Nigeria, Europe, and the “Donroe Doctrine”

“The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.” — Antonio Gramsci. The National Security Strategy released by the Trump administration represents a deliberate attempt to reorient United States foreign policy away from global hegemony toward a more limited conception of power centred on a […]

“The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.”

— Antonio Gramsci.

The National Security Strategy released by the Trump administration represents a deliberate attempt to reorient United States foreign policy away from global hegemony toward a more limited conception of power centred on a defined sphere of influence: the Western Hemisphere. While the document’s prescriptions may appear blunt, even crude, they reflect an underlying recognition that the United States can no longer underwrite the entire international system without cost.

Yet the United States is a polity too large, too internally divided, and too institutionally complex for any single administration to execute such a sharp strategic turn with ease. Consequently, the strategy functions less as an immediately actionable blueprint, unlike China’s centrally enforced five‑year plans, and more as a provocation: a declaration of intent that will animate debate among allies, rivals, supporters, and critics alike.

This limitation exposes a fundamental contrast between systems. The American model relies on fragmented alignment of interests across competing political and economic actors, while the Chinese system enforces national-interest alignment through a centralised, single‑party structure. At the scale required for accelerated development and strategic repositioning in the post–Cold War era, it is evident which model delivers coherence and results more efficiently.

The Donroe Doctrine

Analysts have described Trump’s strategy as a revival of the Monroe Doctrine, sometimes labeled the “Donroe Doctrine”, echoing President James Monroe’s 1823 declaration opposing European interference in the Western Hemisphere. Historically, the Monroe Doctrine served as justification for repeated U.S. interventions across Latin America.

The new strategy states plainly: “The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity, one that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region.”

In contemporary terms, this signals Washington’s intent to dominate key assets, trade routes, and strategic infrastructure across North America, Central America, South America, and by extension, Atlantic access points historically tied to Europe. This time, however, the perceived rival is not Europe but China.

China has become Mercosur’s largest trading partner, deepened economic integration across Latin America through the Belt and Road Initiative, and invested heavily in ports, logistics corridors, and energy projects. From Washington’s perspective, these developments represent not partnership but encroachment. The fear is not merely about the Chinese presence, but about the prospect of an economically autonomous Global South, one no longer structurally dependent on Western dominance.

U.S. policy toward Venezuela offers a stark illustration. The doubling of rewards for the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, combined with deadly maritime operations framed as counter‑narcotics enforcement, coincides with a broader objective described in the strategy as “Enlist and Expand.” In practice, this language revives the logic of regime change.

The economic blockade of Venezuela has little to do with narcotics and much to do with control over resources, particularly oil. Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves, surpassing even Saudi Arabia. At the same time, the Trump administration’s pardon of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, previously convicted of drug trafficking, followed by efforts to reinsert him into Honduran politics, underscores the selective morality underpinning U.S. policy.

Territorial ambitions and strategic reality

Trump’s remarks about annexing Canada and acquiring Greenland, widely dismissed by Western media as erratic or unserious, align with a coherent strategic logic. Control over Arctic access and emerging maritime chokepoints would significantly enhance U.S. leverage in a rapidly changing geopolitical environment. These are not the ravings of a “mad king,” but expressions of a power recalibrating for a harsher, less sentimental world order.

Perhaps the most consequential shift in the National Security Strategy concerns Europe. For decades, successive U.S. administrations upheld the fiction of a unified “collective West.” Trump’s strategy abandons this pretence. Europe is no longer framed as a coequal partner but as a region in demographic, political, and strategic decline – adrift and increasingly burdensome.

The document accuses European governments and supranational institutions of undermining democratic processes, suppressing dissent, and promoting what it describes as “civilizational erasure.” It openly suggests that the United States should “cultivate resistance to Europe’s current trajectory from within European nations.”

This assessment reflects observable trends. Across Europe, legal and administrative mechanisms are increasingly used to marginalise populist or anti‑establishment movements. Parties are banned or restricted, candidates disqualified, and elections annulled under procedural justifications that often mask political intent.

Case studies in democratic erosion

In Romania, Călin Georgescu won the first round of the 2024 presidential election, only to be barred from the rerun after the results were annulled. His removal, justified by alleged irregularities in social media campaigning and opposition to the Ukraine war, represented one of the most overt examples of electoral manipulation in recent European history.

In Germany, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution classified the Alternative for Germany (AfD) as a right‑wing extremist organisation, laying the groundwork for a potential party ban. AfD’s rise, primarily driven by opposition to mass migration and the Ukraine war, has been met not with political competition but with institutional suppression.

In France, Marine Le Pen, the country’s most popular political figure according to multiple polls, was convicted of misusing European Parliament funds. Her sentence included immediate ineligibility from public office, effectively excluding her from the 2027 presidential election at a time when President Emmanuel Macron’s approval ratings had collapsed into the low teens (11%), historically unprecedented in the Fifth Republic.

In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s approval rating has fallen to around 16 per cent (I doubt he will remain in office for another year). Traditional party structures are fracturing, while Reform UK has emerged as a serious alternative. In response, the state has increasingly relied on punitive policing of speech and protest, with harsh sentences imposed for symbolic expression or social media activity.

 

The Seizure of Sovereign Assets

The European Union’s seizure of over $210 billion in frozen Russian reserve assets marks a watershed moment. Despite objections from Euroclear, the Belgian government, the IMF, and the European Central Bank, European leaders proceeded with a move that fundamentally undermines the sanctity of sovereign reserves. The precedent set is profound—and destabilising.

 

Nigeria and the Global Reckoning

Against this backdrop, Nigeria’s posture is deeply troubling. At a moment when global power structures are being renegotiated, Africa’s most populous nation continues to act as an enforcer for declining colonial powers that no longer offer even their own citizens prosperity or stability.

Western governments increasingly prop up unpopular regimes across Africa while branding dissent as instability. Inflation, corruption, and elite capture are global phenomena, not local failures. Yet the costs are borne by ordinary people.

No amount of appeasement will alter Nigeria’s designation as a “Country of Particular Concern” or soften hostile immigration policies targeting Nigerians, disproportionately Nigerian Christians. Diplomatic pageantry and elite hospitality do not override extractive interests.

Nigeria must reclaim strategic autonomy. It must lead West Africa not as a proxy for external powers, but as a champion of development, sovereignty, and security, rooted in popular legitimacy and national preservation rather than regime preservation. European election observers who preside over democratic erosion at home have no moral authority to lecture Africa or to observe our elections as independent actors.

Across continents, citizens are exhausted by systems that no longer serve them. The old world is indeed dying. Whether the new world is born in justice or in chaos will depend on who has the courage to act before the monsters take permanent form. What is unsustainable cannot be sustained.