• National Security Strategy identifies Western Hemisphere resources as vital to American interests
• Waltz links Venezuela operation to broader policy of preventing foreign control of strategic assets
• Critics warn policy marks dangerous shift toward interventionism in resource-rich nations

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz defended the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy at an emergency UN Security Council meeting this week, outlining an assertive approach to preventing foreign competitors from controlling strategic assets throughout the Western Hemisphere. The policy framework, dubbed the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, establishes American preeminence in Latin America as essential to national security.

The December National Security Strategy explicitly tasks intelligence agencies with identifying “strategic points and resources in the Western Hemisphere with a view to their protection and joint development with regional partners.” The document declares the United States must deny “non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets” in the region.

Venezuela Operation Tests New Doctrine

Waltz’s Monday remarks followed the weekend capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, which critics characterized as evidence of the new policy in action. President Donald Trump announced Washington would “run the country” temporarily, citing Venezuela’s oil reserves as a factor in the operation’s strategic importance.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

“Venezuela’s massive energy reserves must not be under the control of illegitimate leaders and a handful of oligarchs,” Waltz told the Security Council. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves at approximately 303 billion barrels, surpassing Saudi Arabia’s deposits.

The ambassador defended the military action as a law enforcement operation targeting narco-terrorism, but acknowledged broader strategic considerations. “China getting cheap oil, moving in and taking key geography, taking things like ports and rail and food supplies right in our Western Hemisphere,” Waltz said in a Fox News interview. He emphasized that preventing foreign control of regional resources represents a core national security priority.

Strategic Resource Identification Underway

The National Security Council has initiated an interagency process to catalog strategic assets throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the security strategy document. Intelligence agencies are tasked with assessing which resources and locations require protection from foreign acquisition.

The strategy identifies several categories of concern including critical minerals, energy infrastructure, ports, rail systems and food supply chains. “The Western Hemisphere is home to many strategic resources that America should partner with regional allies to develop,” the document states, proposing joint development arrangements with neighboring governments.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Policy experts note the approach extends beyond traditional diplomatic and economic pressure. The strategy calls for military readjustment to address hemisphere threats, expanded Coast Guard presence to control sea lanes and “targeted deployments to secure the border and defeat cartels, including where necessary the use of lethal force.”

Foreign Influence Rollback Campaign

The administration frames its assertiveness as necessary to counter Chinese, Russian and Iranian incursions into what it considers America’s sphere of influence. Chinese investment in Latin American infrastructure has expanded significantly over the past decade, particularly in ports, telecommunications and mining operations.

“Non-Hemispheric competitors have made major inroads into our Hemisphere, both to disadvantage us economically in the present, and in ways that may harm us strategically in the future,” the National Security Strategy warns. The document characterizes allowing these incursions without pushback as “another great American strategic mistake.”

Venezuela exemplified these concerns, with Chinese delegations meeting Maduro just hours before the US operation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has indicated similar pressure may extend to Cuba, which also maintains close ties with Beijing and Moscow.

International Criticism Mounts

Venezuela’s UN Ambassador Samuel Moncada condemned the approach as “a colonial war aimed at destroying our republican form of government” and facilitating “the plundering of our natural resources.” China’s Ambassador Sun Lei characterized the Venezuela operation as “bullying” and defended nations’ rights to choose their own development partners.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed concern that the operation “may intensify instability” and “set a dangerous precedent in the sphere of international relations.” Several Latin American governments have registered objections to what they view as a revival of 20th-century interventionism.

The European Union response has been measured, with France and Britain declining to support Security Council condemnation of the Maduro operation. However, European officials have privately expressed unease about the broader strategic framework’s implications for international law.

“Enlist and Expand” Regional Strategy

The administration’s “Enlist and Expand” approach seeks to cultivate regional partnerships that advance US interests while excluding competitors. The strategy promises favorable treatment on commercial matters, technology sharing and defense procurement for countries that align with American priorities.

Economic inducements include expedited approvals for US business deals, preferential financing and assistance rolling back Chinese infrastructure investments. The strategy explicitly calls for “sole-source contracts for our companies” in countries most dependent on American support.

The policy also contains punitive elements for non-cooperation. “The terms of our alliances, and the terms upon which we provide any kind of aid, must be contingent on winding down adversarial outside influence,” the document states. This includes foreign control of military installations, ports and “the purchase of strategic assets broadly defined.”

Academic and Policy Debate

International relations scholars dispute whether the approach represents feasible policy or overreach. Professor Livia Peres Milani of the University of São Paulo noted that Latin American dependence on Chinese trade and investment creates practical obstacles to American dominance.

“The US strategy faces a sharp geographic divide in its effectiveness,” said Professor Rhys Jenkins of the London School of Economics. While Washington retains leverage in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, South American countries have developed “relationships that the US has been unable to match.”

The Chatham House think tank characterized the plan as “disordered, contradictory and vague,” noting that “hegemony is not the same as domination.” Historical US influence in the region combined economic incentives with diplomatic persuasion, rather than the coercive approach outlined in current policy.

Legal and Constitutional Questions

Legal experts question whether the framework complies with international law prohibiting the use of force against territorial integrity. The administration cites Article 51 of the UN Charter, which permits self-defense measures, as justification for operations like the Venezuela intervention.

Critics argue the article applies only to armed attacks on a nation’s territory, not to indirect threats from drug trafficking or foreign influence. The Organization of American States charter also contains mutual non-intervention provisions that may conflict with the new strategic approach.

Domestic constitutional scholars have raised questions about the president’s authority to commit military forces for resource protection and strategic asset control without congressional authorization. The War Powers Resolution typically requires legislative approval for military deployments exceeding 60 days.

Does asserting control over hemisphere resources protect American security interests or risk escalating conflicts with sovereign nations and international competitors?

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10