During his first presidential term, Donald Trump’s secretary of state Rex Tillerson declared in Texas on February 1, 2018 that the Monroe Doctrine had been a success, claiming it was still relevant to prevent the ingress and influence of Russia and China and protect democracy and stability in Latin America.The doctrine promulgated in 1823 by US President James Monroe, reiterated in 1904 by President Theodore Roosevelt (soon after the US had defeated Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, etc.) essentially put an end to European colonial expansion in the western hemisphere, replacing it with US hegemony.Successive US regimes recently downplayed this doctrine in deference to Latin American resentment of the Big Brother syndrome. The well-deserved US notoriety was based on verified reports of dirty tricks to effect regime change (Guatemala 1948, Chile 1973), invasions and occupations (Dominican Republic 1916-24, Haiti 1915-35, Grenada 1983, Panama 1989) among other operations. Through this century the US has struggled to maintain its waning political influence in countries which have stuck to their independent foreign policy in deliberate defiance (Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia), or have calibrated independent policies, nuanced to maintain relations at a measured distance (Brazil, Mexico, Argentina till 2021, Chile, Peru and others).Growing influence of ChinaThe US seeks to maintain what it considers essential military operational presence across the region through bases, forward operating locations, frequent manoeuvres by the Southern Command in the Caribbean, military to military contacts, training exercises, etc. Political relations have been bolstered with some regimes through over-arching projects like Plan Colombia, Plan Merida in Mexico, and less ambitious projects in other countries.The pink tide that spread this century, partly through ideological movements inspired largely by Cuba in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and to some extent in Argentina, was viewed with open suspicion.To make matters worse, China’s massive economic engagement and influence resulted in 21 countries signing up to its Belt and Road Initiative and has made it the largest trading partner of the main economies. It threatens to bolster, if not replace outright in some countries, waning Russian influence. Though primarily focused on trade, investment and high-level political interaction, China’s economic clout has a corollary. Latin American interest in Chinese language and area studies by increasing numbers of firms and professionals seeking a foothold in that market enhance Chinese soft power in the US backyard.It held its own when right-wing Presidents Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil) and Javier Milei (Argentina) threatened to block Chinese business and other interests (space station, communications infrastructure, etc.) by threatening to stop imports of agricultural products from these countries. Trump’s tariffs on China have so far been countered by the latter replacing billions of dollars of US soyabeans with imports from Brazil. China’s massive investment in Latin American infrastructure includes the $4 billion Peruvian Pacific port of Chancay, and trans-south American rail and road connections connecting countries across the southern continent.At sixes and sevens, US foreign policy has relied on blandishments and naked muscle power. The former was glaringly evident in Trump’s personal threats to Brazil to stop the prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump clone who attempted an insurrection after he lost the election to President Lula in 2022. Less blatant but no less aggressive were threats to take over the Panama Canal on the pretext that Chinese companies were controlling access to it.Pliant regimes like the Guatemalan, or those which consider the US can help them overcome – or conceal – the mismanagement of their political economies, will perhaps provide the US with short term gains, such as El Salvador, which is accepting deported immigrants, or Ecuador changing its laws to allow US bases and military on its soil. With the recent election in Bolivia, where a radical left-wing president has been replaced by a political centrist, the US can expect a return of its Ambassador and other political benefits.Deterioration of US-Brazil relationsMore serious is the deterioration of relations with Brazil, the unchallenged power in the region, where President Lula has publicly challenged Trump after the latter levied tariffs up to 50% despite the US enjoying a trade surplus, and Colombia, whose President Gustavo Petro just excoriated the US, and Trump personally, at the UN in September. After the sixth attack on an alleged drug-smuggling vessel in the Caribbean, he called Trump a murderer, provoking the latter to suspend all aid and threaten massive tariffs.These are no small challenges for US diplomacy. Brazil is the current chair of the BRICS and will hand over to India next year. It is also a member of the G20 and is diplomatically active around the globe. Colombia was made a major non-NATO ally by the US years ago and the armed forces of the two countries have an active relationship, not confined to the war on drugs. At peak the US provided Colombia $700 million in annual aid, which fell to $230 million in the year ended 30 September. In 2009 the Obama administration signed an agreement giving the US access to two naval bases, three air bases and two army bases in Colombia.Trump’s allegations of the threat to the US from drugs from Colombia and Venezuela are specious, according to most analysts. The latest UN drugs report, as well the one from the European Union, claim that Venezuelan territory accounts for perhaps 5% of the narcotics despatched from the region.Though Colombian cultivation of cocaine has increased, reliable international expert and media reports indicate that the Petro regime is indeed collaborating to push back against the cartels and acknowledge that Petro’s policy of addressing the root causes of narco-traffic, such as education, alternative cultivation, negotiations with criminal organisations, etc. are worthwhile pursuing.In fact the bigger problem is Mexico, the main source of fentanyl, acknowledged by Trump himself as the most dangerous. With its southern neighbour however, Trump has been thrifty with his threats, given overlapping economic interests.US diplomacy, never fully effective in Latin America, has just been dealt more body blows under Donald Trump. His reliance on military muscle and financial fulminations will have a limited shelf-life. Even if his administration gives way to a more moderate regime post 2028, the psychological damage on self-respecting leaders caused by the effect US threats can bring to bear will be hard to overcome.India’s increasing stakes in Latin AmericaThe Indian establishment is increasing its stakes in Latin America. Annual bilateral trade at $48 billion may not make headlines but both sides seem to have transcended the vicissitudes of commodity price cycles to set the commercial relationship on a firm foundation. We are in active negotiations with Chile and Peru to finalise long pending free trade agreements. Similar talks have commenced with Colombia.The pro-active outreach of Brazil, after the recently concluded visit of its Vice President to India, and President Lula’s promotion of a strategic alliance with India, bode well for a more substantive relationship, which will include the setting up of an establishment by its aviation giant Embraer in India and a more active collaboration with its oil giant Petrobras.Our ideologically agnostic attitude favours a strong economic matrix with Mexico and Argentina. The economic complementarity, evident for decades between the Latin American natural resource base – hydrocarbons, agricultural surpluses, gold and other minerals – with India’s technological and manufacturing prowess, is a ready foundation for a much more ambitious superstructure. The political will has existed in Latin America and needs to be reciprocated by India in a world where greater powers threaten sovereign priorities with unfair consequences.Deepak Bhojwani is a retired Indian diplomat who served as Head of Mission in Sao Paulo (Brazil), Venezuela, Colombia and Cuba, concurrently accredited to Ecuador, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic and Haiti from 2000 to 2012.