INTERNATIONAL
The “Donroe Doctrine” and the unravelling of the peace of Westphalia since 1648
Neutrality becomes betrayal to Trump as when the likes of Japan and Australia cannot support his attempt to own Greenland. NATO would suffer a huge set back as would Ukraine. - REUTERS/Filepic
WHAT Trumpists have begun to call the “Donroe Doctrine” may sound provocative, even clever.
AI Brief
Yet beneath the slogan lies a worldview that risks wiping away the very foundations of the modern international system—the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, which institutionalized sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the legal equality of states.
Westphalia did not end war.
It did something far more important. It set limits on how wars were justified, contained, and terminated. It recognized that coexistence among unequal powers required rules, not just force.
Without these principles, international politics becomes permanent coercion.
The “Donroe Doctrine” rejects this restraint.
It revives an openly pre-Westphalian logic in which geography equals entitlement, power equals legitimacy, and weakness equals forfeiture. It is not merely realist. It is revisionist in the most destabilizing sense.
At its core, this doctrine assumes that great powers have an inherent right to dominate their near abroad.
Proximity becomes suspicion.
Neutrality becomes betrayal to Trump as when the likes of Japan and Australia cannot support his attempt to own Greenland. NATO would suffer a huge set back as would Ukraine.
Multilateralism becomes an obstacle rather than a stabilizer. Law follows power, not the other way around.
This worldview has found political expression under leaders such as Donald Trump, whose disdain for alliances, treaties, and international institutions is well documented.
In this frame, alliances are transactional, sovereignty is conditional, and history is something to be rewritten, not respected.
The immediate danger is obvious: small and middle powers lose protection. But the deeper danger is systemic.
Once sovereignty is openly treated as negotiable, the entire international order enters a chain reaction.
Great powers do not operate in isolation. When one asserts an expanded sphere of influence, others respond in kind.
What begins as unilateral assertion quickly becomes reciprocal escalation. The erosion of rules becomes contagious.
If one power claims the right to redraw borders or coerce neighbours in the name of security, others will claim the same right.
Eurasia, East Asia, the Middle East, and even Europe become arenas of competitive revisionism and irredentism rather than managed rivalry.
This is how great power rivalry spirals. Not through ideology alone, but through precedent.
Once norms are broken, restraint disappears. Every action demands a counteraction. Every move requires an offset.
The Cold War, for all its dangers, was governed by rules—deterrence, spheres with implicit limits, crisis management mechanisms, and arms control. The post-Westphalian order constrained excess.
The “Donroe Doctrine” abandons these brakes entirely.
In a nuclear and technologically saturated world, that is reckless. Rivalry without rules does not stay cold. It accelerates miscalculation. It rewards pre-emption. It punishes patience.
For ASEAN, the implications are existential.
Southeast Asia has survived not because it is powerful, but because it has insisted on norms: non-interference, peaceful dispute settlement, and regional autonomy. These are not abstract ideals. They are survival strategies.
If Westphalian principles collapse, ASEAN becomes a chessboard once again. States are forced to choose sides.
Balancing becomes near impossible when Trump's threats against Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Iran come in quick succession, the world is out of equilibrium.
Neutrality becomes intolerable, and even the likes of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore are all objecting to. Regional institutions are hollowed out.
The same logic applies to Africa, Latin America, and much of the Global South.
These regions depend on predictability, not domination. They benefit from rules precisely because power is asymmetrical.
Trumpist defenders may argue that this is simply honesty—that power has always ruled international politics.
But classical realists understood limits. They feared hubris. They emphasized prudence and balances.
What we are witnessing instead is a nihilistic realism. It recognizes power but denies responsibility.
It glorifies dominance while rejecting stewardship. It mistakes coercion for control.
Iranians are asked to rise up against their clerical establishment, a move which even Saudi Arabia, an adversary of Iran, is adamantly against.
The chain reaction does not stop at geopolitics.
Economic interdependence becomes weaponized.
Trade becomes leverage. Supply chains become pressure points. Technology standards become tools of exclusion.
As rivalry hardens, cooperation collapses. Global problems—climate change, pandemics, financial instability—become unmanageable.
Every forum becomes an arena. Every negotiation becomes zero-sum.
Ironically, the great powers themselves become the principal victims of this disorder.
Power exercised without legitimacy breeds resistance, not stability. Coercion invites counter-coalitions.
Intimidation accelerates arms races. What appears as dominance in the short term erodes strategic depth in the long run.
History offers no shortage of lessons. Empires that overreached collapsed not because they were weak, but because they mistook compulsion for consent. The international system, like any political order, rests not merely on force but on acceptance. When rules are abandoned, fear replaces trust—and fear is a volatile foundation.
The Peace of Westphalia survived because it balanced power with restraint. It acknowledged inequality among states, yet refused to sanctify domination. It allowed rivalry, but not annihilation. It accepted spheres of influence, but imposed limits. These constraints were not moral luxuries; they were necessities born of exhaustion and catastrophe.
The “Donroe Doctrine” discards that historical wisdom. It seeks a world of perpetual pressure, where influence is enforced daily and loyalty is continuously tested. Such a system cannot endure. It demands constant escalation, permanent mobilisation, and endless confrontation.
For convening powers, the choice is stark but unavoidable. Defending multilateralism is no longer idealism; it is self-preservation. Upholding sovereignty is not nostalgia; it is strategic realism. Reaffirming rules is not weakness; it is the only way to prevent might from becoming fate.
Westphalia may be fraying, but it is not obsolete. Its principles remain the last barrier between competition and chaos. To abandon them is not to enter a more “honest” world, but a more dangerous one—where peace is temporary, war is normalized, and restraint is ridiculed.
The real question, then, is not whether the Westphalian order is imperfect. It always was.
The question is whether the world can survive its complete unravelling.
On that score, history is unambiguous.
Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is Professor of ASEAN Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationaliation and ASEAN Studies (IINTAS) at the International Islamic University Malaysia.
** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.
Your gateway to global news, insights, and stories that matter.
AI Brief
- The doctrine dismisses sovereignty-based Westphalian norms, elevating proximity and power over law and multilateral rules.
- Treating alliances as transactional and sovereignty as negotiable triggers reciprocal escalation, coercive economics and regional instability.
- ASEAN and the Global South face acute risks as neutrality erodes, while unmanaged rivalry undermines crisis control and global problem-solving.
Yet beneath the slogan lies a worldview that risks wiping away the very foundations of the modern international system—the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, which institutionalized sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the legal equality of states.
Westphalia did not end war.
It did something far more important. It set limits on how wars were justified, contained, and terminated. It recognized that coexistence among unequal powers required rules, not just force.
Without these principles, international politics becomes permanent coercion.
The “Donroe Doctrine” rejects this restraint.
It revives an openly pre-Westphalian logic in which geography equals entitlement, power equals legitimacy, and weakness equals forfeiture. It is not merely realist. It is revisionist in the most destabilizing sense.
At its core, this doctrine assumes that great powers have an inherent right to dominate their near abroad.
Proximity becomes suspicion.
Neutrality becomes betrayal to Trump as when the likes of Japan and Australia cannot support his attempt to own Greenland. NATO would suffer a huge set back as would Ukraine.
Multilateralism becomes an obstacle rather than a stabilizer. Law follows power, not the other way around.
This worldview has found political expression under leaders such as Donald Trump, whose disdain for alliances, treaties, and international institutions is well documented.
In this frame, alliances are transactional, sovereignty is conditional, and history is something to be rewritten, not respected.
The immediate danger is obvious: small and middle powers lose protection. But the deeper danger is systemic.
Once sovereignty is openly treated as negotiable, the entire international order enters a chain reaction.
Great powers do not operate in isolation. When one asserts an expanded sphere of influence, others respond in kind.
What begins as unilateral assertion quickly becomes reciprocal escalation. The erosion of rules becomes contagious.
If one power claims the right to redraw borders or coerce neighbours in the name of security, others will claim the same right.
Eurasia, East Asia, the Middle East, and even Europe become arenas of competitive revisionism and irredentism rather than managed rivalry.
This is how great power rivalry spirals. Not through ideology alone, but through precedent.
Once norms are broken, restraint disappears. Every action demands a counteraction. Every move requires an offset.
The Cold War, for all its dangers, was governed by rules—deterrence, spheres with implicit limits, crisis management mechanisms, and arms control. The post-Westphalian order constrained excess.
The “Donroe Doctrine” abandons these brakes entirely.
In a nuclear and technologically saturated world, that is reckless. Rivalry without rules does not stay cold. It accelerates miscalculation. It rewards pre-emption. It punishes patience.
For ASEAN, the implications are existential.
Southeast Asia has survived not because it is powerful, but because it has insisted on norms: non-interference, peaceful dispute settlement, and regional autonomy. These are not abstract ideals. They are survival strategies.
If Westphalian principles collapse, ASEAN becomes a chessboard once again. States are forced to choose sides.
Balancing becomes near impossible when Trump's threats against Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Iran come in quick succession, the world is out of equilibrium.
Neutrality becomes intolerable, and even the likes of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore are all objecting to. Regional institutions are hollowed out.
The same logic applies to Africa, Latin America, and much of the Global South.
These regions depend on predictability, not domination. They benefit from rules precisely because power is asymmetrical.
Trumpist defenders may argue that this is simply honesty—that power has always ruled international politics.
But classical realists understood limits. They feared hubris. They emphasized prudence and balances.
What we are witnessing instead is a nihilistic realism. It recognizes power but denies responsibility.
It glorifies dominance while rejecting stewardship. It mistakes coercion for control.
Iranians are asked to rise up against their clerical establishment, a move which even Saudi Arabia, an adversary of Iran, is adamantly against.
The chain reaction does not stop at geopolitics.
Economic interdependence becomes weaponized.
Trade becomes leverage. Supply chains become pressure points. Technology standards become tools of exclusion.
As rivalry hardens, cooperation collapses. Global problems—climate change, pandemics, financial instability—become unmanageable.
Every forum becomes an arena. Every negotiation becomes zero-sum.
Ironically, the great powers themselves become the principal victims of this disorder.
Power exercised without legitimacy breeds resistance, not stability. Coercion invites counter-coalitions.
Intimidation accelerates arms races. What appears as dominance in the short term erodes strategic depth in the long run.
History offers no shortage of lessons. Empires that overreached collapsed not because they were weak, but because they mistook compulsion for consent. The international system, like any political order, rests not merely on force but on acceptance. When rules are abandoned, fear replaces trust—and fear is a volatile foundation.
The Peace of Westphalia survived because it balanced power with restraint. It acknowledged inequality among states, yet refused to sanctify domination. It allowed rivalry, but not annihilation. It accepted spheres of influence, but imposed limits. These constraints were not moral luxuries; they were necessities born of exhaustion and catastrophe.
The “Donroe Doctrine” discards that historical wisdom. It seeks a world of perpetual pressure, where influence is enforced daily and loyalty is continuously tested. Such a system cannot endure. It demands constant escalation, permanent mobilisation, and endless confrontation.
For convening powers, the choice is stark but unavoidable. Defending multilateralism is no longer idealism; it is self-preservation. Upholding sovereignty is not nostalgia; it is strategic realism. Reaffirming rules is not weakness; it is the only way to prevent might from becoming fate.
Westphalia may be fraying, but it is not obsolete. Its principles remain the last barrier between competition and chaos. To abandon them is not to enter a more “honest” world, but a more dangerous one—where peace is temporary, war is normalized, and restraint is ridiculed.
The real question, then, is not whether the Westphalian order is imperfect. It always was.
The question is whether the world can survive its complete unravelling.
On that score, history is unambiguous.
Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is Professor of ASEAN Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationaliation and ASEAN Studies (IINTAS) at the International Islamic University Malaysia.
** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.
Your gateway to global news, insights, and stories that matter.