The Donroe Doctrine and Venezuela's Fragile Pragmatism

Exploring how Venezuela's relationship with the U.S. showcases a new colonial dynamic for the Global South.

Gopi

•January 26, 2026•5 mins read

U.S.–Venezuela crisis highlights shift from regime change to regime management

Not Started

1. Context: U.S. Intervention in Venezuela and the New Pattern of Power Projection

The U.S. military intervention in Venezuela and the abduction of sitting President Nicolás Maduro mark a significant departure from earlier forms of American overseas interventions. Unlike past regime-change operations justified through ideological or humanitarian narratives, the current episode reflects a more openly transactional exercise of power.

The simultaneous engagement of Washington with Venezuela’s opposition leader María Corina Machado and with Delcy Rodríguez, a senior figure of the Bolivarian regime, underscores a contradiction at the heart of contemporary U.S. statecraft. Publicly, the U.S. endorses democratic opposition; operationally, it negotiates with the very apparatus it claims to have dismantled.

This dual-track engagement matters for governance and international relations because it normalises coercive intervention while hollowing out the meaning of sovereignty. If unexamined, it risks setting precedents where legality and legitimacy are subordinated to short-term strategic gains.

The logic reflects a shift from ideological interventionism to interest-based control, where stability for extraction is prioritised over political transformation; ignoring this risks misreading future great-power behaviour.

2. The “Donroe Doctrine”: From Regime Change to Regime Management

The Venezuela operation illustrates what can be described as a modern extension of the Monroe Doctrine, termed here as “regime management” rather than regime change. The U.S. has sought to neutralise a leader while retaining the governing structure, provided it aligns with American economic interests.

This contrasts with earlier U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, where dismantling state institutions and rebuilding them along preferred ideological lines proved costly and destabilising. Learning from these outcomes, Washington now appears focused on preserving administrative continuity.

For governance, this approach reduces immediate instability but entrenches external influence over domestic policy choices. Over time, it weakens institutional autonomy and democratic accountability.

The governing rationale is risk minimisation: managing compliant elites is seen as cheaper than rebuilding states; overlooking this enables subtle but durable external control.

3. Neo-Colonialism and International Law Implications

Kwame Nkrumah’s concept of neo-colonialism is directly relevant to Venezuela’s present condition. The country retains formal sovereignty, yet its economic and policy decisions are increasingly shaped by external pressure, sanctions, and negotiated permissions.

The U.S. intervention and subsequent negotiations violate core principles of international law, including non-intervention and sovereign equality. The blockade, seizures of oil shipments, and conditional access to revenues effectively constrain Venezuela’s independent policymaking.

For the global order, such practices weaken the credibility of international norms. If left unchallenged, they encourage power-based interpretations of law, particularly in regions considered spheres of influence.

"The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent..." — Kwame Nkrumah, Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism

The logic is coercive compliance: legality yields to leverage; ignoring this erodes the rule-based international system.

4. Economic Sanctions, Oil Dependency, and Strategic Capitulation

Venezuela’s economy has been under extensive U.S. sanctions since the late 2010s, targeting its oil sector—the backbone of state revenue. These measures triggered hyperinflation, economic contraction, and welfare decline.

Key economic indicators from the article:

Oil production collapsed below 4,00,000 barrels/day, later recovering to 9,00,000 barrels/day.
Limited oil sales under licences reportedly generated around $500 million in initial transactions.

To survive, the Venezuelan state adopted pragmatic reforms, including the 2020 Anti-Blockade Law, allowing greater private participation in oil extraction. While this restored some economic stability, it also diluted sovereign control over resources.

For development, this reflects the dilemma of sanctioned states: survival often requires policy concessions that undermine long-term autonomy.

The reasoning is constrained choice: economic collapse forces compromise; ignoring this context leads to simplistic judgments of “capitulation”.

5. Limits of Multipolarity: China, Russia, and Strategic Non-Intervention

Despite deep economic ties with China and political alignment with Russia, Venezuela received no direct strategic protection when confronted by U.S. force. Chinese tankers were denied access, and Russian support remained rhetorical.

This exposes the limits of the emerging multipolar order. Great powers may offer economic engagement but are reluctant to confront U.S. dominance within its declared sphere of influence.

For international relations, this signals that multipolarity does not automatically translate into collective security for smaller states. Overreliance on external patrons can therefore be strategically risky.

The logic highlights power asymmetry: multipolar rhetoric does not equal multipolar protection; ignoring this leads to misplaced strategic expectations.

6. Political Balancing within Venezuela’s State Apparatus

Delcy Rodríguez’s role reflects an internal consensus within the Bolivarian state to prioritise institutional survival. Managing relations with the military, party ideologues, and external actors requires careful balancing.

The opposition, weakened institutionally and lacking control over state mechanisms, has limited leverage despite international backing. This reinforces the U.S. preference for negotiating with existing power centres rather than fragmented alternatives.

For governance, this dynamic preserves short-term stability but constrains democratic renewal and political pluralism.

The governing logic is continuity over legitimacy: functioning authority is favoured over contested change; ignoring this explains opposition marginalisation.

7. Broader Lessons for the Global South

Venezuela’s experience offers a cautionary lesson for developing countries heavily dependent on a single resource and external markets. Economic diversification matters, but it may not suffice against hegemonic intervention.

The episode also underscores the need for collective action among Global South countries rather than reliance on great-power rivalry for protection. Without coordination, asymmetrical power relations persist.

For policy, this strengthens the case for regional solidarity, diversified trade partnerships, and resilience-building in strategic sectors.

The logic is structural vulnerability: isolated states face coercion alone; ignoring this perpetuates dependency cycles.

Conclusion

The Venezuela episode reflects a shift in global power politics towards pragmatic, interest-driven intervention that preserves formal sovereignty while constraining real autonomy. For governance and international relations, it highlights the erosion of international law, the limits of multipolarity, and the vulnerabilities of resource-dependent states. Long-term stability will depend on institutional resilience, economic diversification, and coordinated Global South responses rather than faith in external patrons.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

Definition and Context: The 'Donroe Doctrine' is a conceptual extension of the historical Monroe Doctrine, reflecting a modern, transactional form of U.S. interventionism. Unlike earlier interventions in Iraq or Afghanistan that combined regime change with nation-building, the Venezuela operation prioritises resource control and economic leverage while retaining the existing political apparatus, as long as it remains compliant with U.S. interests.

Key Features:

Emphasis on 'regime management' over 'regime change' to avoid military quagmires.
Focus on maximizing resource extraction, particularly Venezuela’s oil, while maintaining political stability through compliant local leadership.
Use of sanctions, naval blockades, and selective licensing to coerce economic concessions without entirely dismantling the Bolivarian state.

Implications: This approach reflects a pragmatic, yet coercive, foreign policy model where sovereignty is nominal. It allows the U.S. to exercise control over economic resources while avoiding international backlash from overt occupation. The doctrine highlights the evolving nature of modern imperialism, moving from ideological alignment to transactional economic control, which has implications for smaller states navigating global power asymmetries.

Strategic Rationale: The Trump administration’s preference for 'regime management' stems from multiple constraints. Senior policymakers recognised that removing the Bolivarian government entirely risked replicating Iraq’s post-invasion collapse, including dissolution of the military and bureaucratic structures. Avoiding another prolonged military engagement also aligns with domestic political considerations, as a significant portion of the MAGA base opposed prior overseas interventions.

Operational Advantages: By retaining a compliant leadership, such as Delcy Rodríguez, the U.S. could secure economic and strategic objectives without assuming the direct burdens of governance or counterinsurgency. This ensures continuity of key institutions, maintaining access to the oil sector and facilitating negotiation over sanctions.

Implications for Venezuela: While appearing pragmatic, this approach significantly undermines Venezuelan sovereignty. The Bolivarian state must navigate between U.S. demands and internal legitimacy, creating a constrained political environment. It illustrates the modern paradigm of soft coercion and indirect control, where influence is exercised through economic dependency and selective engagement rather than direct occupation.

Economic Survival: As Vice-President overseeing the economy, Delcy Rodríguez implemented pragmatic measures to stabilize the economy under severe sanctions. She facilitated partial recovery of oil production from below 4,00,000 barrels per day to 9,00,000 barrels using mechanisms like the 2020 Anti-Blockade Law. This law allowed greater private participation in the oil sector, albeit at the cost of partial sovereign control.

Diplomatic Engagement: Rodríguez maintained a delicate balance, negotiating with the U.S. to permit limited oil exports through intermediaries such as Qatar-based accounts while complying with blockade restrictions. She leveraged Venezuela’s remaining resources to secure foreign currency inflows and sustain the welfare state, demonstrating a form of constrained pragmatism rather than outright capitulation.

Internal Consensus: Her actions reflect coordination across various wings of the Bolivarian state, including the military and ruling party ideologues, to manage survival under extreme pressure. By prioritizing continuity and economic stability over ideological purity, Rodríguez exemplifies adaptive leadership under coercive geopolitics.

Sanctions and Economic Collapse: Prolonged U.S. sanctions targeting the oil sector created hyperinflation, restricted access to global markets, and led to severe GDP contraction. The pre-existing model of state-controlled oil ventures was unsustainable without international participation.

Geopolitical Constraints: Attempts to rely on China, Russia, and Cuba were limited by naval blockades, restricted access to Venezuelan waters, and unwillingness of these powers to confront the U.S. directly. This left the regime with few alternatives but to engage pragmatically with Washington to secure economic breathing room.

Preservation of Sovereignty: Pragmatic engagement, including limited concessions in oil sector contracts and foreign investment, allowed the government to maintain basic governance, continue welfare programs, and avoid total economic collapse. This strategy reflects a survival-oriented calculus rather than ideological capitulation, showing how weaker states navigate hegemonic pressures in a multipolar world.

Oil Sector Dependency: Venezuelan crude now flows through accounts controlled or approved by U.S. intermediaries such as Qatar, restricting the state’s autonomy over export revenues. Companies like Vitol and Trafigura operate under U.S.-issued licences, highlighting transactional control over national resources.

Economic Reforms Under Duress: Laws like the 2020 Anti-Blockade Law, allowing private participation in state oil ventures, demonstrate how sovereign decisions are made under external pressure. Delcy Rodríguez’s economic reforms are examples of negotiating constrained sovereignty to prevent total collapse.

Diplomatic Pragmatism: Engagement with Washington while simultaneously maintaining rhetorical opposition reflects a dual strategy: signaling resilience domestically while accommodating the hegemon externally. The blockade of shipments to China and the seizure of Venezuelan oil tankers further exemplifies how external coercion shapes internal policy choices, creating a dependent economic environment.

Impact on Sovereignty: The Venezuelan case demonstrates the limits of sovereignty in a world dominated by hegemonic powers. Even nations with significant natural resources can be coerced into transactional arrangements that compromise policy autonomy, as seen in the oil export arrangements and economic concessions.

Constraints on Multipolarity: Despite rhetoric about a post-American world, powers like China and Russia refrained from confronting the U.S., highlighting structural asymmetries. This suggests that emerging multipolarity may be limited in practice, with smaller states bearing the brunt of coercive policies.

Lessons for the Global South: States reliant on a single commodity or external patronage are highly vulnerable. Economic diversification, collective regional strategies, and strategic alliances may provide resilience, but unilateral great-power interventions can still dominate outcomes. Venezuela’s experience is a cautionary tale, illustrating that sovereignty and autonomy require not only domestic capacity but also coordinated external support from like-minded nations.

Background: Following the U.S. intervention and abduction of President Maduro, Venezuela faced extreme sanctions, a naval blockade, and constrained access to international markets. The government’s choices were limited by internal economic collapse and external coercion.

Strategy: Under Delcy Rodríguez, the regime prioritized pragmatic economic and diplomatic measures: stabilizing oil production, negotiating limited foreign investment, and maintaining the welfare state. This approach reflects a strategy of constrained adaptation, where survival takes precedence over ideological adherence.

Key Takeaways:

Small and medium states must balance sovereignty with the need for pragmatic engagement under external pressure.
Transactional diplomacy can preserve institutional continuity and economic survival in coercive environments.
Venezuela exemplifies the limits of unilateral interventions and the importance of internal consensus among political, military, and economic actors for survival.

This case underscores lessons for the Global South on managing hegemonic pressures, negotiating economic concessions, and safeguarding essential state functions while preserving national legitimacy.

Attribution

Original content sources and authors

Srinivasan Ramani

The Hindu

Comments (0)

Please sign in to comment

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!