“Greater North America”: From Greenland To Panama, US Redrawing Hemisphere Against “Global South”

By Uriel Araujo

The Trump administration’s “Greater North America” vision signals a bold revival of neo-Monroeism. From Greenland to the Panama Canal, the hemisphere is reframed as a single strategic space, “undoing” part of the Global South. Regional backlash and global overstretch suggest the risks may outweigh the gains, even from Washington’s perspective.

The notion of a “Greater North America” is now official doctrine in the US: in early March, in remarks that remain largely underreported, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth outlined what may well become the defining geopolitical framework of Donald Trump’s second administration. Speaking at 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.”

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 even dismissed the term outright, thus signalling 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 I wrote in 2024: one may recall the State Department move back then claiming vast 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 as Colombia and Costa Rica feel they have been quietly folded into this expanded “security perimeter”.

Regarding the impacts of such an approach, analysts warn that this aims at effectively reducing national autonomy in matters of defence 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 even likened “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 neighbourhood, 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.

There is, however, a contradiction at the heart of this strategy, namely the fact that the US is already overstretched. The ongoing entanglement in the Persian Gulf, particularly in relation to Iran, continues to drain military and political capital. In fact, the ability to fight and win two simultaneous major regional conflicts (“two theatres”) has long been a core planning assumption of US defence policy. Now, while sustaining one such theatre (in Iran), Washington is at risk of running out of missiles, while Iranian strikes have destroyed or damaged most US bases in the Middle East – with military personnel even being forced to work remotely, from hotels. So, thus far, there is little evidence that Washington can sustainably manage multiple theatres of tension, to put it mildly,

Moreover, economic reverberations of this war are being felt as far as Latin America, where trade disruptions and financial volatility are on the rise. This is where the risks of neo-Monroeism become evident. I’ve recently argued that Trump’s posture toward Panama and, more recently, Cuba (among others) reflects a broader pattern of seeking coercive hemispheric control. The logic is simple enough: tighten control over nearby states, thereby compensating for vulnerabilities elsewhere. Yet this approach may backfire.

One can take Cuba as a case in point: the idea of deeper US involvement, potentially even military, is being floated in policy circles. Such a move, however, would likely open another front, stretching resources even thinner. One may recall the lessons of past interventions: proximity does not guarantee simplicity. On the contrary, it often magnifies complexity. As I have recently argued, a Cuban quagmire would only add to Washington’s burdens.

Back to Hegseth remarks – it is true that one cannot do away with the notion of “Global South” in the Americas just by refusing to call it thus. One may argue that Latin American countries lack leverage: most do not possess nuclear capabilities; only Brazil, Mexico and Argentina have (civilian) nuclear programs. On the other hand, power in the 21st century is increasingly multifaceted. Economic partnerships, particularly within emerging groups such as BRICS, provide alternative avenues of influence. Moreover, in the context of the New Cold War, blatantly redefining sovereign nations as components of a security perimeter is unlikely to go uncontested indefinitely.

There is also the issue of perception: by framing the hemisphere as an extension of US strategic space, Washington risks reinforcing narratives of domination that have long fuelled anti-American sentiment. It may have tangible consequences for cooperation, legitimacy, and stability.

Thus, the “Greater North America” concept may prove to be quite the double-edged sword: it is constrained by structural realities that cannot be wished away.

While neo-Monroeism is clearly advancing, the question is whether it can succeed, with Washington already entangled abroad and facing growing resistance at home and in the hemisphere.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

Categories: Analysis, Geopolitics, International Affairs

Tags: America, Donald Trump, Geopolitics, Global South, Greenland, neo-Monroeism, North America, Panama, USA