Monroe Doctrine's Legacy: A Lesson for Small Nations

In history, the principles of powerful nations are always born in the language of defense and live as tools of expansion. What Britain did two hundred years ago, Russia, China, and America are all repeating today under different names. How do small nations like Nepal stand in such a world? While claiming balance, is it truly balance, or merely an adjustment imposed by compulsion?

On December 2, 1823, US President James Monroe declared in Congress – European powers should not colonize the American continent again, and America will stay away from European conflicts. At that time, this declaration was the defensive voice of a weak young nation.

That nation sought to protect its existence from the hands of great powers. But the course of history quietly changed it. Within a few decades, it became the ideological basis for American expansion. After the independence of Spanish and Portuguese colonies, America considered Latin America its own backyard and, in the name of preventing external interference, began interfering itself.

The logic behind this change was clear – as power grows, the language of defense turns into dominance, and principles are twisted according to the needs of self-interest. Strategic interests always win over morality. America learned that and put it into practice. From the Cuban Missile Crisis to Grenada, a small island nation in the Caribbean, the same logic was repeated. When nearly 20 countries in Latin America accepted America's claim to prevent external interference, they themselves fell under its influence.

The sphere of influence is not written on paper, but in practice, harder boundaries are drawn than on maps. The name is different, but the soul remains the same.

This change was not limited to America. The core idea of the Monroe Doctrine is to keep a region under one's influence, and today, this same idea is being repeated in world politics under new names. America is active in Eastern Europe through NATO, and Russia considers this interference in its neighborhood.

China is claiming islands in the South China Sea, and America considers this against its national interest. When Russia took action in Ukraine, the same argument was given – this is our region, let external powers not enter. Sometimes military alliances draw you into their embrace, sometimes economic loans increase dependence. Sometimes security concerns exert pressure.

The sphere of influence is not written on paper, but in practice, harder boundaries are drawn than on maps. The name is different, but the soul remains the same. Today's great powers are doing the same thing under new names without repeating old principles. Although European colonialism has ended, the idea of spheres of influence is alive.

In such a world order, what will be the place of small nations? What behavior should they adopt? Nepal is often called a country between India and China, but this statement is not enough. Is Nepal an active strategic player, or is it merely entangled in reacting to the moves of great powers?

Nepal has historical evidence in the Lipulekh and Kalapani dispute, but the path of negotiation has been forced to rely on unilateral patience for decades. As Chinese investment increases in infrastructure projects like the 'Belt and Road Initiative', Indian interest becomes active. When the US-funded MCC is debated, one neighbor considers it unacceptable, while the other sees it as an opportunity.

The non-aligned policy claims independence, but strategic pressure is always a test. Even when Nepal seeks balance, pressure from one side is often greater.

The 15th Five-Year Plan shows an attempt to seek balance by including both hydropower export with India and transit facilities with China, but in practice, it is only a reaction. This is because economic dependence is high. Trade with India accounts for about 63 to 64 percent of total trade, and Chinese investment is rapidly increasing. These factors gradually limit decision-making capacity.

The non-aligned policy claims independence, but strategic pressure is always a test. Even when Nepal seeks balance, pressure from one side is often greater. Is this balance, or an adjustment imposed by compulsion? Looking at Nepal's situation, the answer is not easy.

Against this backdrop, Swarnim Wagle, speaking in Parliament on July 30, 2024, said, 'The Monroe Doctrine may not be directly applicable, but its meaning must be understood.' This statement pointed to a realistic perspective but immediately caused controversy. Using such a sensitive concept, which carries a history of power imbalance, in public requires extreme caution in word choice. While some understood it as a sign of accepting influence, others saw it as a national warning, especially after a leader with an intellectual background said it needed to be understood.

The problem is not only with the content but also with the ambiguity of its presentation. Raising such an issue without clear explanation increases unnecessary doubts and divides national debate. Public intellectuals must speak with a sense of responsibility, as words can disturb sleep. Wagle's statement sparked debate but forgot the standard of national sensitivity.

However, Wagle's statement was not entirely wrong. World politics is not run by idealism, but by power structures. Nepal must also understand the regional strategies of its neighbors. India's 'Neighborhood First' policy seeks to keep South Asia under its influence. China's infrastructure investment creates dependence. It is necessary to understand these things. But here, a contrasting view emerges – does such realism push small nations towards gradual surrender?

Adjusting to the spheres of influence of great powers as an inevitable reality weakens independent decision-making capacity. How independently the Latin American countries lived while accepting American influence can be seen by looking at the history of Cuba, Venezuela, or Nicaragua.

Therefore, when external pressure comes, decisions are made not by principle, but by compulsion. This is what the Monroe Doctrine teaches.

For Nepal too, this path can prioritize external pressure over national interest. It is necessary to understand reality, but it is even more important to maintain one's own boundaries. This balance is not easy: excessive adjustment leads to dependence, and excessive distance leads to missed opportunities.

How should Nepal address this conflict? Two things need to be distinguished here: learning to be in balance and being able to be in balance. Learning is understanding, it's a mindset. Being able is capability, it's about economic and institutional strength. Nepal has been trying to learn for years but has failed to build the foundation for being able. While claiming a non-aligned policy, internal economic dependence did not decrease, political stability did not come, and institutions did not become strong.

Therefore, when external pressure came, decisions were made not by principle, but by compulsion. This is what the Monroe Doctrine teaches. When the power structure changes, that moment is an opportunity for small nations to strengthen their foundation. Economic diversification can be achieved by investing in tourism, hydropower, and productive economies. Active roles can be played in regional forums.

A long-term foreign policy based on national consensus can be formulated. All this requires willpower first. The day the people understand this, they will be in a position to show the right direction to any government. Building that capacity is the greatest national need today.

This question is not just for Nepal, but for all small nations. If the powerful set the rules of the game, how independent can the decisions of small players be, and do those decisions truly generate national interest, or do they merely make an effort to sustain existence?

The answer to this question is not easy, but it is important to think about. Because unseen boundaries shape our future. Learning is not enough, one must be able to, and to be able to, one must start now. This is the deepest lesson that the Monroe Doctrine teaches even after two hundred years.