The question of American power – its reach, its restraint, and its precedents – is once again at the forefront of foreign policy debate. A recent operation authorized by the Trump administration, resulting in the transfer of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to the United States to face narcoterrorism charges, has reignited a long-standing discussion about the limits of U.S. Intervention and the potential for normalizing the employ of force. This action, even as legally defensible, echoes a historical tension identified over a century ago by Secretary of State Richard Olney and later cautioned against by Elihu Root, highlighting the dangers of unchecked assertion of power.
In 1895, Olney articulated a bold claim in a diplomatic note to Great Britain during a border dispute between British Guiana and Venezuela: “The United States is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition.” The Olney interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, as it became known, effectively asserted U.S. Dominance in the Western Hemisphere. While Britain ultimately backed down, the assertion itself proved problematic. As Root, who served as both Secretary of War and Secretary of State under Theodore Roosevelt, recognized, such a display of power created a dangerous temptation to use it simply because it could be wielded.
The Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary
The Monroe Doctrine, originally conceived in 1823, aimed to prevent further European colonization in the Americas. However, the Roosevelt Corollary, constructed in 1904 with Root’s involvement, fundamentally altered its character. It transformed the doctrine into a justification for U.S. Intervention in Latin American affairs whenever Washington deemed instability intolerable. As detailed by Teaching American History, this shift formalized Olney’s logic, leading to a period of frequent U.S. Intervention, including military occupations in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and repeated interventions in Nicaragua and Cuba.
Root himself later sought to correct the course he had helped set. He advocated for international arbitration, multilateral institutions, and legal frameworks designed to constrain American power. In 1914, he proposed a narrower redefinition of the Monroe Doctrine, focusing on specific actions by foreign powers that would be considered detrimental to U.S. Peace and safety. This contrasted sharply with Olney’s expansive claim of hemispheric sovereignty, offering a more disciplined and sustainable approach to foreign policy. His efforts were recognized with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1912, though his warnings about the dangers of unchecked power were often overlooked.
Echoes of the Past in Venezuela and Cuba
The recent operation targeting Maduro, while legally justifiable under existing statutes, mirrors the concerns Root articulated. The action, according to reports, normalized the use of military force as a tool of policy, raising questions about the precedents it sets. This echoes the concern that a successful assertion of power in one instance can become a template for future actions. Attention has already shifted to Cuba, where the U.S. Is applying pressure through fuel interdiction, secondary sanctions, and emergency authorities, framed as enforcement rather than intervention.
These measures, while calibrated and legally grounded, represent a continuation of the incremental approach Root warned against. The Caracas operation, involving the direct use of force against a head of state, establishes a precedent that could make escalation in Cuba – or elsewhere – more likely. The logic used to justify seizing Maduro, the argument goes, is the same logic that could be applied to justify further coercive measures.
The Risk of a Double Standard
A deeper tension arises when considering the implications for international norms. If the United States asserts a sphere of influence in its own hemisphere, it becomes more difficult to reject similar claims by other nations. The logic underpinning Russia’s arguments regarding its “near abroad,” for example, shares structural similarities with the U.S. Approach in the Americas. While the moral and geopolitical contexts differ significantly – Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Georgia involve territorial conquest and the suppression of sovereignty – the underlying principle of asserting special prerogatives based on power rather than principle creates a dangerous parallel.
Root understood that sovereignty without discipline invites decay. The central question is not whether the United States *can* act in a certain way, but whether doing so strengthens the international order it claims to lead or erodes it through the accumulation of precedents. Power exercised without restraint, he argued, rarely remains exceptional.
Looking Ahead
The Biden administration’s approach to Cuba, involving increased economic pressure and interdiction efforts, will be closely watched as a test of whether the lessons of the past have been learned. The administration has not signaled any intention of reversing course on these policies. The next key development to watch will be the impact of these measures on the Cuban economy and the potential for further escalation. The ongoing debate over the appropriate use of American power, and the precedents set by recent actions, will continue to shape U.S. Foreign policy for years to come.
What we have is a developing story, and we encourage readers to share their perspectives and engage in constructive dialogue.
