The United States’s foreign policy is at the crossroads while the world is struggling with the “donroe doctrine” of President Donald Trump – a reinterpretation of the MONROE doctrine of President James Monroe. This torsion of American foreign policy has important implications for international relations, such as the management of the Ukrainian crisis in the White House, which led to the support of the United Kingdom. The Trumpian version of this concept, which announces the start of the “American golden age” and prioritizes internal interests compared to multilateral commitments, is about to redefine the way the United States interacts with its neighbors and beyond. Could this new doctrine simply reflect an era of increased tensions, or is it a transformer moment for American diplomacy? The potential for reshaping international relations is a convincing aspect of Trump’s foreign policy.
Trump’s foreign policy demonstrates its assertive approach to international trade relations with its pricing policies, its striking criticism of NATO and world alliances, as evidenced by its position on the Russian-Ukraine war, and its energetic position towards China. He systematically criticized international organizations, arguing that they undermine the sovereignty and economic competitiveness of the United States. For example, Trump criticized NATO for carrying a disproportionate financial burden in the defense of Europe and suggested to withdraw American support from NATO if the allies do not respect financial commitments. This policy has raised concerns among European leaders concerning the reliability of the United States as a security partner. Analysts argue that such policies could weaken NATO’s deterrent capacities, although Trump insists that they would make the alliance more equitable.
Consequently, Trump avoids positioning the United States as a leader of a coalition in the world of world, indicating that it is not interested in maintaining or strengthening traditional alliances. Instead, it emphasizes American domination in its own terms, focusing on its economic and geopolitical advantages. This can reflect a “America First” strategy which prioritizes national interest and suggests a distance from world leadership. Trump’s doctrine could potentially reshape the relationship between the world of world and the world of world as they sail on their unique challenges and opportunities.
The terms of the North of South and the Global refer to socioeconomic and political divisions between countries, the North representing the richer and industrialized countries and the South composed of poorer and less developed countries. These divisions arise from historical factors such as colonialism and economic exploitation. While the Northern worldwide exercises considerable power in international institutions, the world South is facing challenges such as poverty and political instability rooted in colonization. Understanding this fracture and the economic performance of the Global South is crucial when evaluating recent changes in American foreign policy, in particular under the doctrine of Donald Trump.
The Northern Mondial includes rich countries with significant political influence through institutions such as the IMF and the UN. On the other hand, the world South encompasses the regions which are faced with substantial economic challenges. The world South should have a political and economic resurgence supported by a new style of leadership to promote success. The disparity between the world of world and the Northern worldwide has been a focal point in a new approach that classifies the countries based on economic, social and governance characteristics rather than on historical links. Looking at the world of world through these interconnected lenses, Donroe doctrine could open the way to global energy distribution motivated by emerging economies and changing responsibilities of developed economies. This potential for an important global change of power is a subject that will surely captivate the spirit of researchers and political decision -makers.
Donald Trump suggested using military force to annex Greenland, the largest island in the world, due to its strategic shipping routes and its rich deposits of elements of rare earth essentials for defense and electronics. The acquisition of Greenland could improve the economic competitiveness of the United States, in particular within the framework of the increase in the arctic competition of climate change and the need to reduce dependence on Chinese materials. However, the extraction of these resources would be confronted with significant technological challenges and high costs, which probably makes these efforts unprint. Trump’s vision for the Western hemisphere also includes the expansion of offshore drilling, the change of the name of the Gulf of Mexico in the Gulf of America, and considering Canada to become the 51st state with an excellent Wayne Gretzky as governor.
Understanding the largest and most important country in Latin America, Brazil, is a key example of how Trump’s foreign policy approach interacts with the world’s world leadership. Under President Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil has become a key friend of the Trump administration, especially in his efforts to challenge left -wing governments in the region. While reflecting the contradiction between the accent put by the United States on transactional diplomacy and the broader objectives of the Global South, this partnership also opens the potential of new dialogues in Latin America, offering a prospect full of hope for the future of American foreign policy and the global dynamics of North-South.
The doctrine of Trump, which promotes a more interventionist position towards Latin America, found a voluntary partner in Bolsonaro, which shared Trump’s skepticism in terms of multilateralism. This partnership is based on shared conservative values. Trump’s foreign policy often undermines the sovereignty of nations in the world of world, such as Venezuela, by supporting opposition groups and recognizing Juan Guaidó as acting president. This interventionist position contradicted the previous policy of non-intervention of the United States. Bolsonaro has aligned Brazil’s foreign policy with the United States to weaken the Maduro government, reflecting the United States support for the right-wing regimes in the world, which faced the aspirations of many regional countries.
The involvement of Brazil with the approach of Trump’s foreign policy also underlines the complex dynamics of the Northern world and the South. While the United States and Brazil have worked together to push left governments and maintain economic and political ties, the wider push of the world South for autonomy has often collided with Trump’s vision of a transactional relationship and focused on power. For example, Trump’s support for Bolsonaro environmental policies, which are strongly criticized not to take into account Aboriginal rights and the Amazon forest, revealed the brutal fracture between the accent put by the world of world growth and the needs of the South for environmental protection and sustainable development. This policy has risked expanding the fracture between American countries and the countries of the South world pleading for sustainability and equity. However, this also inspires those who defend these causes in global governance.
The long -term impact of Trump’s foreign policy remains uncertain, emphasizing the need for more in -depth analysis and understanding. Several key dishes can be drawn, but the complete implications of its actions must still be fully carried out. Trump policies can reshape political dynamics in Latin America despite the initial resistance of leftover governments. His support for right -wing leaders could encourage stronger governance, which potentially leads to greater stability if it were well managed. The positive results for the region are possible by promoting dialogue and mutual interests.
For the Northern worldwide, Trump’s policies mean evolution towards nationalism and protectionism, questioning internationalism and multilateralism. This transition will continue to influence American relations with allies and global governance. His approach to trade, immigration and foreign intervention highlights the tension between internal priorities and international relations, presenting challenges for the United States to balance national and global interests.
Trump’s doctrine is a decisive characteristic of his approach to foreign policy. The emphasis on Trump on nationalism, protectionism and interventionism strengthens the gap between the North and the South world, often hindering cooperation. Maga philosophies and BRICS more prioritize sovereignty and economic independence in a multipolar world. Critique of international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF has increased, in particular with regard to the domination of the US dollar. The BRICS Bank, founded in 2014, aims to complete these institutions and supports members such as India and South Africa in development alternatives, while countries like Russia and Iran are looking for a distinct financial system. With a capital of $ 100 billion, the BRICS bank has financed more than 90 projects worth more than $ 30 billion and operates on a principle “a member, a vote” without a veto right. Maga focuses on economic self-execution, aligning with the BRICS and the countries that aim to strengthen their savings and reduce dependence on Western financial systems. In response, President Donald Trump threatened to impose prices on the BRICS if they create a new currency or challenge the global role of the dollar.
Trump’s approach to Trump America First could lead to diplomatic isolation for the United States in the Northern worldwide. His decision to withdraw from international agreements such as the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization could express more American relations with the world allies. In Latin America, its policies were considered disruptive for regional cooperation, exacerbating tensions and undergoing regional solidarity. The legacy of this doctrine will continue to be felt in the future American foreign policy, stressing the importance of strategic planning. Balancing national interests and global diplomacy in an increasingly interconnected world will be a key challenge for American leadership.
Read more in -depth on international relations
