The unfolding crisis in Venezuela has transcended Latin American borders, becoming a stark demonstration of a newly articulated American foreign policy under President Donald Trump. Dubbed the "Donroe Doctrine," this approach merges the historical Monroe Doctrine with Trump's 21st-century worldview, asserting a right to not just influence but to actively supervise political outcomes in the Western Hemisphere. For India, this development presents a complex diplomatic puzzle that tests the core tenets of its foreign policy.
The Three Pillars of the Donroe Doctrine
This new doctrine, as articulated in early 2026, is built on three distinct elements that redefine US engagement in its neighbourhood. First, it forcefully reasserts a sphere of influence, treating the Americas as a privileged security space where extra-regional powers are seen as intruders. Second, it securitises issues like migration and organised crime, framing them as direct national security threats that justify coercive tools. Third, and crucially, it shifts normative language away from democracy promotion, prioritising stability, predictability, and control instead.
The doctrine is not merely theoretical. It is reflected in Washington's willingness to claim oversight over political transitions, blurring the lines between intervention and administration. The case of Venezuela, with its vast oil reserves and ongoing humanitarian disaster, serves as the primary testing ground. This has led to accusations of "resource imperialism" and raises profound questions about international law, particularly the UN Charter principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention.
India's Strategic Dilemma: Principle vs. Partnership
For New Delhi, the implications are immediate and thorny. The first concern is one of principle and precedent. Sovereignty and non-intervention have been cornerstones of Indian foreign policy, essential safeguards for a post-colonial state. A global order that normalises externally supervised political transitions does not automatically serve India's long-term interests.
The second concern involves partnership. India's relationship with the United States is vital, with deep convergence in the Indo-Pacific, technology, and defence. However, the Donroe Doctrine underscores that US foreign policy can shift abruptly in tone and method based on domestic politics. This reality necessitates that India's partnerships coexist with strategic autonomy and independent judgment.
The third layer involves India's dual identity as an emerging Asian power and a leading voice of the Global South. These roles can create conflicting pressures, demanding a policy that defends sovereign equality without moral grandstanding and pursues national interest without appearing indifferent to global norms.
Why India's Restrained Approach May Be the Right One
In this complex scenario, India's current response—characterised as restrained, careful, and measured—appears strategically sound. Silence in international politics is not hesitation; it can be a deliberate strategy. By avoiding public grandstanding, India preserves crucial space for cooperation with Washington without endorsing the external management of Venezuela's political future.
However, experts like Professor Amitabh Mattoo argue that restraint must not become passivity. It should be coupled with quiet diplomacy supporting regional mediation, humanitarian relief, and economic stabilisation in Venezuela. Furthermore, India can use multilateral forums to calmly reiterate that doctrines of guardianship carry significant long-term costs for the international system based on sovereign equality.
The arc of Latin American politics has never been linear, as evidenced by the stark contrast between Hugo Chávez's rock-star reception at JNU in 2005 and the current predicament of his successor. Navigating the era of the Donroe Doctrine will require India to maintain its balance, deftly managing its principles, partnerships, and global role in an increasingly fluid world order.
