The Quincy Institute and Conservative Partnership Institute hosted a debate on the question, “Can the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ advance U.S. interests?” Moderated by Kelley Vlahos, editor-in-chief of Responsible Statecraft, these experts debate whether Trump’s new “hemispheric defense” strategy, which has now been characterized as a replacement for the Monroe Doctrine, will advance U.S. interests:

PRO: Providing a defense of the doctrine as a viable, realist strategy for U.S. foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere: George Beebe, director of the grand strategy program at the Quincy Institute Daniel McCarthy, distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation ANTI: Arguing that the “Donroe Doctrine” offers just another strain of endless U.S. military adventurism without a defined ends and means strategy: Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow & director of military analysis at Defense Priorities Katherine Thompson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute

George Beebe and Daniel McCarthy argue the administration’s new strategy, including the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and now a near-total economic blockade of Cuba, have been effective, limited-force actions signaling seriousness to other countries in the region, while Jennifer Kavanagh and Katherine Thompson characterize them as just more examples of a trend of endless military adventurism without any clear, sustainable strategy or end condition, relying more on “vibes” than any structured, budget-aligned strategy. In the first half hour, the panel discusses the history of the original Monroe Doctrine, its evolution into the Roosevelt Corollary, and finally to the new “Donroe Doctrine,” which emphasizes “hemispheric defense” through military and economic dominance. “The original Monroe Doctrine was actually a middle-of-the-road policy,” McCarthy explained. “It was crafted to keep our hemisphere out of the left-right battle that seemed to be a permanent feature of European politics.” “John Quincy Adams and President Monroe decide that both of those extremes are to be avoided. In fact, we need a policy that will separate the United States and the Western Hemisphere from what had been a continual series of conflicts following the French Revolution,” he said. “The original Monroe Doctrine was mostly defensive – it was about keeping foreign influence out of the Western Hemisphere. The Roosevelt Corollary was a departure from that, in that it was quite interventionist,” Jennifer Kavanagh said. “The actual formulation of the Trump corollary, as it’s expressed in the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy – it’s hard to take offense at that.” “Of course the U.S. needs a secure environment in its near abroad – stable borders, protection against drugs and terrorism, secure sea lanes, and freedom from adversary military presence,” she continued. “However, what it’s come to mean in practice is a desire by the current administration to have unimpeded exercise of US will in the political, economic, and military domain – and the willingness to step in and remove any impediment to that exercise… but it’s not clear to me that you need complete dominance to protect those interests.” After that, the debate focuses on recent U.S. actions in Venezuela, starting with the removal and capture of Nicolas Maduro and the installation of Delcy Rodriguez as president by U.S. special forces earlier this year. “The verdict is certainly still out on how the Venezuela operation has gone and what the impact has been,” Beebe said. “What happens in Cuba still remains to be seen. But if this is a situation where the United States, by virtue of having sent a very forceful signal, is able to accomplish some things vis-a-vis Cuba that it has not been able to accomplish in many decades – that’s not a bad thing. I’ll wrap this up by quoting the great international relations theorist Al Capone, who said: ‘You get further with a handshake and a gun than you do with just a handshake.’ That is the unfortunate reality of international affairs.” “I don’t mean to sound pejorative,” Katherine Thompson says, citing the lack of specifics on budgets, institutional structure, tactics, and strategy. “But it feels like a lot of vibes.” “That’s a really big problem, particularly because this is going to change a lot of how we structure some of these conversations. We need to define the scope,” she said. “These are the important practical questions that unfortunately the Trump administration’s corollary – the Donroe Doctrine – doesn’t address. And it’s kind of an unfortunate mistake for the America First, New Right crowd, because this idea of prioritizing our near abroad has been circulating and fomenting for a long time.” The panelists also debate the role of the U.S. military in protecting the economic assets of the Americas, the role of Chinese influence, and whether increased economic investment might be a more effective means than military posturing to maintain regional stability. The discussion focuses on the strategic importance of Greenland around minutes 53-65, in light of President Trump continuously talking about annexing the island. They consider that climate change leading to ice-free waters in the North Pole at some times of year makes the frozen island a truly important geostrategic location, both in terms of shipping and the role it plays in current and proposed missile defense systems, and how to ensure American access to existing and planned military bases without alienating Denmark or disrupting NATO. “We are much more dependent on space – and it’s not just for hopping in an Uber. The transactions we engage in online every day using credit cards won’t work without the timing systems that are on our satellites. We don’t have terrestrial backups to those. So if those satellite systems go down, if those GPS timing systems go down, we’re screwed – to put it in technical terms,” Beebe said. “How do you access space? How do you defend space? Geography matters a lot. And one of those places near the pole that’s best to secure those space operations and defend them happens to be Greenland.” “Whether it must be our territory or not to take advantage of all the things I put out here is debatable… If you really do want it, buy it. That’s how much of America was built – we bought land. We can make a deal,” he said. “But in starting the process of discussions with the Europeans by saying we think we might actually invade and use military force to take this – I think that has actually subverted our broader interests with the Europeans and actually made a deal less likely, not more likely.” They do not come to many shared conclusions.
RealClearPolitics Videos