At the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 29, 2025, Bolivian President Luis Arce didn’t mince words. He stood before the world’s diplomats and took direct aim at the Trump administration’s foreign policy, warning that the United States was pursuing a path of renewed hegemony at the expense of liberal institutions, free trade, and the broader process of globalization. According to Arce, the so-called “new Monroe Doctrine” was nothing but an attempt to reassert control over Latin America and the Caribbean, using colonial-style tactics that included undermining liberal democracy and promoting regional militarization. "It is peace, not war, that must guide our international relations," Arce declared, as reported by Xinhua, drawing a clear line in the sand about the direction he believes international diplomacy should take.
This sharp rebuke comes at a moment when the old rules of global power seem to be shifting, and the very doctrine Arce referenced—the Monroe Doctrine—finds itself at the center of renewed controversy. As Saeed Naqvi wrote in The Asian Age on September 28, 2025, the Monroe Doctrine, once designed to keep outside powers away from what the United States considers its backyard, is now being openly challenged by the likes of China and Russia. Both nations have thrown their support behind Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, as the U.S. continues its long-standing efforts to orchestrate regime change in Caracas. Naqvi observed, "President James Monroe must have turned in his grave as the Monroe Doctrine, named after him, is desecrated by outside powers China and Russia."
These tensions are not just theoretical. Only four days before Naqvi’s piece, the U.S. Navy sank two Venezuelan ships, accusing them of ferrying narcotics—a charge Caracas flatly denied. This incident is just the latest in a series of confrontations that underscore the region’s volatility and the lengths to which Washington is willing to go to maintain its influence. The U.S. has not been shy about its intentions: over the past several years, it has tried to unseat Maduro, most notably by recognizing Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s president from 2019 to 2023. Guaido, described by Naqvi as "the apple of Donald Trump’s eye as well as Joe Biden’s," became a symbol of the U.S. commitment to regime change, even as he spent years shuttling between safe houses in Caracas and Colombia and waiting in Washington’s corridors of power for his moment to arrive.
But Washington’s efforts have not gone as planned. The CIA, Britain’s MI6, and Israel’s Mossad—long-time practitioners of regime change—failed to oust Hugo Chavez and now, his successor, Nicolas Maduro. In a twist, the U.S. tried a new approach: instead of removing Maduro first, they simply ignored him, anointing Guaido as president by fiat and expecting the world to follow suit. As Naqvi pointed out, "By this amazing sleight of hand, an ‘authoritarian’ leader was ‘replaced’ by a ‘democratic’ one." Yet, the world’s most powerful nation discovered that there are, in fact, limits to its power. Guaido’s stint as recognized president has since ended, and his whereabouts are now uncertain, but the episode left a lasting mark on the international stage.
The contest for influence in Latin America is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. Naqvi’s analysis extends far beyond Venezuela, highlighting how global alliances are splintering and new power centers are emerging. He notes that Caracas has "opened its doors to Beijing, Moscow and New Delhi, finding in them not just as buyers of oil but also shields against economic warfare." The inclusion of India in this mix is particularly intriguing, suggesting that the realignment of global power is drawing in actors far beyond the traditional East-West divide.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is recalibrating its interests elsewhere. After withdrawing from Afghanistan and vacating the Bagram airbase, former President Trump has reportedly expressed a renewed interest in the region, even suggesting that "very bad things will happen" if the Taliban government does not return the base to American control. Pakistan, too, is back in the global spotlight, having recently signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia that some speculate could involve a nuclear dimension—though, as Naqvi notes, this seems unlikely to keep Tehran up at night. China, for its part, has already brokered a reduction in hostilities between Riyadh and Tehran, further complicating the traditional balance of power in the Middle East.
In Africa, the winds of change are equally strong. Burkina Faso’s leader, Ibrahim Traore, has struck a deal with Pakistan for a fleet of jets, tanks, and naval equipment based on Chinese technology—a sign of how far-reaching Beijing’s influence has become. These developments, according to Naqvi, are symptoms of "a settled order mutating into something else."
Even Europe, long a pillar of Western dominance, is feeling the tremors. French President Emmanuel Macron, recognizing the shifting sands, warned his diplomats, armed forces, and top bureaucrats in September 2022 that "over 400 years of Western domination of world affairs is coming to an end." Macron’s candid admission underscores the sense of uncertainty gripping Western capitals as they confront the rise of new powers and the erosion of old certainties.
To make sense of these seismic shifts, Naqvi turns to the work of Professor Grahame Allison of Harvard, whose "Thucydides Trap" theory posits that the rise of a new power (like China) often leads to conflict with the established power (like the U.S.), much as Athens’ rise provoked war with Sparta. Allison’s research, which includes 15 historical case studies since the 16th century, suggests that such transitions are fraught with danger—though the existence of nuclear weapons today makes direct comparison tricky. Still, the question lingers: must the West’s decline and China’s rise inevitably lead to war?
President Arce’s speech at the United Nations, then, was more than just a critique of U.S. policy. It was a call for a different kind of international order—one guided by peace, not war, and one that recognizes the limits of any single nation’s power. The events unfolding in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Europe all point to a world in flux, where alliances are shifting and the old playbook no longer guarantees success.
As the dust settles on these dramatic realignments, one thing is clear: the era of uncontested Western dominance is drawing to a close, and the path forward will require new thinking, genuine diplomacy, and, above all, a commitment to peaceful coexistence. The world, it seems, is learning—sometimes the hard way—that power has its limits, and that peace, as President Arce so forcefully reminded the United Nations, must be the guiding star for the future.