美国“西半球政策”的本质是什么

2026年1月3日凌晨,美国悍然对委内瑞拉发动“闪击战”,并强行控制该国总统马杜罗及其夫人。这一事件瞬间震惊世界，联合国对其造成的“恶劣先例”表示强烈担忧，许多国家公开谴责其违反国际法原则，而特朗普政府一边声称此次行动是美国的“执法行动”，另一边却毫不掩饰对委内瑞拉石油资源的企图。

委内瑞拉之后，特朗普政府又点名哥伦比亚、古巴、墨西哥等拉美国家，明确发出政治威胁，乃至军事干预信号。石油，远不是特朗普政府的目标，委内瑞拉也不是，它只是第一个，而非最后一个。历史不会重复，但总会押韵。如果说霸权主义、强权政治的幽灵从未离场，那么这一次，它披着“美国优先”的新装重新游荡在西半球。

“门罗主义”回来了？

特朗普的这一行动并非传统“门罗主义”的简单回归，而是“唐罗主义”的正式登场——一种彻底的单边主义与极致的个人化相结合的“帝王秀”。

要厘清特朗普对委内瑞拉动武的脉络需要回答三个问题：第一，门罗主义到底是什么？它的历史和文化底色是什么？第二，“唐罗主义”与门罗主义的本质差异在哪里？第三，“特朗普行动的逻辑”范式一旦确立，将对国际秩序与地区秩序带来何种冲击？

让我们先把镜头拉回到两个世纪前，一个决定了美洲政治想象的起点。

门罗主义

从“反外来干涉”到“西半球警察”

1823年，美国总统门罗在国情咨文中提出了后来广为流传的原则——“美洲是美洲人的美洲”。“门罗主义”最初的语义是反对欧洲再次把美洲当作殖民对象，这无疑带有一种强烈的防御和地缘保护色彩。可以说这个时期的“门罗主义”更像是一张“欧洲人不得入内”的警告牌，“门罗主义”真正塑造拉美历史的不是它的“初心”，而是它在美国国力扩张后的“推论”。1904年，委内瑞拉因爆发债务危机而引发欧洲武力施压，这时候，美国总统西奥多•罗斯福站出来提出了著名的“罗斯福推论”，当拉美国家出现“为非作歹或懦弱无能”情况时，美国可以行使“国际警察权”，这就将“门罗主义”从“拒绝外人干预”改写为“只许美国干预”，在这种背景下，拉美国家的主权经常被“条件化”,是否合格，常由美国裁决。

委内瑞拉是一百多年前“罗斯福推论”诞生的触发点，而今天，委内瑞拉又成为了“特朗普推论”的试验田，但是，如果我们把特朗普的这次行动仅仅看作是“门罗主义”的回潮，很快就会发现一个明显的解释障碍，“门罗主义”哪怕再强硬，通常都要借助历史和制度的连续性来证明自己，国会授权、盟友背书、国际法推理的包装，至少要摆出“我是在维护秩序”的姿态，而特朗普这次行动呈现的,恰恰是另一种逻辑，既有规则不是合法性的来源，而是对行动力的限制。换句话说“门罗主义”以既有规则解释事实，而“唐罗主义”则以既成事实解释规则，正像特朗普本人在接受《纽约时报》专访时公然声称的那样：他的“道德观念”是他在世界上行事的唯一限制。因此，理解特朗普行动的逻辑必须从“门罗主义”的制度化传统转向“唐罗主义”的人格化结构。

“唐罗主义”

MAGA是为了“让特朗普再次伟大”

先说明一点，“唐罗主义”并不是严格意义上的学术术语，而是对特朗普行动逻辑的精致概括，它之所以有解释力是因为它抓住了特朗普行动的核心机制：高度人格化的叙事结构——一种把国家行动嵌套进个人叙事，把外交政策改写成个人政治IP的机制。

美国2025年12月4日发布的《2025国家安全战略》里,特朗普政府将“特朗普推论”写入国家安全文本，并强调“西半球优先”。耐人寻味的是，它不仅谈安全，也谈“精神与文化健康”“国家的英雄与荣光”“新的黄金时代”等价值叙事。

“唐罗主义”与传统“门罗主义”的差异可以用两句话概括：门罗主义强调“美国的半球利益”；唐罗主义更强调“特朗普的行动表演”。唐罗主义的思想根基是“让美国再次伟大”，但在特朗普的世界里，“让美国再次伟大”并非单纯的国家复兴叙事，它更像一种个人叙事的生产机制:制造“美国的伟大”，等于制造“特朗普的伟大”。

换而言之，特朗普通过“让美国再次伟大”实现“让特朗普再次伟大”的理想。如此，当“伟大”被写进个人履历时，规则就很难再扮演裁判的角色，这就解释了为什么在特朗普的政治话语中，规则不是合法性的来源，而是行动力的限制。

因此，“打破禁忌”本身就是一种可兑现的政治资本：对支持者而言，这证明“他敢做别人不敢做的事”；对反对者而言，即使你谴责，也是在强化他“敢为人先的英雄形象”；对外部世界而言，则形成一种强烈的震慑和权力的傲慢，“我做了，秩序就得跟着改”。

当我们把这个逻辑放到对委的军事行动中可以发现，美国一方面把行动描述为“执法任务”，另一方面又规定委内瑞拉的政治走向，合法性在“执法”与“接管”之间摇摆。如此矛盾，正是唐罗主义的行动逻辑，先用行动制造事实，再用叙事补写合法性，理解了这种人格化叙事，就能更清楚地解释特朗普为什么偏偏要选委内瑞拉，为什么偏偏要用“掳走总统”这种粗暴的极端方式。

唐罗主义的使命

从叙事功能上看，特朗普通过奇袭委内瑞拉至少完成了四个任务——这四点构成“特朗普行动逻辑”的核心，也决定了未来风险的走向。

第一，切断历史与制度的连续性。它向支持者传达一个信号，过去的外交规则、授权程序、国际法包装都是“失败者写的”，我从来不怕争议，争议本身只会强化一种姿态，不是我需要规则，而是规则需要跟上我的脚步——这正是单边主义对集体决策程序的公开瓦解。

第二，把国际政治“美国内政化”。在特朗普的逻辑里，委内瑞拉不再是一个主权国家，而变成美国国内政治叙事中的道具；委内瑞拉不是问题，只是美国政治剧情的一段素材。

第三，将“个人意志”抬升为秩序来源。门罗主义时代，美国至少需要把秩序解释为“半球稳定”，唐罗主义则是“用行动重写秩序”。在联合国会议的讨论中，各国批评的恰恰是单边使用武力与强制行动正在侵蚀国际法的基本底线，然而在特朗普那里，秩序不再由规则生成，而由行动者的意志生成，秩序是个人意志的胜利。

第四，为后续行动降低心理门槛。一旦“掳走他国元首”这种禁忌被打破，下一次行动就不再是“不可想象”，这才是最大的不确定性，世界会逐渐适应一个“被强制行动改写”的现实。更糟糕的是，如果现实层面难以追责，就会诱发模仿与再测试，当规则不再是合法性的来源，而只是行动力的限制，我们面对的将不只是一次危机，而是集体行动机制的破产和一种危险范式的扩散。

雪崩时，没有一片雪花是无辜的。如果世界不能通过一致行动打破特朗普政府刚刚萌芽的霸权新范式，未来可能真像智利总统博里奇所言：今天是委内瑞拉，明天就可能是任何国家。

In the early hours of January 3, 2026,the United States launched a blitzkrieg against Venezuela,and seized its President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.This incident immediately sent shockwaves around the world.Over the “dangerous precedent” it set, the United Nationsexpressed serious concern.Many countries condemned the US for violating principles of international law.While the Trump administration claimedthe mission was a “law enforcement operation”,it made no secret ofits ambitions for Venezuela’s oil resources.

Following Venezuela,the Trump administration singled out Colombiaalong with Cuba, Mexico, and other Latin American nations,issuing overt political threatsand even signals of potential military intervention.Oil is far from its true objectivenor is Venezuela.It is merely the first target, not the last.History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.The specter of hegemonyand power politics has never truly departed.This time, howeverit cloaked in the rhetoric of “America First”to haunt the Western Hemisphere anew.

Is the Monroe Doctrine back?

Trump’s action in Venezuelawas not a simple revival of the traditional Monroe Doctrinebut rather signaled the official debut of the Donroe Doctrine an “imperial show” blending radical unilateralismwith an extreme personalization of power.

To understand the context of Trump’s military action against Venezuela,we must answer three questions.First,what exactly is the Monroe Doctrineand its historical and cultural underpinnings?Second,Donroe Doctrine vs. Monroe Doctrine:What are their fundamental differences?Third,once the paradigm of “the logic behind Trump’s action” is establishedwhat impacts will it haveon both the international and regional orders?

Let us pull the camera back to two centuries ago,a starting point that shaped the political imagination of the Americas.

Monroe Doctrine:

From Opposing “Foreign Interference” to Being the “Policeman of the Western Hemisphere”

In 1823,in his State of the Union Address,US President James Monroearticulated a principle that would later become widely known:America for the Americans.The original intent of the Monroe Doctrinewas to oppose Europe’s attempts to re-colonize the Americas.This undoubtedly carriedstrong overtones of defense and geopolitical protection.It could be saidthat the Monroe Doctrine of this period resembled more ofa warning sign stating “No Europeans Allowed”.What truly shaped Latin American historywas not the original intent of the Monroe Doctrinebut its “corollary” in the wake of US power expansion.In 1904,Venezuela found itself in a debt crisisthat prompted military pressures from Europe.At this juncture,US President Theodore Roosevelt stepped forwardand proposed the famous Roosevelt Corollary.When Latin American nations exhibited cases of“wrongdoing or impotence”the US could exercise “an international police power”.This transformed the Monroe Doctrine,from opposing “foreign interference”to endorsing only US “intervention”.In this context,the sovereignty of Latin American nations was often “conditional”with eligibility judged by the US.

Over a hundred years ago,Venezuela triggered the creation of the Roosevelt Corollary.Today,it has becomea testing ground for the “Trump Corollary”.However,if we view Trump’s actionmerely as a revival of the Monroe Doctrine,we soon encounter aclear interpretive obstacle:Even in its most hardline formthe Monroe Doctrine typically relied on historicaland institutional continuity to justify itself.It needed congressional authorization, endorsement from alliesand a veneer of international law ,at the very least, it had to put on an air that I am maintaining order.Trump’s action in Venezuela, howeverexposes a different logic:Established rules are not sources of legitimacybut constraints on action.In other words, the Monroe Doctrineinterprets facts through established ruleswhile the Donroe Doctrineinterprets rules through established facts.When interviewed by The New York TimesTrump openly statedthat his “own morality” was the only thingthat can stop him in the world.Therefore,understanding the logic behind Trump’s actionnecessitates a shift from the institutionalized tradition of the Monroe Doctrineto the personalized structure of the Donroe Doctrine.

Donroe Doctrine:

MAGA Is Meant to “Make Trump Great Again”

First, it’s important to clarify:The Donroe Doctrine is nota strictly academic termbut rather a refined summary of the logic behind Trump’s action.It holds explanatory powerbecause it capturesthe core mechanism driving Trump’s action:

a highly personalized narrative structure——a mechanism that nests national action within personal narrativesand rewrites foreign policiesinto a personal political brand.

On December 4, 2025, the US releasedthe National Security Strategy, in whichthe Trump administration enshrined the Trump Corollaryinto the national security document and emphasized “Western Hemisphere Fist”.Interestingly,the document addressed not only securitybut also American spiritual and cultural health,its past glories and heroesand a new golden age, all of its core value narratives.

The differences between the Donroe Doctrine and the traditional Monroe Doctrinecan be summarized in two sentences:The Monroe Doctrine emphasizes “American interests in the Western Hemisphere”.The Donroe Doctrine places greater emphasis on“Trump’s performative actions”.The ideological foundation of the Donroe Doctrine isMAGA ——“Make America Great Again”.Yet in Trump’s world,MAGAis not simply a narrative of national revival,It is more likea mechanism for producing personal narratives,Creating “American greatness”is equivalent to creating “Trump’s greatness”,by “making America great again”。Trump achieves his ideal of “making Trump great again”.Once “greatness” is written into a personal resumerules can hardly serve as arbiters.This explains whyin Trump’s political discourserules are not sources of legitimacybut constraints on action.

Therefore,“breaking taboos” itselfis a form of political capital that can be cashed in:For supporters,this proves “he dares to do what others don’t”;for opponents,even condemnationreinforces his “heroic image of daring to be first”;for the external world,it projects an aura of formidable intimidation and the arrogance of power——“I did it, and order must adapt”.

When we apply this logicto the military operation in Venezuelawe see the US, on one handdescribed the action as a “law enforcement operation”while on the other hand, dictated Venezuela’s political trajectory.Legitimacy swings between “law enforcement” and “takeover”.This contradictionexemplifies the logic behind the Donroe Doctrine:first creating facts with actionsthen supplementing legitimacy through narrative.Understanding this personalized narrative

helps explain more clearlywhy Trump chose Venezuelaand adopted a means of “abducting the president”which was so brutal and extreme.

Missions of the Donroe Doctrine

From a narrative perspective,Trump’s surprise attack on Venezuelahas completed at least four missionswhich formthe core of the logic behind Trump’s actionand determine how risks might develop in the future.

First,severing historical and institutional continuity.It signals to supporters thatpast diplomatic norms, authorization proceduresand international law frameworkswere all “written by losers”.“I never fear controversy;controversy itself only reinforces a stance”“It is not that I need rulesbut that rules must keep pace with me”.This marks unilateralism’sopen dismantling of collective decision-making processes.

Second,transforming international politics into “US domestic politics”.In Trump’s logicVenezuela is no longer seen as a sovereign statebut as a tool in America’sdomestic political narrative.Venezuela is not considered a problembut merely a plot element in the American political drama.

Third,elevating “personal will” to the source of order.In the Monroe Doctrine era,the US at least needed to interpret orderas “hemispheric stability”. The Donroe Doctrine, however, rewrites order through action.At UN meetings,countries critiqued howthe unilateral use of force and coercive actionsare undermining the fundamental principles of international law.Yet for Trump,order no longer emerges from rulesbut from the will of the actor ——order is the triumph of personal will.

Fourth,lowering the psychological threshold for subsequent actions.Once the taboo of “abducting a foreign head of state”is broken,the next action is no longer “unthinkable”.This is the greatest uncertainty.The world will gradually adapt to a realityrewritten by coercive actions.Worse still,if accountability is hard in practice,it will induce imitation and retesting.When rules are no longer sources of legitimacybut merely constraints on action,we face more than just a crisisbut the collapse of collective action mechanismsand the spread of a dangerous paradigm.

No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.If the world cannot act collectivelyto break the Trump administration’snascent hegemonic paradigm,the future may indeed unfold as Chilean President Gabriel Boric warned:“Today it’s Venezuela,tomorrow it could be any other country”.