【起底美国“新门罗主义”】“新门罗主义”比老版更“美国优先”更赤裸霸道

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine in the form of "New Monroeism" under the Trump administration, emphasizing its implications for U.S. foreign policy in Latin America and the potential risks it poses to regional autonomy and international order [1][5]. Historical Context - The Monroe Doctrine, established in 1823, aimed to prevent European colonialism in the Americas and asserted U.S. dominance in the region, evolving through interpretations such as the Roosevelt Corollary in 1904 and the Trump Doctrine in 2025 [3][4]. New Monroeism Characteristics - The "New Monroeism" is characterized by a more aggressive U.S. stance, prioritizing military intervention, resource acquisition, and control over strategic assets in Latin America, contrasting with the traditional doctrine's focus on non-interference [6][7]. - The Trump administration's national security strategy explicitly defines the Western Hemisphere as a core U.S. interest area, allowing for military action to secure strategic assets and combat crime and immigration issues [5][9]. Military and Economic Strategies - The U.S. has increasingly employed military force and economic pressure as tools to achieve its objectives in Latin America, marking a shift from political manipulation to direct intervention [7][8]. - Recent actions include sanctions against countries like Cuba and Colombia, and military deployments in Venezuela, highlighting a more confrontational approach to U.S. foreign policy in the region [8][9]. Implications for Latin America - Venezuela is identified as a primary target of the "New Monroeism," due to its significant oil reserves and alliances with non-Western powers, which challenge U.S. influence [9][10]. - The article suggests that the U.S. is refocusing its foreign policy to address domestic pressures and counter the rise of leftist movements in Latin America, indicating a strategic shift back to interventionist policies [10][11]. Conclusion - The "New Monroeism" reflects a pragmatic adjustment in U.S. foreign policy, aiming to consolidate control over its immediate sphere while preparing for broader global competition, suggesting a return to a more interventionist stance in Latin America [11][12].