{"id":8850,"date":"2026-01-21T13:06:40","date_gmt":"2026-01-21T13:06:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/internationaldiplomat.com\/?p=8850"},"modified":"2026-01-21T13:06:40","modified_gmt":"2026-01-21T13:06:40","slug":"the-donroe-doctrine-venezuela-and-the-world-disorder-by-dr-khalid-shibib-abstract","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/12h71.com\/?p=8850","title":{"rendered":"The Donroe Doctrine: Venezuela and the World Disorder by Dr Khalid Shibib"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Donroe Doctrine: Venezuela and the World Disorder by Dr Khalid Shibib<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Attacking Venezuela and the abduction of its President Nicolas Maduro by the United States on January 3rd<\/sup>, 2026, raised questions and answered others across the globe. Statements of President Trump and members of his team continue to rudely threaten Venezuela and other countries in Latin America and beyond, clearly introducing a new global political language and a new world order. Outstanding is also the demand to \u201chave\u201d Greenland and the reactions within the United States and countries of the \u201cGlobal West\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Introduction <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The emerging new multi-regional world order, described in general terms in the \u201cNational Security Strategy of the United States of America\u201d (The White House, November 2025) is to be led by the United States<\/span><\/p>\n

This US new approach, first declared during the 2019 Munich Security Conference, did not announce a single \u00ab\u00a0new strategy\u00a0\u00bb but rather emphasized its \u00ab\u00a0America First\u00a0\u00bb approach, pushing allies for higher defence spending (2% NATO goal), and questioning multilateralism. However, the new \u201cNational Security Strategy of the United States of America\u201d which was presented during the 2025 Munich Security Conference, mentioned the Western Hemisphere and defined the US relation with the world regions, shifting US focus towards economic security and still emphasizing the notion of \u201cAmerica First\u201d. Europe was requested to do and pay more for its security. Europe was also criticized for its \u201ccivilizational erasure\u201d due to migration and declining birth rates resulting in a changed demography. It signalled a departure from liberal internationalism for a \u201cpower realism\u201d approach focused on national interest.<\/span><\/p>\n

The United States is \u201cagain\u201d leading a global system change. This new system foresees the world of three regional superpowers in which the US controls the Americas and the majority of European countries (not the EC as such), China (Southeast Asia) and Russia (Eurasia) being seen as the two other regional powers. The problem of the Trump Administration is that \u201cOne World\u201d\u00a0 as formulated by President Woodrow Wilson. i.e. \u00a0the world of globalization and internationalization continues to exist \u201cin parallel\u201d.\u00a0 For that reason, this \u201cnow old\u201d system must be destroyed and replaced (Shibib, 2025[1]<\/a>). The German President [2]<\/a> but also others (Carbasse, 2025) criticized the new US measures as \u201cdestroying the World Order\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Without elimination of the existing global power system, US quasi-colonial interventions will be measured and treated within the existing \u201cold \u201crules and values (of the \u201cOne World\u201d of united sovereign nations) and will also be globally condemned as illegal.<\/span><\/p>\n

This new external political doctrine is combined with internal presidential centred system within the United States itself with President Trump using\u00a0 executive <\/strong>orders, <\/strong>commander-in-chief authority and emergency powers, sometimes \u00a0\u00a0against constitutional bodies. There was increasing limitations of freedom of expression and weakening the social security and health systems. \u00a0As an example, the US constitutional bodies were informed only through the media on attacking Venezuela and the abduction of President Maduro, causing \u00a0protests and heated debates, that are ongoing.<\/span><\/p>\n

Inside the Global West[3]<\/a> <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Almost a month after the release of the US security Strategy, the US stroked Venezuela and kidnapped President Maduro who was brought for trial in New York. President Trump repeatedly stated that the USA will \u201cmanage\u201d Venezuela, referring to the rich oil and other mineral resources in the country as property of the US.\u00a0 The frankness \/offensiveness with which the Trump Administration declared and justified the Venezuela invasion was groundbreaking as it replaces the usual \u201crefined\u201d logic of human rights, democracy, international law and civilization. These slogans were frequently used by Western powers to justify the overt invasions and covert operations to subjugate third world countries. \u00a0It is about oil, gold, other rare earth elements (REE) and money.<\/span><\/p>\n

Apart from threatening the government of Maduro\u2019s successor, Ms. President Delcy G\u00f3mez (sworn in as acting\u00a0president on 5 January 2026), President Trump and his administration also threatened to target other countries, including Cuba, Columbia and Mexico. Outside the \u201cWestern Hemisphere\u201d, Iran (currently experiencing mass demonstrations and violent bloody unrest) was also repeatedly threatened.<\/span><\/p>\n

Of outstanding significance is the repeated targeting of Greenland as a top US security priority, justifying it with Russian and Chinese presence and threats there. The United States has a military presence in Greenland, regulated by the agreement of 1951 (Department of State 2004), and US companies could invest and work in Greenland, as in any part of Denmark. For that, the repeated rather rude demands (combined with threats) of \u201chaving\u201d Greenland looks unjustified and \u00a0triggered fear and uncertainty in Greenland, whose population opposes the US endeavour (Briant & Rankin 2026), as well as in Denmark and Europe.\u00a0 While the Trump administration repeatedly declared the possibility of using force, the EU ruled out such option, considering military support to Greenland in the framework of a NATO mission. Politically, the fragmented EU would be unable to deliver an effective coherent deterrence when the US \u201ctakes over\u201d Greenland. An occupation of Greenland will kill the NATO, \u00a0as the Prime minister of Denmark stated (Briant 2026). This will inevitably damage the EU, which membership largely overlaps with that of the NATO[4]<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

For the Superpower USA, it may well be easier to push through its agenda and interest, working with individual EU members rather than with entire coherent EU body. Created to establish permanent peace in a war-torn continent, the European Union evolved despite its governances\u2019 weaknesses, into a strategic autonomous power and as an economic competitor, ranking third economic superpower, following the USA and China.<\/span><\/p>\n

Looking at the western world map, one can see how dramatic the encirclement of Canada would be through an \u201cenlarged\u201d United States (the United State plus an annexed Greenland). President trump repeated demands annexation of Canada as the 51st state of the United States[5]<\/a> were never withdrawn and are still valid. The annexation of Greenland\u00a0 will dramatically reduce the \u00a0size of the Europe in favour of the US and the so called \u201cWestern Hemisphere\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Outside the Global West: \u00a0targeting the United Nations system<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The \u201cdemonstrative\u201d departure of the US of over 60 international organisations, including 33 UN and UN related organisations (The White House, January 7, 2026), threats, sanctions and measures against the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), including threats against their staff, as well as the persistent anti UN logic send a clear message across the world.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ceremonially supporting Israel\u2019s genocide in Gaza, which continues after President Trump\u2019s negotiated ceasefire, and the ethnic cleansing in Palestine is an outstanding indicator of disrespect of international laws and norms. President Trump\u2019s \u201cgranting\u201d the occupied Syrian Golan to Israel, and his recognizing the annexation of East Jerusalem during his first presidency term, are all outstanding demonstrative violations of international laws. The tone and style used to declare the US withdrawal from internationalism is \u201cpart of the plan\/process\u201d that should be concluded as soon as possible. \u00a0Granting non-US territories to third party must alarm countries across the world. The Palestinians well remember the Balfour declaration[6]<\/a> issued even before British troops complete the occupation of Palestine.<\/span><\/p>\n

US military interventions outside the United Nations Charter is not a speciality of the new Trump Administration.\u00a0 Apart from numerous \u201cinformal\u201d engagements of toppling governments in Latin America and elsewhere in the third world, the US-led \u00a0interventions\/wars in Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan (in which several western countries participated) were not covered by international law. So far, all these wars were \u201cjustified\u201d as saving civilians, eliminating dictatorships, introducing democracy and fighting against terror. On the other hand, the attack against Venezuela was justified as an action against drug network. However, President Trump administration declared the US interest in Venezuela: control of oil, gold and other rare earth elements, shortly after assaulting Venezuela.<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusions<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Recently, ongoing and planned US invasions and expansion are officially justified by the US direct colonial interest. These frank self-interest justifications and the rudeness of the political discourse (also with partners) are not accidental deviations of political style, but essential part of the new approach to accelerate the replacement of the existing world order, which continue to hinder the emergence of planned global system change. The new multi-regional world order, to be also led by the United States, can only be established on the ruins of the existing world order (the \u201cOne World\u201d order, also established, financed and led by the United States following WW2).\u00a0 The new narrative and language are parts of the strategy and are signs of urgency and institutional anxiety that accompany this process.<\/span><\/p>\n

The replacement of the world order may not smoothly function as desired by its US master.\u00a0 Besides the planned up-down mechanics, transversal changes cannot be controlled. The change of world order will not follow the one \u201ceither-or<\/em> \u201cpattern between two systems, but would chaotically pass through variable phases and speeds, resulting in formation of states, regions and organizations of diverse forms. This patchy forms of political systems might persist for long time, blocking or existing on side of the planned global system.<\/span><\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n