The notion of a “Greater North America” is now official doctrine in the US: in early March, in remarks that remain largely underreported, USSecretary of War Pete Hegsethoutlined what may well become the defining geopolitical framework of Donald Trump’s second administration.Speakingat the Americas Counter Cartel Conference, Hegseth was blunt: Washington now views the Western Hemisphere as a single strategic space, stretching “from Greenland to the Gulf of America to the Panama Canal”. He later added, “we call this strategic map the Greater North America.”
To read this article in the following languages, click theTranslate Websitebutton below the author’s name.
Español, Hebrew, عربي, Farsi, Русский, Portugues, 中文,Français, Deutsch, Italiano, 日本語,한국어, Türkçe, Српски. And 40 more languages.
The implications are vast: for one thing, countries traditionally grouped under the label “Global South” are, in this framework, reclassified as components of the US “security perimeter”. Hegseth evendismissedthe term outright, thus signaling a conceptual shift that is as ideological as it is strategic.
The Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in 1823, was originally framed as a defensive posture against European interference. What we are witnessing now is neo-Monroeism in its most expansive form: a bold claim to hemispheric primacy.
It is true, though, that there already was, under Biden, an earlier phase of the same expansionist logic (now being systematized under Trump), as Iwrotein 2024: one may recall the State Departmentmoveback thenclaimingvast portions on the ocean floor, from the Gulf of Mexico (now “Gulf of America”) to the Arctic.
Back to “Greater North America”, it is no wonder the reaction across the region has been negative: countries such asColombiaandCosta Ricafeel they have been quietly folded into this expanded “security perimeter”.
Regarding the impacts of such an approach, analysts warn that this aims at effectivelyreducingnational autonomy in matters of defense and foreign policy. This is particularly concerning for smaller states with limited leverage.
Some critics have gone further, drawing parallels with other expansionist doctrines. Some have evenlikened“Greater North America” to a form of geopolitical consolidation reminiscent of “Greater Israel”.
Be as it may, the strategic logic behind the doctrine is not difficult to discern. Washington faces growing challenges globally, from Eurasian integration to persistent instability in the Middle East. By consolidating control over its immediate neighborhood, so to speak, the US seeks to secure its rear while projecting power abroad. Thus, the hemisphere becomes, in a way both a buffer zone and a resource base.
Source: Global Research
