Lula Killed the Donroe Doctrine

Project Syndicate | Jeremy Adelman

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s victory in Brazil’s presidential election has delivered a severe setback to United States foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere. The election outcome undermines Donald Trump’s hemispheric strategy, which sought to establish a network of regional client states aligned with his business interests and iron-fist posture.

This strategic retreat previously allowed Washington to construct a controllable regional stronghold while systematically abandoning traditional liberal partners. The far-right electoral project failed in Brazil. Consequently, the sudden collapse of this alignment leaves Washington’s regional policy framework in tatters and severely complicates strategic execution across Latin America. Without Brazil as a key anchor for populist governance, American efforts to cultivate compliant client states face immediate institutional friction throughout South America. The setback exposes structural limits in attempting to build hemispheric influence around ideological proxies and bilateral pressure. Washington now confronts a re-energised diplomatic landscape resistant to transactional strategic dictates.

Comment

The disintegration of alignment with Brasília exposes the structural fragilities of bilateral transactionalism within US hemispheric security architecture. Relying on ideological affinity rather than institutionalised treaties like the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance leaves regional coalition-building vulnerable to domestic electoral cycles. Without Brazil’s armed forces integrated into a coherent diplomatic posture, Washington loses its primary anchor for multilateral security coordination across Latin America.

This vulnerability mirrors the systemic fracturing of the Rio Pact framework during the 1982 Falklands Conflict, when divergent national priorities undermined collective defence guarantees. Consequently, reliance on temporary political alignment in Brasília consistently fails to substitute for binding commitments within the Organization of American States.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If Washington cannot rely on binding mechanisms like the Rio Treaty during political transitions in Brasília, will future hemispheric defense coordination lean more heavily on informal bilateral pacts or regional sub-coalitions?

The trajectory indicates that Washington will increasingly default to targeted bilateral security arrangements rather than broad multilateral consensus. While bilateral pacts offer immediate operational flexibility, they leave long-term posture vulnerable to sudden diplomatic realignments following national elections. Consequently, regional security architecture is likely to become more fragmented and subject to periodic disruption.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

Read the original article