DiploFoundation - Monroe Doctrine and Gunboat diplomacy 2.0 - Jovan Kurbalija - Published on 31 October 2025 - Related topics: Coercive diplomacy Gunboat diplomacy Hybrid diplomacy Maritime diplomacy

 Monroe Doctrine and Gunboat diplomacy 2.0

Jovan Kurbalija

Published on 31 October 2025

Related topics:    Coercive diplomacy Gunboat diplomacy Hybrid diplomacy Maritime diplomacy

Author:   Jovan Kurbalija

The Monroe Doctrine, first articulated in 1823 as a declaration against European interference in the Americas, continues to shape the United States’ perception of its role in the Western Hemisphere. While its original context has long passed, the principle of safeguarding regional influence and stability remains constant in American foreign policy. Is the current military build-up in Venezuela a new iteration of the Monroe Doctrine and Gunboat Diplomacy 2.0?

 Book, Comics, Publication, Person, Adult, Male, Man, Bride, Female, Wedding, Woman, Gun, Weapon, Art, Baby, Painting, Clothing, Footwear, Shoe, Andreas Katsulas, Ted Cassidy, Tom Mandrake

F. Victor Gillam’s 1896 political cartoon, Uncle Sam stands with a rifle between the outrageously dressed European figures and the native-dress-wearing representatives of Nicaragua and Venezuela. Information can be found at the Library of Congress.

The United States employed a mixture of sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and maritime visibility to influence developments in the region. Naval exercises in the Caribbean, conducted alongside diplomatic pressure and economic restrictions, aimed to signal security interests while avoiding military escalation. This approach demonstrated how traditional doctrines are adapted to the legal and political realities of the twenty-first century, where the use of force is heavily constrained. Still, strategic signalling remains a central feature of international relations.

From fleets to hybrid coercion

Scholars have long described gunboat diplomacy as the limited use or threat of naval force to achieve political objectives without resorting to open warfare. While the term originated in the nineteenth century, its logic remains relevant in an era of hybrid influence. Contemporary practice extends beyond naval deployments to include coordinated economic, cyber, and diplomatic measures that achieve similar effects through non-kinetic means. The projection of maritime presence is now one part of a broader system of pressure and persuasion that aims to shape behaviour rather than compel it outright.

 Cruiser, Military, Navy, Ship, Transportation, Vehicle, Watercraft, Destroyer, Boat

SMS Panther, an example of the use of German gunboat diplomacy

In this context, naval operations serve multiple purposes for the United States: to reassure allies, deter competitors, and demonstrate capability to both domestic and international audiences. Exercises and patrols contribute to a visible posture that communicates readiness and resolve, yet short of deploying military force.

Strategic signalling and adaptation

The transformation of gunboat diplomacy into a hybrid practice reflects broader changes in global politics. International law, media transparency, and economic interdependence have made overt coercion less viable. In response, states rely more heavily on calibrated signals – sanctions, statements, and symbolic deployments – that allow for influence without escalation. For the United States, such actions reinforce its traditional commitment to regional stability while demonstrating adherence to international norms.

Supporters of this approach argue that it preserves deterrence and prevents instability by discouraging external interference in the Americas. Critics, however, note that the blending of military and diplomatic tools can blur the line between reassurance and coercion. The challenge lies in maintaining a balance between influence and restraint: enough engagement to uphold regional security, but not so much as to appear interventionist. This delicate equilibrium defines much of contemporary American diplomacy in the Western Hemisphere.

Continuity and strategic logic

Gunboat diplomacy 2.0 reemerges into a new strategic context. From the Monroe Doctrine to modern partnership frameworks, the underlying premise remains that proximity brings responsibility and that regional stability benefits from sustained engagement. While the means have changed, from fleets and blockades to sanctions, joint exercises, and cyber cooperation, the objective remains broadly consistent: to exercise influence and preserve a favourable and predictable regional environment.

This evolution also reflects the broader reality of modern international relations, in which influence depends as much on perception and coordination as on force. The United States, like other major powers, seeks to integrate military presence with diplomatic dialogue and economic policy to advance its interests within an increasingly complex system of interdependence. The result is not a return to nineteenth-century coercion but a modern strategy that combines presence, persuasion, and partnership under the constraints of contemporary international norms.

The modern adaptation of the Monroe Doctrine through gunboat diplomacy 2.0 demonstrates how historical ideas can be reshaped to fit new strategic circumstances. While the language and methods have changed, the core objective – maintaining stability and influence in the Western Hemisphere, remains recognisable.

In this interplay between continuity and change, gunboat diplomacy remains a tool of deterrence, yet in a different world shaped by high interdependence and the high relevance of public perception and soft power.

It remains to be seen whether the current crisis in Venezuela will remain an exercise in gunboat diplomacy with a peaceful resolution or build up for a military conflict.