Will Donroe Doctrine really cut Chinas Western Hemisphere clout?

The section of the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy that should most give China pause isn’t the one on Asia. It’s the Western Hemisphere section, the one proclaiming what commentators are calling the “Donroe Doctrine.” American farmers and ranchers might also find that section interesting.

The Asia section seeks changes in the US-China relationship, but China has heard many of these goals before. Others seem unrealistic, like the declaration that “Trade with China should be balanced.” And it’s no surprise that the US wants to be less dependent on China; the Chinese are working hard to be less dependent on us.

The Western Hemisphere section, by contrast, doesn’t mention China by name but promises something new and threatening.

Here’s how that threat is described in the Western Hemisphere section’s first paragraph: “We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.”

And here’s how it’s described in the section’s final paragraph: “We should make every effort to push out foreign companies that build infrastructure in the region.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, “China has invested close to $300 billion in infrastructure projects across Latin America.”

Reading the NSS, the Chinese must be wondering if the US is really going to try to push them out. And if so, how?

The Chinese infrastructure includes hydroelectric dams and power plants. If China is evicted, lights could go off. Two Chinese companies provide electricity to Lima, Peru. Chinese companies distribute two thirds of Chile’s electricity.

Of special relevance to American farmers, the state-owned Chinese company Cosco is the builder and majority owner of a new multi-billion-dollar port in Chancay, Peru.

Coupled with trans-continental railroad lines the Chinese are building, the port will make rival Brazil’s soybeans even more competitive by solving the country’s big agricultural problem: getting product to market.

The port is also relevant to the US military, which fears it could be used by Chinese naval ships or for intelligence gathering. Last month the State Department approved a $1.5 billion plan to help Peru rebuild its naval base in Callao, near the Chinese port. No doubt some in Washington contemplate the US Navy using that base.

If Peru was forced to choose between China, which is so critical to its economy, and the US, which would it choose? If Peru chose China, would we send in the Marines?

The NSS section proposes readjusting America’s global military presence to “address urgent threats in our Hemisphere.” It is silent on whether ports like Chancay represent an urgent threat.

Other “powerful tools” the section suggests using are tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements. On a softer note, the section vows to encourage American businesses to invest in Latin America. It promises to “reform our own system to expedite approvals and licensing – again, to make ourselves the partner of first choice.”

Panama has already taken steps to roll back China’s presence. Its supreme court recently voided a Hong Kong company’s contract to operate ports at both ends of the Panama Canal. President Donald Trump has been pressuring Panama to reduce China’s influence.

“After years of neglect,” the NSS declares, “the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region.” The overthrow of Maduro in Venezuela suggests that, in asserting American preeminence, the administration is prepared to use force rather than take no for an answer.

If some of this sounds like a throwback to the Age of Empire, when powerful countries invaded and sometimes took over weaker ones because they could, well, as I wrote a year ago, President Donald J. Trump and President William McKinley, the president who acquired Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines for the US, are “alike in more ways than one.”

What they’re wondering in Beijing is how much of the Donroe Doctrine is just rhetoric. Denying China the use of a port it has built or forcing a Latin American country to evict Chinese companies would likely require a riskier military move than taking out Maduro.

Still, the Chinese must have noticed that the White House refused to rule out the use of military force if Denmark refused to cede Greenland to the US.

Officials in Beijing are undoubtedly trying to calculate just how far the US might go in ridding the Western Hemisphere of Chinese influence – and what they can do about it.

Former longtime Wall Street Journal Asia correspondent and editor Urban Lehner is editor emeritus of DTN/The Progressive Farmer.Thisarticle,originally published on February 9 by the latter news organization and now republished by Asia Times with permission, is © Copyright 2026 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.FollowUrban Lehneron X @urbanize.