it basically a positive and completely upstanding attempt to play a constructive role in Latin America? That's one side of the debate. The other side of the debate is that from the very beginning, the Monroe Doctrine was a manifesto of the American Empire. This was a declaration that the United States was going to expand beyond its territorial borders and to impose its influence over foreign lands. And this really was a dramatic break from American foreign policy up till then, which was perhaps most eloquently articulated by President Washington in his

farewell address. Essentially, stay at home and mind your own business. You have plenty to do here without looking abroad for other challenges. And so the Monroe Doctrine really is a breakpoint in the history of American foreign policy, although its full implications would take a long time to manifest themselves. But at what point was the intention for this doctrine was to bestow the U.S. with kind of interventionist policing powers in the Western Hemisphere? Well, that's an excellent question. And again, that's been a point of debate among the various historians who've studied this doctrine. One of the historians who's made a very deeply favorable impression on me is Yale historian of the early 20th century.

Hiram Bingham III, who in 1913 wrote an article called The Monroe Doctrine and Obsolete Chibboleth that appeared in the Atlantic magazine in June of 1913. And he argued that by 1846 with the Mexican-American War, during which or after which, I should say, the United States conquered the American Southwest, a stretch of land larger than France and Germany combined. The fine print in the Monroe Doctrine was beginning to become magnified at that point. We were beginning to understand where America was going under the auspices of the Monroe Doctrine. The other war that revealed the aim of the United States, at that point with the Monroe Doctrine was the Spanish-American War, which was another epic

land grab involving the Philippines and then in the Americas, Puerto Rico and practical control of Cuba. So those two wars really underscored the imperialist potential being realized in American foreign policy. in the Americas. And then there's another turning point where, I guess, an addendum or a corollary of sorts was added that really kind of added the teeth to the word and letter of this doctrine. 1904? 1904 is the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Drive. There are many corollaries and many memoranda over the years adding various

other interpretations and applications of the Monroe Doctrine. But the Roosevelt Corollary is the most famous. I should say, it was the most famous until the Trump corollary came along. But the Rosseville Corollary really arose over a problem in Venezuela. Venezuela has been a very important, a particularly important Latin American country in the history of the Monroe Doctrine. And because Venezuela at that time, in the Theodore Roosevelt period, was having trouble paying its international bills, European countries were threatening to invade Venezuela.

And in order to forestall that breach, it would have been a breach for the Monroe Doctrine, President Roosevelt really took it upon himself and took it upon the United States. States to become the enforcer of capitalism in Latin America, that we would see to it that Latin American countries were current in their economic debts to foreign countries to keep the Monroe Doctrine intact. So that's a very important enlargement of the Monroe Docton, that we would have this economic role to play that turned out to be very important in subsequent years. And I want to get at that, I guess, throughout this conversation, but I am curious just in that period that we're talking about. You talked about the doctrine kind of being intended

as a philosophy or a manifesto of American imperialism, but where does the economy and capitalism fit into the thrust behind it? Well, that's an important. important issue today. In fact, if you take a look at the national security strategy of the United States of America, which was promulgated in November of 2025, the well-being of American capitalism is a key factor in American foreign policy as American foreign policy is being formulated by the Monroe Doctrine. There's nothing new about it. that. Or surprising. Yeah. This has been a key concern for the United States all along, but it's been underscored. It's been emphasized in a way in the Trump period that is new. And for many

people, quite shocking because of its boldness and its directness and saying why we are doing what we're doing. There's an economic dimension that's crucial here. Yeah. And I want to drill down on that, but I do want to just ask very broadly, as I said earlier, you described this as in its early form and perhaps in its current form that a manifesto of American imperialism or something like that. Just how would you elaborate on that description of how the policy has been used over time from its beginning to today? Well, here, I mean, to answer this, that question, I'm going to begin by introducing to the audience the name of William Appelman Williams, very important American historian, a close student of the Monroe Doctrine. He's the one who uses the term

that the Monroe Doctrine was a manifesto of American imperialism. And he talks about the real goal of American foreign policy, at least since the Civil War. war, going back to 1865, and even earlier in some ways, has been to promote, this is almost a quote, I'm paraphrasing, to promote the American present. The perpetuation of American present. To perpetuate the American present as the future of the world. That's a crucial argument that he makes about the Monroe Doctrine and how, and how it is to understood at the level of realism instead of at the level of propaganda, which is how the

American governments have always presented the Monroe Doctrine, but the reality of it has been to promote the American present. Now, what does he mean by the American present, that term? And he capitalizes both of those words, American capital A, present capital P. He means the regime of the banks, the financial houses, and the corporations. Right. That is to be the future of the world. And under the Monroe Doctrine, as it is currently being interpreted by the Trump administration, in the document we talked about the national security strategy of the United States of America,

that this is really the core issue, that we have to make sure that American business interests, American economic interests, are accelerating that they're producing the prosperity that the country needs. So I think what's happening in the present moment is the full realization, the full implementation of the Monroe Doctrine, as the historian William Appelman Williams earlier said was always. embedded in this document. The potential for what's happening now was always there. And it has become increasingly obvious that the Monroe Doctrine is intended to be not only a control system for Latin America, but for the world, because that National Security Strategy document just begins with the

Western Hemisphere. And I said, well, how else are we going to employ our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. And he goes through Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Africa. This is global. It's not just hemispheric. So it's very important, I think, to make these historical connections with the present. And what we're really looking at is a framing of the Monroe Doctrine or the Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine as a statement of realpolitik.

What do we have the power to do? Right. And what we have the power to do, we will do. There's no reference to international law, no reference to any kind of rules-based order. It's the famous line of Thucydides in the Peloponnesian War. And this is something that various members of the Trump administration have echoed in various ways. The law of history, the rule of politics are this.

The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept. That's the law we found when we came to office, and it's the law that we are going to promote aggressively as this 2025 document makes abundantly clear. So what should we expect down the road, given your understanding of this corollary, and given the example of the citadies you just invoked? You know, that's an easily answered question. What we can expect is laid out in the national security policy statement of 2025.

They do not try to hide. They do not try to perfume their intentions. They're quite blunt. we are going to promote relationships. This is another one of their preferred terms, with regional champions, regional champions of our way of life, our way of politics, our way of economics. And for countries like Venezuela and of course others, Colombia, Cuba, we may need to have different leaders there. And so Venezuela, is sort of a test case of what this Trump corollary actually means.

It's interesting that, you know, Canada has long been an object of desire by American policymaker. I mean, going back to the American Revolutionary War, you'd think we had our hands full with the British Army, but no, 1775, we invaded Canada. And in the War of 1812, we invaded it again. So there's a long. term precedent for America's eager interest to absorb Canada. And Trump has really revived that by talk of, as I'm sure you know, even more than I do, talk of making Canada our 51st, or will it be our 52nd state with Greenland coming in as 51 and Canada coming in is 52. But all these foreign policy goals are likely to be in our future as achievements or attempted achievements.

And this is why I encourage your listeners to read the National Security Strategy document carefully. Yeah. It's a program. It's not just a description of foreign policy principles. It's a program for foreign policy action, the first phase of which was Venezuela, but it is certainly not going to be the last. So do you read the language directed at Canada and Greenland as kind of like a formal extension of the Monroe Doctrine? I do. Indeed, I do. And even this is interesting because even long before the Monroe Doctrine, this really raises the question that we haven't gotten into yet.

I mean, what were the origins of the Monroe Doctrine? And this didn't just spring out of nowhere in 1823. There was kind of a long lead-up to that doctrine. And I think Canada always has been part of the interest that the Americans have had, Canada and Mexico. We took half of Mexico in the Mexican-American War of 1846 to 1848. and there were plenty of people in the United States in those years who wanted to go down even farther south and take the whole country, not just the part north of the Rio Grande River. So I think Canada, Canadians need to be, I'm sure they're already highly alert and aware.

I mean, Mark Carney's speech not so long ago made it very clear that he is ultra alert and aware. of the rupture that has taken place between the United States and its former NATO allies, or soon to be former NATO allies, there's a complete, almost a revolutionary ferment at work in world relations right now. And as I say, what Trump is after, I give him credit for being blunt and open about what he's trying to do. He's not pussy footing around. Near the end here, I just want to go back to an idea you raised earlier about the translation of all of this, not just in this hemisphere, but globally. Trump recently said that he wants to acquire, quote, the entire Arctic region, which of course involves other countries like Sweden and Russia, this Arctic region, I mean. Is there a relationship historically between U.S. hemispheric policy and global policy?

Oh, absolutely. I think it's best to understand understanding American foreign policy today in the context of how it evolved, really going back to the beginning. And without really trying to give a mini lecture on American foreign policy from the American Revolution to 2026, I would just simply say that America has always been an empire. It's interesting to go back and look at the documents at the time of the American Revolutionary War, the Constitutional Convention 1787 in Philadelphia. And what you find in those earliest documents in America's national history is the realization that now that we're getting rid of the British Empire, which we did finally in 1783, we need to create one of our own.

I mean, that's, to my mind, the deepest insight into what has gone on in American history all along since the creation of the country. We need to create one of our own. And the first phase of that creation will concern the territorial United States from sea to shining sea. the Atlantic to the Pacific. And once that's done, which it was by the 1890s, we began to look abroad with the Spanish-American war and acquiring the Philippines as a stepping stone to the China market. And from that point on through World War I, World War II, all the wars that have happened since World War II down to the present, all those wars have been about the protection

or expansion of the American Empire. And now it is the dominant empire in the world with the ambition of becoming larger and stronger still. What this means for the peace of the world, you've mentioned the Arctic region and the likely conflicts that will arise from that ambition by the Trump administration. So, yeah, I think this issue of the Arctic

could be another. flashpoint for continued wars, rivalries. We need to really, we need a better cause than empire. We started out, of course, talking about the Monroe Doctrine and its origin story. And I was just wondering if I could ask you what you think Monroe and the author of the Monroe Doctrine, John Quincy Adams, would make of the Trump corollary. That's a fascinating what-if question. Historians don't usually do too well with what if questions, but they have a hard enough time figuring out what actually happened, but what would they think? John Quincy Adams was a complex man. He was a brilliant man, brilliant writer and thinker, and certainly one of the most intellectually accomplished of

all American presidents, if not the very most accomplished of them all. And he did not think in simplistic terms about anything, least of all foreign policy. And in addition to the Monroe doctrine, which he wrote in 1823, he also is famous for having said that the United States must not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. He made that statement in a speech around the time of the Monroe Doctrine. We must not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. But in fact, the United States has historically gone abroad in search of monsters to destroy. It's doing the same thing today.

And so I think John Quincy Adams would think that his doctrine had been misinterpreted and misapplied. and that the United States, he was a great admirer of George Washington in that famous farewell address of his on foreign policy. George Washington said, stay home, mind your own business. You have plenty of problems here to solve for the American people. You need not go abroad and try to solve the problems of the globe because based on your record here, you're probably incapable of solving the problems, the global problems abroad.

So I think John Quincy Adams would be severely censorious of the foreign policy aims to which the Monroe Doctrine is being applied now. I mean, there were aspects of the Monroe Doctrine that were positive and beneficial. I mean, in fact, Bolivar, who was leading those Latin American reverend, revolution, or inspiring those Latin American revolutions at the time of the Monroe Doctrine, thanked the United States for the Monroe Doctrine. He thought it was a good thing that the United States and indirectly Great Britain were intervening to end further European colonization in the Americas.

That was probably a very beneficial aspect of it. So it got off to a good start, but the mere fact that the United States was imposing its will in a good cause could mean that it would impose its will in a bad cause, in the promotion of imperialism, in the promotion of exploitation, this doctrine which had its positive aspects, at least in this idealistic sense, in 1823, over time metastasized into a battering ram of exploitation. That's how I see that doctrine. And under the Trump administration, you know, with the attack on Venezuela, the extrajudicial murders in the Caribbean that took,

has taken place under his administration, we're seeing how this idea of American control over Latin America has evolved. evolved into something that is frightening indeed. That was Richard Drake, Professor of History at the University of Montana. You're listening to an episode about the history and ongoing impact of the Monroe Doctrine. It's part of an occasional series we're calling Ideas in the News. This is Ideas. I'm Nala Ayyad. This program is brought to you in part by Specksavers.

Every day, your eyes go through a lot. Squinting at screens, driving into the bright sun, reading in dim light, even late-night drives. That's why regular eye exams are so important. At Specsavers, every standard eye exam includes an advanced OCT 3D eye scan, technology that helps independent optometrists detect eye and health conditions at their earliest stages. Take care of your eyes. Book your eye exam at Specsavers today from just $99, including an OCT scan.

Book at Spexsavers.cavers.caps.com. I exams are provided by independent optometrists. Prices may vary by location. Visit Spexsaver.C.A to learn more. This ascent isn't for everyone. You need grit to climb this high this often. You've got to be an underdog that always over delivers. You've got to be 6,500 hospital staff, 1,000 doctors all doing so much with so little.

You've got to be Scarborough. Defined by our uphill battle and always striving towards new heights. And you can help us keep climbing. Donate at Love Scarborough. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 came at a time of upheaval. It didn't merely express the United States commitment to republicanism. It declared that commitment as a desire for all of the Americas. But there is an argument that while the doctrine explicitly decried empire,

it was implicitly a vision for American expansionism. So on the one hand, it was a doctrine that expressed, I think, values that reflect the tremendous revolutionary transformations that happened in the world, starting with the glorious revolution in England, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the struggles for independence. Political scientist Maxwell Cameron from the University of British Columbia. But it's also a doctrine that meant to keep European powers out of the Americas, because this was seen as part of the United States manifest destiny.

It is a defense of settler colonialism as well because the doctrine was quickly used to justify expansion into the south, Florida, taking it from Spain into Louisiana, purchasing it from France, Alaska, from Russia, and then annexing Texas and into California. So it became a justification for American. expansion and in the 20th century under Teddy Roosevelt for American imperialism in Cuba after the war with Spain in Haiti, in Nicaragua. And it continues into the Cold War. Now in the Cold War,

after the Second World War, the United States becomes much more engaged with Europe, with its reconstruction. But the Monroe Doctrine continued in some sense to express the view of that the expansion of communism into the Western Hemisphere is inimical to U.S. interests. And so it was mentioned by presidents like Ronald Reagan. In this current moment, we've seen really for the last couple of decades, Latin America's had a high degree of autonomy from the United States. And there has been much less of a tendency for the United States to intervene in Latin American government.

We've seen very progressive governments in places like Bolivia. Livia and Ecuador and also Venezuela and Nicaragua. However, those governments have been, in the case of Venezuela, have become dictatorships, the same in Nicaragua. Cuba remains embargoed by the United States. And so in the current moment, the Trump corollary of the Monroe doctrine is really about reaffirming American dominance in the Western Hemisphere, trying to keep rival powers out of the hemisphere. squeezing Cuba, putting pressure on governments that are perceived to be hostile to U.S. interests, and affirming the American government's position that it has the right to access to critical corridors

for moving, whether it's commerce, marine commerce, or on land, access to critical resources like critical or rare minerals and petroleum. So it's a doctrine that's really been transformed and been used for different purposes at different times by the United States. I'm just curious about this idea of how the doctrine becomes a doctrine. It was part of a presidential address to the Congress back in those days in the early part of the 19th century that you didn't have the president going to Congress with all of the sort of pomp and circumstance that's used today. It was essentially a speech written out largely by John Quincy. Adams, the Secretary of State, and it was delivered to the Congress to read. And it essentially

said, the American continents by the free and independent condition that they have assumed and maintained are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. That's the critical statement. And it was taken to be a powerful proclamation of the American position in the world. The United States. States had, of course, fought a war with Britain and had essentially made its peace with British presence. So we were protected from it. The Secretary of State John Quincy Adams said to the British, you keep what you've got, leave the rest to us. And so Britain was, in a sense, carved out of the Monroe Doctrine. And as a colony of Britain, Canada had that protection.

So we have never tended to think of ourselves as being part or included in the Monroe Doctrine. And so Canada has typically seen the Monroe Doctrine is something that applies to the South, to above all, Central America and the Caribbean. The intervention of Venezuela is unique because it's the first time the United States has actually attacked a country in South America. Lula pointed that out. The president of Brazil pointed that out in a recent op-ed. The idea that it would be used to justify taking Greenland, I think should be deeply disturbing to everyone. one. Okay.

And we'll get to that in a moment in more detail. But I wonder if we could just take a moment since you raised it and trace kind of the evolution of what the rest of the hemisphere made of the doctrine over time. Like how was the early version initially received and how did that sentiment evolve over time? Well, I think that Latin America has felt profoundly ambivalent about the Monroe Doctrine. is in the South, in the Latin America, in the Caribbean, an awareness that there has been a long and sorted history of U.S. intervention in Latin America, you know, certainly Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and then in more recent times, the Dominican Republic, the destabilization of the

democratic governments in Guatemala and Chile, in Central America, the mercenary armies in Nicaragua, mining of Nicaraguan harbors and so forth. So Latin Americans have tended to be deeply suspicious of the lack of respect for sovereign equality and the principle of non-intervention and the need to adhere to the charter of the United Nations that prohibits countries from attacking each other except for defensive purposes. It is fair to say that in 1823, the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean and the United States were in in some sense a similar position. Both had fought struggles against colonial powers. Both had embraced the idea of Republican government. You know, this is important to remember. This is a new trend in the world. It's a result of, as I mentioned earlier, of these revolutionary transformations happening in places like France. And to some extent also, I would argue, in Britain. and elsewhere, which is the idea that absolute monarchs, that divine rule of kings has no place in this new world. This was an extraordinary experiment in Republican government, meaning representation.

So government by representatives who are elected in the context of the rule of law and the separation of powers. And Latin America embraced republicanism with enthusiasm. And in many ways, were more democratic in their approach to republicanism, more willing to extend the franchise. It didn't have the problem of slavery because many countries achieved emancipation for slaves in the context of the struggle against Spain. So in some ways Latin America and the United States were in similar positions embracing republicanism, but at the same time dispossessing local indigenous populations and warring with them. over land and territory, which is why I say the Monroe Doctrine also has an element of settler colonialism. And if you look at the world from the perspective of indigenous people, Latin American independence was a setback because the crown, and this is also true in Canada to some extent, the crown represents an element of protection for their rights. When the republics achieve their independence, this unleashed depredation on indigenous peoples and on their lands.

And so while it was a progressive movement toward republicanism and representative democracy, it was a setback for indigenous people. And you could say, I think, much the same about the Monroe Doctrine and its application in the United States. So, yes, in that period, I think the Western Hemisphere was more in harmony on what they were trying to achieve in terms of republicanism than they are today. I'd like to go to now to the moment when this new framing of the Monroe Doctrine was first formally signaled by the Trump administration, which was in the national security strategy last fall in the fall of 2025. When you first read it, what went through you? Well, when I first read it, I thought this is an absolutely extraordinary document that everybody should read. I found it incredibly alarming because it essentially outlined a view of the hemisphere that returned us to a world of 19th century balance of power and spheres of influence kind of thinking. The hemisphere is ours, as the State Department put out in a tweet.

And we're going to assert our dominance in the hemisphere. So the first question that came to my mind, what does that actually mean? I mean, what does it look like for the United States to assert its dominance? And, of course, the answer came almost immediately in the beginning of January with the intervention in Venezuela. And I think if you look at that intervention, it's a puzzling thing because, you know, massive operation just for the purpose of kidnapping one person and his spouse, no change in regime. And then an assertion that we're now running Venezuela. And you say yourself, well, what's going on here? I mean, is it what explains this?

Is it drugs and interdiction of drugs? Is it that the United States wants access to oil? Are they trying to put the squeeze on Cuba? Is it because Trump is intoxicated by power and wants to exercise personal power? It's all of those things, but it makes sense if you look at it only in the context of this national security strategy. What's really going on is the United States is saying, we own the Western Hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere is ours. That's the extraordinary change.

And I think it's, as I said before, it's unjustified. There's no basis in international law. It returns us to a world that is deeply problematic about, you know, great powers, great power rivalry, dominating countries in their own sphere of influence, precisely the things that Prime Minister Carney highlighted in his speech in Dallas. As you say, there are so many reasons to be surprised at the return, as you say, to this kind of thinking. But one of those reasons is that back in 2013, then U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had said that the Monroe Doctrine specifically, quote, is dead. What do you think revived it?

What is behind this sudden turn in thinking about the U.S.'s place in the world? It's a great question. I mean, I would have said, you know, 10 years ago that Latin America had achieved an extraordinary degree of autonomy from the United States. The fact that you could have the kind of transformative policies that we've seen implemented in many countries in the hemisphere, the rise of the left, the people refer to the sort of pink tide, the spread of progressive governments, which has now become normalized. There's now routine for there to be alternation and power between governments of the left and the right. The growing influence of China, massive growth in trade in recent decades may very well outpaced the United States within the next decade and massive investments in. infrastructure in ports and roads and so forth. There's the kind of hard line left-wing governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua that are seen as an anthema to American interests. And then there's a sort of the broader influence of the left in the hemisphere. And I think those three things have spooked certain right-wing sectors in the United States that are sort of behind the sort of

thinking that has gone into Project 2025 and Trump's campaign promises. If you look at Trump's campaign promises, he talks about using naval power against cartels, against drug cartels. And he also talks about using all forms of military force, both covert and overt, to attack and to prevent the cartels from functioning. That puts Mexico very much into the kind of focus of its concerns. So I think it's a combination really of those things. And then perhaps one final point, very important in the United States, is, of course, migration, right?

I mean, the sense that, you know, that migrants are coming in across the border, that there's no control over the border. And it is true that the Biden administration really failed in that respect. And so there's been kind of a big wave of migration into the United States. And I think that has provided some of the basis of domestic support for this kind of approach. Well, that's spelled out directly in the national security strategy as one of the reasons. And the other, very plainly, is economic interest, the American economic interests. What is the impact of that kind of stripped down language in talking about the plan here for the U.S.? Yeah, Trump says the quiet part of loud.

He's been unabashed about saying, this is about oil. We want access to their oil. We're going to rebuild their oil sector. best in energy and we're going to take, you know, what's been taken from us. So energy is obviously a big part of it. But there are a number of real surprises in this intervention in Venezuela. Trump clearly has no interest in democracy, no interest in a democratic transition in Venezuela that we can see. It seems to be much more motivated by access to resources, wanting to humble a government that has been poking it in the eye, squeezing Cuba.

I think there is an interest in regime change in Cuba. That's been stated explicitly. I think that's clear in the Marco Rubio's thinking. And so there is a sort of kind of an extraordinary degree to which this is a major shift away from the defense and promotion of democracy. And it's important to remember that it is in a hemisphere in which most countries in the region are democratic. Latin America in the Caribbean are the second most democratic region of the world. The first is, of course, Europe and North America, now with some serious questions around the erosion of democracy in the United States.

The Latin America and the Caribbean are not high-quality democracies, but with the exception of three countries, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, they're all electoral democracies. Again, maybe some questions around El Salvador with Naya Bukkele. But essentially, this is a democratic hemisphere. It's a hemisphere where there's no war. I mean, there are virtually no interstate conflicts. There's been a history of Latin America not engaging in war, not fighting over boundaries. There are few territorial disputes, but they're really quite minor, largely settled,

and there isn't a lot of shooting going on from one country to another. And so this is upturning all of that. It's really going against the kind of whole tradition of Latin America of the peaceful resolution of disputes within the framework of functioning democratic regimes. 2001 probably marks the high water mark for democratization in the Western Hemisphere. And then what we've seen is an erosion of that consensus over time. And I think that's important that there has been that growing polarization in the region. And the right in the United States now is questioning whether democracy is really in the interest of the United States as the United States becomes thus democratic.

I think that's a really crucial point that as the United States becomes more of an oligarchy and as it undermines its own democratic institutions and as there are fewer and fewer checks and balances on the president domestically, he's much more inclined to operate internationally in disregard of international rule of law and disregarding the traditions of peaceful resolution of disputes and. nonviolence. Before we run out of time, I do want to talk about Canada and what this all means for Canada, which you sort of touched on earlier. So, of course, we've all heard the headlines. The U.S. administration seems to be casting an eye across the Western Hemisphere, including Canada and Greenland. Do you read this as a formal extension of the Monroe Doctrine? So with regard to Canada, Canada's carefully mentioned in the national security strategy. So one has no textual basis for saying Canada is now being included. However, we have to put this doctrine in the context of Trump's demand for ownership or control of Greenland and his insistence on

referring to our prime ministers as governors questioning the Canada should be part of the become a 51st state. And of course, you know, threatening. us with the tariff war. And saying that economic force will be used to dominate Canada. The Canada can't survive without the United States. And so the same strategy is at work with us. That is, we will now go into a renegotiation of the Canada, U.S., Mexico, free trade agreement, Kuzma, with the United States, with a government that is prepared to exercise hard

power against us and to hold that like a sort of Damocles over our heads. We are now part of the Monroe Doctrine. And I think Canadians have to acknowledge this and recognize that we are living in a different world. And I think what Prime Minister Carney was saying the other day, although he didn't talk explicitly about the Donne Road Doctrine or the Monroe Doctrine, I think it was the articulation of a doctrine in response to that. In fact, when I first read the National Security Strategy, one of the things. that I've been saying is we need a Canadian doctrine to respond to the Monroe Doctrine. And I think what Carney gave us in Davos was a Canadian doctrine that expresses Canada's position in this new context.

And interestingly enough, it is a statement that could easily be embraced by many countries in the global south, like Brazil or like South Africa. You could see any of the countries of the Western Hemisphere who have struggled with the challenge of working with the United States. insisting on respect for sovereignty and non-intervention giving that speech. And, you know, when Carney says there's a gap between rhetoric and reality, no region of the world understands that better than Latin America. Latin Americans have always known that there was a gap between the principles of, you know, multilateralism and the rule of law, the rules-based system, and how it's actually put into practice. It's one of the reasons why, Latin American countries, for the most part, with a few exceptions, were very hesitant to support the effort to defend the Ukraine against Russia, because they are suspicious of the way that those principles have been used, not to their benefit, but to their detriment. I need to ask you two quick questions before we end off here. We just have a couple of minutes left. But one is you've imagined what the application of the Monroe Doctrine,

further application to Canada might look like. Can you make a list? What could it look like in the future? You know, if you look back historically at our relationship with the United States, although in my lifetime and for most people today, the experience has been one of the longest undefended border, extraordinarily cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship. But if we do go back to the past, there is, in fact, a history of the U.S. wanting Canadian territory, wanting Canadian provinces to join the United States, questioning the boundaries. We have fought conflicts over the Oregon boundary, the Pacific Northwest. There has been disputes over water.

The Americans want our water resources. They want our critical minerals. They want our petroleum. We have a Secretary of State in Washington saying Albertans like the idea of sovereignty. because they want what we have. So direct interference in Canadian politics, encouraging division, encouraging polarization, American platforms promoting polarization in our civil society. I could see them questioning arrangements around the Great Lakes.

There's a demand for us to be part of the Golden Dome of, you know, satellite and space-based protection against hypersonic missiles. So, you know, I think that there are a range of issues where Canada needs to be building up our own domestic capacity, minimizing our vulnerability to the United States, diversifying our economy, and recognizing the United States is no longer a friendly country. It's a country that we have to manage very carefully recognizing they have designs on our resources, on our land, on our people. We have inherited the benefits of centuries of revolution that have brought us liberalism, democracy, republicanism. These are great values, and they've created a possibility of freedom, of prosperity, and of peace. And what I see happening in the United States is a corruption of the republic, a process of democratic backsliding, of erosion, of fundamental rights and freedoms, of disrespect for the rule of law. of violations of the separation of powers, of the creation of a kind of almost neo-royal or neo-monarchical system of government, which is deeply, deeply corrupt in two senses.

It's corrupt in the very obvious sense of the privatization of public resources, the enrichment that's going on of the people around the government, but is also corrupt in the more institutional sense of undermining the fundamental principles and the purpose for which Democratic Republican and liberal institutions have been created both at home and abroad. We're living through a period of very serious and very dangerous erosion of those fundamental principles. And I think it's up to us as Canadians. We're on the front lines of this battle to re-articulate those values and those principles and to remind our American friends that they were, as we've all been, part of this extraordinary transformation, which has brought about so many great benefits. we will not all benefit from returning to a world of spheres of influence and balance of power and reactionary governments seeking to prevent fundamental social change by exercising power in a brutal and personalistic way. That was Max Cameron in an episode of Ideas in the News, focusing on the history and ongoing impact

of the Monroe Doctrine. Thank you to Richard Drake, Lucille Speer Research Chair in Politics and History at the University of Montana, and Max Cameron from the Department of Political Science at the University of British Columbia and President of the Latin American Studies Association. This episode was produced by Nahid Mustafa. Our web producer is Lisa Ayuso, technical production Sam McNulty. This senior producer is Nicola Luxchich. Greg Kelly is the executive.

of producer of ideas. And I'm Nala Ayyad. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca.ca slash podcasts.