The Ghost of 1823: Re-Examining Hemispheric Hegemony
The current conflict is viewed by many across Latin America and the Caribbean as the latest, most dangerous manifestation of a century-long effort to maintain U.S. dominance over the hemisphere, a direct ideological descendant of the **Monroe Doctrine**. Announced in 1823, the doctrine initially sought to keep European powers out, but over time, it has been reinterpreted—most famously through the Roosevelt Corollary—to assert the U.S. role as the hemisphere’s policeman and arbiter of stability. This historical shadow looms large over October 2025. When Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused the U.S. of “murder” and Washington retaliated by labeling him an “illegal drug dealer” and threatening to cut aid, the historical pattern of coercion over diplomacy was laid bare. The very language used—labeling cartels the “Al-Qaida of the Western Hemisphere”—is a classic framing technique used to justify expansive military action outside traditional war-declaration parameters.
The Rise of Alternative Geopolitical Alignment. Find out more about Regional response to US-Venezuelan conflict.
If the crisis is managed without a full-scale invasion—a narrow escape, at best—the political fallout for U.S. relations in the hemisphere will be generational. The memory of overt military threats, extrajudicial killings at sea, and the targeting of democratically elected leaders will not fade quickly. * Solidified Anti-Hegemonic Sentiment: For a generation, anti-U.S. sentiment, already simmering in various quarters, will likely solidify into an active foreign policy driver across wide swathes of Latin America and the Caribbean. This sentiment directly feeds the attractiveness of alternative geopolitical alignments—whether through deeper South-South cooperation or increased engagement with powers outside the traditional Western sphere. * CELAC’s True Test: The crisis forces CELAC to prove it is more than just a declaration of intent. If the body successfully channels restraint and coordinates economic defense against external pressure, it gains legitimacy as a genuine counterweight to older structures like the Organization of American States (OAS). If it fractures further along the lines seen in the initial condemnation responses, its purpose is called into question.
Case Study: The Venezuelan Standoff and the Precedent of Coercion
The situation surrounding Venezuela serves as the most acute case study. Escalating threats against Caracas, coupled with sanctions, represent what some analysts view as the culmination of a long-standing regime-change project, echoing historical analogies to past conflicts like Iraq. For regional actors, the question becomes: if one state, facing internal or external pressure, can be subjected to such military and economic strangulation without universal regional condemnation or effective defense, where does that leave the sovereignty of every other smaller nation? The precedent set here will determine how disputes are resolved in the mid-Twenty-First Century. Will diplomatic restraint be the expected norm, or will the memory of this military assertion dictate that only strength and external patronage guarantee security?
The Long Shadow: Defining Legacy in the Post-Conflict Environment. Find out more about Post-conflict regional security architecture guide.
The true measure of the regional response will be the legacy left after the immediate hostilities conclude—or, if the situation remains a protracted, low-intensity pressure campaign, the *institutional memory* of that constant threat. This is where actionable foresight matters most for policymakers, civil society leaders, and regional diplomats alike.
The Cost of “Narrowly Defined Success”. Find out more about New security protocols Western Hemisphere tips.
Let us imagine a scenario where the U.S. operation is deemed a “success”—meaning the immediate threat is neutralized, and hostilities cease without a full-scale invasion. Even in this best-case scenario, the cost is steep. Success could be interpreted by some as merely reinforcing the regional security hierarchy, where the strongest actor’s interests ultimately prevail. But this victory would be purchased at the severe cost of *trust*. Trust in Washington’s commitment to multilateralism, trust in Washington’s respect for national sovereignty as distinct from transactional alliance management, and trust in the very concept of a shared regional security architecture would be severely eroded. This erosion doesn’t just impact high-level diplomacy; it impacts cross-border cooperation on everything from environmental policy to economic integration, which relies on a baseline of shared faith.
Practical Steps for Sovereignty Defense
For nations determined to chart an independent course—or even those relying on U.S. security guarantees but wary of escalation—the path forward requires strengthening internal and regional bulwarks:
- Economic Diversification & Resilience: As the crisis impacts trade and supply lines, nations must rapidly accelerate efforts like those CARICOM members initiated regarding regional food security and infrastructure development. Dependency on single external actors for critical goods or finance becomes a strategic vulnerability during times of tension.. Find out more about CARICOM CELAC crisis management inadequacy strategies.
- Strengthening the International Law Posture: Regional bodies must unite to aggressively use international legal forums, such as the UN or the International Court of Justice, to challenge the *legal basis* of extrajudicial strikes and coercion. The insistence on resolving differences through **diplomacy and international law** must become a collective, non-negotiable political platform.
- Empowering Grassroots Sovereignty: As leaders like David Abdulah have noted, the defense of the “Zone of Peace” must ultimately come from the grassroots up, mobilizing social movements to hold their governments accountable to principles of non-interference. This popular pressure can effectively constrain government alignment decisions.. Find out more about Regional response to US-Venezuelan conflict overview.
The Re-Imagined Security Architecture: From Reaction to Prevention. Find out more about Post-conflict regional security architecture definition guide.
The core failing exposed by this crisis is the lack of a truly empowered, *preventative* regional security body. The current systems are designed for consultation or post-facto coordination, not kinetic de-escalation. The path to a stable post-conflict landscape—or a de-escalated one—demands a fundamental re-evaluation of what regional security *means*.
Toward a Verifiable “Zone of Peace” Guardrail
The CELAC declaration of the region as a “Zone of Peace” is a crucial aspirational document, but its meaning must be anchored in concrete, verifiable mechanisms. A forward-thinking security architecture must be built on these pillars: * Maritime Boundary Policing: The crisis occurred largely on the water. A dedicated, multi-national maritime security surveillance and response entity—perhaps emerging from the existing **CARICOM Maritime Security Strategy** framework but expanded to include CELAC members—is essential. This body must be empowered to police maritime boundaries and investigate suspicious activity impartially, removing the justification for unilateral external intervention. * Dispute Mediation Before Kinetic Action: The most urgent requirement is a neutral body capable of *mediating disputes before they reach the kinetic stage*. This moves beyond simple dialogue and requires a pre-agreed structure for dispute resolution that all major powers—including the U.S. and others—must agree to respect as the *first and final* recourse before military escalation is considered. * Neutrality and Mandate: This new body cannot be seen as an extension of any single major power’s foreign policy. Its funding, leadership rotation, and decision-making process must be rigorously structured to enforce a commitment to **non-interference in the internal affairs of nations**. This structure is the only way to genuinely counter the historical perception that the region is merely a sphere of influence.
The Role of Non-Alignment by Major Powers
It is also critical to assess the role of non-regional major powers. Strategic non-alignment—or at least a clear, principled middle path—by nations like Russia or China, focusing strictly on de-escalation rather than opportunistic positioning, will be a major factor. If external major powers use the crisis to further their own geopolitical contests, the conflict immediately broadens, and the region’s autonomy is lost entirely. Conversely, if they support the regional bodies’ calls for restraint and diplomatic resolution, they bolster the credibility of the emerging security architecture.
Conclusion: Choosing the Precedent for the Mid-Century
The tensions of late Two Thousand Twenty-Five have forced a stark confrontation with the foundational principles of hemispheric order. The actions taken now—or the lack thereof—will not just resolve this immediate crisis; they will write the operating manual for the next fifty years of international relations in the Americas. If the regional response is characterized by renewed unity in defense of sovereignty, vocal calls for restraint, and a determined effort to rapidly build a new, empowered security architecture, this crisis becomes an anomaly—a painful but necessary catalyst for genuine integration. If, however, the region succumbs to fragmentation, allows external powers to dictate terms, or fails to modernize its diplomatic tools, this crisis will become the defining, dark precedent for hemispheric conflict resolution in the mid-Twenty-First Century. The difference lies in action, not just rhetoric. The work of establishing verifiable, non-optional security protocols—grounded in the spirit of the 2014 CELAC **Zone of Peace** declaration but empowered by new institutional capacity—must begin today. The moment for mere reaction has passed; the imperative now is for calculated, **collective diplomatic action** to shape a future where sovereignty is not a negotiable footnote, but the very bedrock of coexistence. *** What structures do you believe are most critical for CELAC or CARICOM to adopt immediately to ensure the integrity of the “Zone of Peace” against future military threats? Share your analysis in the comments below.