The Monroe Doctrine Can Be Viewed as a Moral Opposition to

United states strange policy regarding Latin American countries in 1823

The Monroe Doctrine was a United States foreign policy position that opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It held that any intervention in the political diplomacy of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the U.S.^[ane] The doctrine was central to U.S. foreign policy for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries.^[ii]

President James Monroe first articulated the doctrine on December 2, 1823, during his seventh annual State of the Union Accost to Congress (though information technology would not be named after him until 1850).^[3] At the fourth dimension, well-nigh all Spanish colonies in the Americas had either achieved or were close to independence. Monroe asserted that the New Globe and the Onetime World were to remain distinctly split spheres of influence,^[iv] and thus further efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the region would be viewed as a threat to U.S. security.^{[ii] [5]} In plough, the U.S. would recognize and non interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal diplomacy of European countries.

Past the stop of the 19th century, Monroe's declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the Usa and one of its longest-standing tenets. The intent and consequence of the doctrine persisted for over a century, with but pocket-size variations, and would be invoked past many U.S. statesmen and several U.Due south. presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.

After 1898, the Monroe Doctrine was reinterpreted by Latin American lawyers and intellectuals as promoting multilateralism and non-intervention. In 1933, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the U.S. affirmed this new interpretation, namely through co-founding the Organization of American States.^[half-dozen] Into the 21st century, the doctrine continues to be variably denounced, reinstated, or reinterpreted.

Seeds of the Monroe Doctrine

Despite the U.s.' ancestry equally an neutralist land, the foundation of the Monroe Doctrine was already existence laid even during George Washington's presidency. According to S.East. Morison, "as early every bit 1783, then, the United States adopted the policy of isolation and announced its intention to go along out of Europe. The supplementary principle of the Monroe Doctrine, that Europe must keep out of America, was still over the horizon".^[vii]

While non specifically the Monroe Doctrine, Alexander Hamilton desired to command the sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere, particularly in North America, ^{[ failed verification ]} but this was extended to the Latin American colonies by the Monroe Doctrine.^[8] But Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, was already wanting to found the United states as a globe ability and hoped that it would suddenly become strong plenty to go along the European powers exterior of the Americas, despite the fact that the European countries controlled much more of the Americas than the U.S. herself.^[7] Hamilton expected that the Usa would become the dominant power in the New Globe and would, in the future, act every bit an intermediary between the European powers and whatsoever new countries blossoming nigh the U.South.^[vii]

A annotation from James Madison (Thomas Jefferson's Secretary of Land and a future president) to the U.S. ambassador to Spain, expressed the American federal authorities'south opposition to farther territorial conquering past European powers.^[ix] Madison'southward sentiment might have been meaningless because, as was noted before, the European powers held much more than territory in comparing to the territory held by the U.S. Although Thomas Jefferson was pro-French, in an attempt to keep the British–French rivalry out the U.S., the federal regime under Jefferson fabricated it clear to its ambassadors that the U.S. would not support whatsoever futurity colonization efforts on the Northward American continent.

The U.S. regime feared the victorious European powers that emerged from the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) would revive monarchical regime. France had already agreed to restore the Spanish monarchy in exchange for Cuba.^[10] As the revolutionary Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) ended, Prussia, Austria, and Russia formed the Holy Alliance to defend monarchism. In particular, the Holy Brotherhood authorized military incursions to re-found Bourbon rule over Espana and its colonies, which were establishing their independence.^{[xi] : 153–5}

Groovy Great britain shared the general objective of the Monroe Doctrine, and even wanted to declare a joint statement to keep other European powers from further colonizing the New World. The British feared their trade with the New World would exist harmed if the other European powers further colonized it. In fact, for many years after the doctrine took effect, United kingdom, through the Royal Navy, was the sole nation enforcing it, the U.S. lacking sufficient naval capability.^[viii] The U.South. resisted a joint statement because of the recent memory of the State of war of 1812; however, the immediate provocation was the Russian Ukase of 1821^[12] asserting rights to the Pacific Northwest and forbidding not-Russian ships from approaching the declension.^{[13] [14]}

Doctrine

The total certificate of the Monroe Doctrine, written chiefly by time to come-President then-Secretarial assistant of State John Quincy Adams, is long and couched in diplomatic linguistic communication, but its essence is expressed in two cardinal passages. The first is the introductory statement, which asserts that the New Earth is no longer subject to colonization by the European countries:^[15]

The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, equally a principle in which the rights and interests of the United states of america are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for time to come colonization by any European powers.

The 2d cardinal passage, which contains a fuller statement of the Doctrine, is addressed to the "allied powers" of Europe; information technology clarifies that the U.Southward. remains neutral on existing European colonies in the Americas but is opposed to "interpositions" that would create new colonies amidst the newly independent Spanish American republics:^[5]

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that nosotros should consider any attempt on their function to extend their system to whatever portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of whatever European ability, nosotros have not interfered and shall not interfere. Simply with the Governments who have alleged their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on bully consideration and on merely principles, acknowledged, we could non view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other fashion their destiny, by any European power in whatever other lite than equally the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United states of america.

Effects

Gillam's 1896 political cartoon, Uncle Sam stands with rifle between the Europeans and Latin Americans

International response

Because the U.S. lacked both a credible navy and army at the time, the doctrine was largely overlooked internationally.^[iv] Prince Metternich of Republic of austria was angered by the statement, and wrote privately that the doctrine was a "new act of defection" by the U.S. that would grant "new strength to the apostles of sedition and reanimate the courage of every conspirator."^{[xi] : 156}

The doctrine, however, met with tacit British approval. They enforced it tactically as office of the wider Pax Britannica, which included enforcement of the neutrality of the seas. This was in line with the developing British policy of laissez-faire free trade against mercantilism. Fast-growing British industry sought markets for its manufactured appurtenances, and, if the newly independent Latin American states became Spanish colonies again, British access to these markets would be cutting off by Castilian mercantilist policy.^[16]

Latin American reaction

The reaction in Latin America to the Monroe Doctrine was by and large favorable but on some occasions suspicious. John A. Crow, writer of The Epic of Latin America, states, "Simón Bolívar himself, still in the midst of his last campaign confronting the Spaniards, Santander in Republic of colombia, Rivadavia in Argentina, Victoria in Mexico—leaders of the emancipation movement everywhere—received Monroe'south words with sincerest gratitude".^[17] Crow argues that the leaders of Latin America were realists. They knew that the president of the United States wielded very little power at the time, particularly without the backing of the British forces, and figured that the Monroe Doctrine was unenforceable if the United states stood alone against the Holy Alliance.^[17] While they appreciated and praised their support in the due north, they knew that the future of their independence was in the hands of the British and their powerful navy. In 1826, Bolivar chosen upon his Congress of Panama to host the first "Pan-American" coming together. In the optics of Bolivar and his men, the Monroe Doctrine was to become aught more than than a tool of national policy. According to Crow, "It was not meant to be, and was never intended to exist a lease for concerted hemispheric activity".^[17]

At the aforementioned fourth dimension, some people questioned the intentions behind the Monroe Doctrine. Diego Portales, a Chilean businessman and minister, wrote to a friend: "But nosotros have to be very careful: for the Americans of the north [from the United States], the simply Americans are themselves".^[18]

Post-Bolívar events

In Spanish America, Royalist guerrillas continued the war in several countries, and Spain attempted to retake United mexican states in 1829. Only Cuba and Puerto Rico remained under Spanish rule, until the Spanish–American War in 1898.

In early 1833, the British reasserted their sovereignty over the Falkland islands, thus violating the Monroe Doctrine.^[19] No activeness was taken by the US, and George C. Herring writes that the inaction "confirmed Latin American and especially Argentine suspicions of the Us."^{[11] : 171 [20]} In 1838–50 Argentina was under constant naval blockade past the French navy, which was supported by the British navy, and as such, no action was undertaken by the U.S. to back up their beau Americas nation equally Monroe had stated should be done for collective security against European colonial powers.^{[21] [xix]}

In 1842, U.Southward. President John Tyler applied the Monroe Doctrine to Hawaii and warned U.k. not to interfere there. This began the process of annexing Hawaii to the U.S.^[22]

On December two, 1845, U.S. President James Polk appear that the principle of the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced, reinterpreting information technology to argue that no European nation should interfere with the American western expansion ("Manifest Destiny").^[23]

In 1861, Dominican military commander and royalist politician Pedro Santana signed a pact with the Spanish Crown and reverted the Dominican nation to colonial status. Spain was wary at commencement, simply with the U.Due south. occupied with its own civil war, Spain believed information technology had an opportunity to reassert control in Latin America. On March 18, 1861, the Spanish annexation of the Dominican Republic was announced. The American Civil War ended in 1865, and following the re-assertion of the Monroe Doctrine by the United States government, this prompted the Spanish forces stationed within the Dominican Republic the extradite back to Cuba within that same year.^[24]

In 1862, French forces under Napoleon 3 invaded and conquered Mexico, giving control to the puppet monarch Emperor Maximilian. Washington denounced this every bit a violation of the doctrine but was unable to intervene considering of the American Ceremonious War. This marked the beginning fourth dimension the Monroe Doctrine was widely referred to as a "doctrine."^{[ commendation needed ]} In 1865 the U.South. garrisoned an army on its edge to encourage Napoleon 3 to exit Mexican territory, and they did subsequently remove their forces, which was followed by Mexican nationalists capturing and then executing Maximilian.^[25] After the expulsion of France from Mexico, William H. Seward proclaimed in 1868 that the "Monroe doctrine, which eight years agone was merely a theory, is now an irreversible fact."^[26]

In 1865, Spain occupied the Chincha Islands in violation of the Monroe Doctrine.^[19]

In 1862, the remaining British colonies within Belize merged into a single crown colony within the British Empire, and renamed equally British Honduras. The U.S. government did not express disapproval for this action, either during or after the Ceremonious War.^[27]

President Cleveland twisting the tail of the British Lion; cartoon in Puck by J.S. Pughe, 1895

In the 1870s, President Ulysses S. Grant and his Secretary of State Hamilton Fish endeavored to supervene upon European influence in Latin America with that of the U.South. In 1870, the Monroe Doctrine was expanded under the proclamation "hereafter no territory on this continent [referring to Cardinal and South America] shall be regarded every bit subject area to transfer to a European power."^{[11] : 259} Grant invoked the Monroe Doctrine in his failed attempt to annex the Dominican Republic in 1870.^[28]

The Venezuelan crisis of 1895 became "one of the most momentous episodes in the history of Anglo-American relations in general and of Anglo-American rivalries in Latin America in particular."^[29] Venezuela sought to involve the U.Southward. in a territorial dispute with Britain over Guayana Esequiba, and hired onetime US ambassador William L. Scruggs to argue that British behaviour over the consequence violated the Monroe Doctrine. President Grover Cleveland through his Secretary of State, Richard Olney, cited the Doctrine in 1895, threatening strong activeness against Not bad U.k. if the British failed to intervene their dispute with Venezuela. In a July xx, 1895 note to Britain, Olney stated, "The United States is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition."^{[11] : 307} British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury took strong exception to the American language. The U.S. objected to a British proposal for a articulation coming together to clarify the telescopic of the Monroe Doctrine. Historian George Herring wrote that by failing to pursue the result further the British "tacitly conceded the U.S. definition of the Monroe Doctrine and its hegemony in the hemisphere."^{[11] : 307–8} Otto von Bismarck, did non agree and in Oct 1897 called the Doctrine an "uncommon insolence".^[thirty] Sitting in Paris, the Tribunal of Arbitration finalized its conclusion on Oct 3, 1899.^[29] The award was unanimous, but gave no reasons for the decision, just describing the resulting boundary, which gave United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland almost ninety% of the disputed territory^[31] and all of the gilt mines.^[32]

The reaction to the award was surprise, with the honour's lack of reasoning a particular concern.^[31] The Venezuelans were keenly disappointed with the outcome, though they honored their counsel for their efforts (their delegation'south secretary, Severo Mallet-Prevost [es], received the Club of the Liberator in 1944), and abided past the honor.^[31]

The Anglo-Venezuelan boundary dispute asserted for the outset time a more outward-looking American foreign policy, particularly in the Americas, marker the U.S. as a world ability. This was the earliest example of mod interventionism under the Monroe Doctrine in which the The states exercised its claimed prerogatives in the Americas.^[33]

In 1898, the U.South. intervened in support of Cuba during its war for independence from Kingdom of spain. The resulting Spanish–American State of war ended in a peace treaty requiring Espana to cede Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam to the U.S. in commutation for $20 million. Spain was additionally forced to recognize Cuban independence, though the isle remained under U.South. occupation until 1902.^[34]

"Large Blood brother"

American poses with dead Haitian revolutionaries killed by United states of america Marine automobile gun fire, 1915.

The "Big Brother" policy was an extension of the Monroe Doctrine formulated by James Chiliad. Blaine in the 1880s that aimed to rally Latin American nations behind US leadership and open their markets to The states traders. Blaine served as Secretary of State in 1881 under President James A. Garfield and over again from 1889 to 1892 nether President Benjamin Harrison. As a function of the policy, Blaine arranged and led the First International Briefing of American States in 1889.^[35]

"Olney Corollary"

The Olney Corollary, as well known as the Olney interpretation or Olney announcement was United States Secretarial assistant of Land Richard Olney's interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine when the border dispute for Guayana Esequiba occurred between the British and Venezuelan governments in 1895. Olney claimed that the Monroe Doctrine gave the U.S. authority to mediate edge disputes in the Western Hemisphere. Olney extended the significant of the Monroe Doctrine, which had previously stated merely that the Western Hemisphere was closed to additional European colonization. The argument reinforced the original purpose of the Monroe Doctrine, that the U.S. had the correct to arbitrate in its own hemisphere and foreshadowed the events of the Castilian–American War iii years afterwards. The Olney interpretation was defunct by 1933.^[36]

Canada

In 1902, Canadian Prime Government minister Wilfrid Laurier acknowledged that the Monroe Doctrine was essential to his state's protection. The doctrine provided Canada with a de facto security guarantee past the United States; the United states Navy in the Pacific, and the British Navy in the Atlantic, fabricated invading North America almost impossible. Because of the peaceful relations between the two countries, Canada could assist U.k. in a European war without having to defend itself at home.^[37]

"Roosevelt Corollary"

1903 cartoon: "Go Away, Little Human being, and Don't Bother Me". President Roosevelt intimidating Republic of colombia to acquire the Panama Canal Zone.

The Doctrine'southward authors, chiefly time to come-President and then Secretary-of-Land John Quincy Adams, saw it equally a proclamation by the U.Southward. of moral opposition to colonialism, but it has after been re-interpreted and applied in a variety of instances. As the U.S. began to emerge as a earth power, the Monroe Doctrine came to ascertain a recognized sphere of command that few dared to challenge.^[iv]

Before becoming president, Theodore Roosevelt had proclaimed the rationale of the Monroe Doctrine in supporting intervention in the Spanish colony of Republic of cuba in 1898.^{[ citation needed ]} The Venezuela Crisis of 1902–1903 showed the world that the U.S. was willing to use its naval strength to intervene to stabilize the economical affairs of small states in the Caribbean area and Central America if they were unable to pay their international debts, in guild to preclude European intervention to practise so.^[38] The Venezuela crisis, and in item the arbitral award, were key in the evolution of the Corollary.^[38]

In Argentine foreign policy, the Drago Doctrine was announced on December 29, 1902, by the foreign minister of Argentina, Luis María Drago. The doctrine itself was a response to the actions of Britain, Germany, and Italy, which, in 1902, had blockaded Venezuela in response to Venezuelan government's refusal to pay its massive foreign debt that had been acquired under previous administrations before President Cipriano Castro took power. Drago set forth the policy that no European power could apply force against an American nation to collect debt owed. President Theodore Roosevelt rejected this policy as an extension of the Monroe Doctrine, declaring, "We practise non guarantee any state confronting punishment if information technology misconducts itself".^{[eleven] : 370}

Instead, Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904, asserting the right of the U.S. to arbitrate in Latin America in cases of "flagrant and chronic wrongdoing past a Latin American Nation" to preempt intervention by European creditors. This re-interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine went on to exist a useful tool to take economic benefits past force when Latin nations failed to pay their debts to European and US banks and business interests. This was too referred to as the Big Stick ideology considering of the oft-quoted phrase from President Roosevelt, "speak softly and carry a large stick".^{[4] [xi] : 371 [39]} The Roosevelt corollary provoked outrage across Latin America.^[xl]

The Roosevelt Corollary was invoked to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of European influence.^[39] It was the most significant amendment to the original doctrine and was widely opposed by critics, who argued that the Monroe Doctrine was originally meant to stop European influence in the Americas.^[iv] They argued that the Corollary simply asserted U.Southward. domination in that area, effectively making them a "hemispheric policeman."^[41]

Lodge Resolution

The and so-called "Lodge Resolution" was passed^[42] by the U.S. Senate on August ii, 1912, in response to a reported attempt past a Japan-backed private company to acquire Magdalena Bay in southern Baja California. It extended the reach of the Monroe Doctrine to comprehend actions of corporations and associations controlled by foreign states.^[43]

Global Monroe Doctrine

Scholars such as Neil Smith take written that Woodrow Wilson effectively proposed a "Global Monroe Doctrine" expanding US supremacy over the entire world.^{[ citation needed ]} Some analysts^{[ who? ]} assert that this prerogative for indirect control and desultory invasions and occupations beyond the planet has largely come to fruition with the American superpower role since World State of war II. Such a expansion of the doctrine is premised on the "nominal equality" of contained states. Such superficial equality is often undermined by fabric inequality, making the US a de facto global empire.^[44] Smith argued that the founding of the United nations played a function in the establishing this global protectorate situation.^[45]

Clark Memorandum

The Clark Memorandum, written on December 17, 1928, past Calvin Coolidge's undersecretary of state J. Reuben Clark, concerned U.S. utilise of military force to intervene in Latin American nations. This memorandum was officially released in 1930 by the Herbert Hoover assistants.

The Clark memorandum rejected the view that the Roosevelt Corollary was based on the Monroe Doctrine. Even so, it was not a complete repudiation of the Roosevelt Corollary but was rather a argument that whatsoever intervention by the U.S. was non sanctioned by the Monroe Doctrine but rather was the correct of the U.S. as a state. This separated the Roosevelt Corollary from the Monroe Doctrine by noting that the Monroe Doctrine only applied to situations involving European countries. 1 main point in the Clark Memorandum was to notation that the Monroe Doctrine was based on conflicts of interest simply between the Usa and European nations, rather than betwixt the United States and Latin American nations.

Earth State of war II

Afterwards Globe War II began, a majority of Americans supported defending the entire Western Hemisphere confronting foreign invasion. A 1940 national survey found that 81% supported defending Canada; 75% United mexican states and Central America; 69% South America; 66% West Indies; and 59% Greenland.^[46]

The December 1941 conquest of Saint Pierre and Miquelon past the forces of Free French republic from out of the control of Vichy France was seen every bit a violation of the Monroe Doctrine by Secretarial assistant of State Cordell Hull.^[47]

Latin American reinterpretation

After 1898, jurists and intellectuals in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, peculiarly Luis María Drago, Alejandro Álvarez and Baltasar Brum, reinterpreted the Monroe doctrine. They sought a fresh continental approach to international law in terms of multilateralism and non-intervention. Indeed, an culling Spanish American origin of the idea was proposed, attributing it to Manuel Torres.^[48] However, American leaders were reluctant to renounce unilateral interventionism until the Good Neighbor policy enunciated by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. The era of the Good Neighbor Policy ended with the ramp-upwardly of the Common cold State of war in 1945, equally the United States felt there was a greater need to protect the western hemisphere from Soviet influence. These changes conflicted with the Skilful Neighbour Policy'due south key principle of not-intervention and led to a new wave of United states of america interest in Latin American affairs. Control of the Monroe doctrine thus shifted to the multilateral Organization of American States (OAS) founded in 1948.^[6]

In 1954, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles invoked the Monroe Doctrine at the 10th Pan-American Conference in Caracas, Venezuela, denouncing the intervention of Soviet Communism in Guatemala. President John F. Kennedy said at an Baronial 29, 1962 news conference:

The Monroe Doctrine means what information technology has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere [sic], and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we accept cut off our trade. That is why nosotros worked in the OAS and in other means to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why nosotros volition continue to give a good deal of our endeavor and attention to it.^[49]

Cold War

The U.S.-supported Nicaraguan contras

During the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine was applied to Latin America by the framers of U.Due south. strange policy.^[50] When the Cuban Revolution (1953–1959) established a Communist authorities with ties to the Soviet Union, it was argued that the Monroe Doctrine should be invoked to forestall the spread of Soviet-backed Communism in Latin America.^[51] Under this rationale, the U.Southward. provided intelligence and military machine assistance to Latin and South American governments that claimed or appeared to be threatened past Communist subversion (as in the example of Operation Condor).

In the Cuban Missile Crunch of 1962, President John F. Kennedy cited the Monroe Doctrine equally grounds for the Usa' confrontation with the Soviet Union over the installation of Soviet ballistic missiles on Cuban soil.^[52]

The fence over this new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine burgeoned in reaction to the Iran–Contra affair. It was revealed that the U.S. Cardinal Intelligence Agency had been covertly preparation "Contra" guerrilla soldiers in Republic of honduras in an attempt to destabilize and overthrow the Sandinista revolutionary government of Nicaragua and its president, Daniel Ortega. CIA director Robert Gates vigorously dedicated the Contra operation in 1984, arguing that eschewing U.Southward. intervention in Nicaragua would be "totally to abandon the Monroe Doctrine".^[53]

21st-century approaches

Kerry Doctrine

President Barack Obama's Secretary of State John Kerry told the Organization of American States in Nov 2022 that the "era of the Monroe Doctrine is over."^[54] Several commentators take noted that Kerry's call for a mutual partnership with the other countries in the Americas is more in keeping with Monroe's intentions than the policies enacted after his death.^[55]

America First

President Donald Trump implied potential use of the doctrine in Baronial 2022 when he mentioned the possibility of armed services intervention in Venezuela,^[56] after his CIA Managing director Mike Pompeo declared that the nation's deterioration was the consequence of interference from Iranian- and Russian-backed groups.^[57] In February 2018, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson praised the Monroe Doctrine every bit "clearly … a success", alert of "imperial" Chinese trade ambitions and touting the United States every bit the region's preferred trade partner.^[58] Pompeo replaced Tillerson equally Secretary of Land in May 2018. Trump reiterated his commitment to the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 73rd Un General Assembly in 2018.^[59] Vasily Nebenzya criticised the Usa for what the Russian Federation perceives equally an implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 8452nd emergency meeting of the United nations Security Council on January 26, 2019. Venezuela'due south representative listed 27 interventions in Latin America that Venezuela considers to exist implementations of the Monroe Doctrine ^: 20–21 and stated that, in the context of the statements, they consider information technology "a direct military threat to the Bolivarian Commonwealth of Venezuela". ^: 47 Republic of cuba's representative formulated a similar opinion, "The current Administration of the United States of America has alleged the Monroe Doctrine to be in consequence..." ^{: 28 [60]}

On March 3, 2019, National Security Advisor John Bolton invoked the Monroe Doctrine in describing the Trump administration's policy in the Americas, saying "In this administration, we're non agape to use the word Monroe Doctrine...Information technology'southward been the objective of American presidents going back to President Ronald Reagan to have a completely democratic hemisphere."^{[61] [62]}

Criticism

Historians have observed that while the Doctrine independent a commitment to resist further European colonialism in the Americas, information technology resulted in some ambitious implications for American foreign policy, since at that place were no limitations on the The states's own actions mentioned within information technology. Historian Jay Sexton notes that the tactics used to implement the doctrine were modeled afterward those employed by European regal powers during the 17th and 18th centuries.^[63] American historian William Appleman Williams, seeing the doctrine as a form of American imperialism, described it as a course of "imperial anti-colonialism".^[64] Noam Chomsky argues that in practise the Monroe Doctrine has been used by the U.Due south. government as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the Americas.^[65]

Meet too

• Banana Wars
• Foreign policy of the United States
• Gunboat diplomacy
• Latin America–Us relations
• Monroe Doctrine Centennial one-half dollar

References

1. ^ Mark T. Gilderhus, "The Monroe doctrine: meanings and implications." Presidential Studies Quarterly 36.one (2006): five–16 online.
2. ^ ^{a b} "Monroe Doctrine". HISTORY . Retrieved December ii, 2021.
3. ^ "Monroe Doctrine". Oxford English Dictionary (third ed.). 2002.
4. ^ ^{a b c d east} New Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. eight (15th ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. p. 269. ISBN1-59339-292-3.
5. ^ ^{a b} "The Monroe Doctrine (1823)". Basic Readings in U.S. Republic. United States Department of State. Archived from the original on January viii, 2012.
6. ^ ^{a b} Scarfi, Juan Pablo (2014). "In the Proper noun of the Americas: The Pan-American Redefinition of the Monroe Doctrine and the Emerging Language of American International Police in the Western Hemisphere, 1898–1933". Diplomatic History. 40 (two): 189–218. doi:ten.1093/dh/dhu071.
7. ^ ^{a b c} Morison, S.Eastward. (Feb 1924). "The Origins of the Monroe Doctrine". Economica (10): 27–51. doi:ten.2307/2547870. JSTOR 2547870.
8. ^ ^{a b} "Monroe Doctrine, 1823". Office of the Historian. Usa Department of Country. April 6, 2016. Retrieved March 26, 2016.
9. ^ Nerval, Gaston (1934). Dissection of the Monroe Doctrine. New York: The Macmillan Company. p. 33.
10. ^ Boyer, Paul S., ed. (2006). The Oxford Companion to United states History. Oxford: Oxford University Printing. pp. 514. ISBN978-0-nineteen-508209-8.
11. ^ ^{a b c d eastward f g h} Herring, George C. (2008). From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN9780195078220.
12. ^ For the text of the Ukase of 1821, see: "Regal Russian Edicts Relating to the Russian–American Company". Fur-Seal Arbitration: Appendix to the Case of the United States Before the Tribunal of Arbitration to Convene at Paris Under the Provisions of the Treaty Between the U.s.a. and Peachy Uk, Concluded February 29, 1892. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Press Office. 1892. p. 16.
13. ^ Kennedy, David Thou.; Cohen, Lizabeth; Bailey, Thomas Andrew (2008). The American Pageant: A History of the Democracy, Volume I. Cengage Learning. p. 267. ISBN9780547166599.
14. ^ Miller, Robert J.; Furse, Elizabeth (2006). Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny. Westport, CT: Praeger. p. 136. ISBN9780275990114.
15. ^ Monroe, James. "The Monroe Doctrine". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved November ii, 2011.
16. ^ Hobson, Rolf (2002). Imperialism at Sea. Vol. 163. Brill Academic Publishers. p. 63. ISBN978-0-391-04105-9 . Retrieved October 12, 2009.
17. ^ ^{a b c} Crow, John A. (1992). "Areil and Caliban". The Ballsy of Latin America (4th ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 676. ISBN0-520-07723-7.
18. ^ Uribe, Armando, El Libro Negro de la Intervención Norteamericana en Chile. México: Siglo XXI Editores, 1974.
19. ^ ^{a b c} Castro-Ruiz, Carlos (1917). "The Monroe Doctrine and the Government of Chile". American Political Science Review. 11 (2): 231–238. doi:10.2307/1943985. ISSN 0003-0554. JSTOR 1943985.
20. ^ Howe, Daniel (2007). What Hath God Wrought . New York: Oxford Academy Press. p. 115. ISBN978-0-nineteen-507894-7.
21. ^ "What is the Monroe Doctrine?". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved July fourteen, 2020.
22. ^ Debra J. Allen (2012). Historical Dictionary of U.Due south. Diplomacy from the Revolution to Secession. Scarecrow Press. p. 270. ISBN9780810878952.
23. ^ no by-line. "James K. Polk: Reaffirmation of the Monroe Doctrine". Encyclopædia Britannica . Retrieved July 28, 2016. In his message to Congress of December 2, 1845, President Polk reinterpreted the Monroe Doctrine in terms of the prevailing spirit of Manifest Destiny. Whereas Monroe had said only that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open to European colonialism, Polk at present stated that European nations had amend not interfere with projected territorial expansion past the U.Due south.
24. ^ "Annexation by Spain, 1861–65". U.S. Library of Congress.
25. ^ Grand. K. McAllen, Maximilian and Carlota: Europe's Concluding Empire in Mexico (2014)
26. ^ Maass, Richard West. (2020). The Picky Eagle: How Commonwealth and Xenophobia Limited U.S. Territorial Expansion. Cornell Academy Press. p. 154. ISBN978-ane-5017-4875-2.
27. ^ Byrne, James Patrick; Coleman, Philip; Male monarch, Jason Francis (2008). Republic of ireland and the Americas. ISBN9781851096145.
28. ^ Ulysses Simpson Grant; John Y. Simon, Editor (1998). The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant: Nov 1, 1870 – May 31, 1871. SIU Printing. p. 286. ISBN9780809321971.
29. ^ ^{a b} Humphreys, R. A. (1967). Anglo-American Rivalries and the Venezuela Crisis of 1895: Presidential Address to the Royal Historical Club December ten, 1966. Transactions of the Regal Historical Society. Vol. 17. pp. 131–164.
30. ^ "Bismarck and the Monroe Doctrine". Chicago Tribune. Oct 20, 1897. Retrieved August sixteen, 2016.
31. ^ ^{a b c} Schoenrich (1949:526)
32. ^ King (2007:260)
33. ^ Ferrell, Robert H. "Monroe Doctrine". ap.grolier.com. Archived from the original on March 21, 2008. Retrieved October 31, 2008.
34. ^ Smith, Joseph (2014). The Castilian–American War 1895–1902: Conflict in the Caribbean area and the Pacific. Routledge. ISBN978-one-138-83742-iii.
35. ^ Lens, Sidney; Zinn, Howard (2003). The Forging of the American Empire: From the Revolution to Vietnam, a History of U.S. Imperialism. Human being Security Serial (Illustrated ed.). Pluto Press. p. 464. ISBN0-7453-2100-3.
36. ^ Young, George B. (1942). "Intervention Nether the Monroe Doctrine: The Olney Corollary". Political Science Quarterly. 57 (2): 247–280. doi:10.2307/2143553. JSTOR 2143553.
37. ^ Dziuban, Stanley W. (1959). "Chapter 1, Chautauqua to Ogdensburg". Military machine Relations Between the United States and Canada, 1939–1945. Washington DC: Center of War machine History, United States Army. pp. 2–3. LCCN 59-60001.
38. ^ ^{a b} Matthias Maass (2009), "Goad for the Roosevelt Corollary: Arbitrating the 1902–1903 Venezuela Crisis and Its Impact on the Development of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine", Diplomacy & Statecraft, Volume 20, Issue 3, pages 383–402
39. ^ ^{a b} Roosevelt, Theodore (December 6, 1904). "State of the Union Address". TeachingAmericanHistory.org. Archived from the original on June 13, 2010. Retrieved December twenty, 2008.
40. ^ Thomas Leonard; et al. (2012). Encyclopedia of U.Due south. – Latin American Relations. SAGE. p. 789. ISBN9781608717927.
41. ^ Lerner, Adrienne Wilmoth (2004). "Monroe Doctrine". Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security.
42. ^ "Senate Vote #236 in 1912".
43. ^ New York Times Current History: the European state of war, Book 9. 1917. pp. 158–159.
44. ^ McGranahan, Carole; Collins, John F. (August two, 2018). "Chapter eighteen". Ethnographies of U.S. Empire. Duke University Printing. ISBN9781478002086.
45. ^ Smith, Neil (March 19, 2003). American Empire: Roosevelt's Geographer and the Prelude to Globalization . University of California Press. pp. 406–419. ISBN9780520230279. global monroe doctrine.
46. ^ "What the U.South.A. Thinks". Life. July 29, 1940. p. 20. Retrieved Nov 10, 2011.
47. ^ "Over by Christmas." The Liberation of Saint Pierre and Miquelon
48. ^ Chandler, Charles Lyon (July 1914). "The Pan American Origin of the Monroe Doctrine". American Periodical of International Law. eight (3): 515–519. doi:10.2307/2187493; García Samudio, Nicolás (1941). "La misíon de don Manuel Torres en Washington y los orígenes suramericanos de la doctrina Monroe". Boletín de Historia y Antigüedades (in Spanish). 28: 474–484; criticized by Whitaker, Arthur P. (1954). The Western Hemisphere Thought: Its Ascent and Refuse. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. p. 27.
49. ^ "352 – The President's News Conference August 29, 1962 response to Q[21.]". Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.
50. ^ Dominguez, Jorge (1999). "U.s.a.–Latin American Relations During the Cold War and its Aftermath" (PDF). The United States and Latin America: The New Agenda. Institute of Latin American Studies and the David Rockefeller Middle for Latin Americas Studies. p. 12. Retrieved August four, 2010.
51. ^ "Written report Prepared in Response to National Security Study Memorandum 15". NSC–IG/ARA. July v, 1969. Retrieved August iv, 2010.
52. ^ "The Durable Doctrine". Time. September 21, 1962. Archived from the original on March half dozen, 2009. Retrieved July xv, 2009.
53. ^ Smith, Gaddis (1995). The Last Years of the Monroe Doctrine, 1945–1993 . New York: Hill & Wang. p. 201. ISBN978-0-8090-1568-ix.
54. ^ Johnson, Keith (November eighteen, 2013). "Kerry Makes Information technology Official: 'Era of Monroe Doctrine Is Over'". Wall Street Journal.
55. ^ Keck, Zachary (November 21, 2013). "The U.s.a. Renounces the Monroe Doctrine?". The Diplomat . Retrieved Nov 28, 2013.
56. ^ "Trump Says He Is Considering Military machine Activity in Venezuela". VOA News.
57. ^ "CIA Director Pompeo: Venezuela's Situation Continues to Deteriorate". VOA News.
58. ^ Gramer, Robbie. "Tillerson Praises Monroe Doctrine, Warns Latin America of 'Imperial' Chinese Ambitions". Foreign Policy. The Slate Group.
59. ^ "Remarks by President Trump to the 73rd Session of the United nations General Assembly, New York, NY". whitehouse.gov. September 25, 2022 – via National Archives.
60. ^ "S/PV.8452 Security Quango: 70-fourth twelvemonth: 8452nd meeting". United nations. Jan 26, 2019. p. 12.
61. ^ "John Bolton: 'We're not afraid to utilize the word Monroe Doctrine'". March 3, 2019. Retrieved March 4, 2019.
62. ^ "What is the Monroe Doctrine? John Bolton's justification for Trump's push against Maduro". The Washington Post. March 4, 2019.
63. ^ Preston, Andrew; Rossinow, Doug (November fifteen, 2016). Outside In: The Transnational Circuitry of United states of america History. Oxford University Press. ISBN9780190459871.
64. ^ Sexton, Jay (March 15, 2011). The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in Nineteenth-Century America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. two–nine. ISBN9781429929288.
65. ^ Chomsky, Noam (2004). Hegemony Or Survival. Henry Holt. pp. 63–64. ISBN978-0-8050-7688-2 . Retrieved December xx, 2008.

Further reading

• "Present Status of the Monroe Doctrine". Register of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 54: ane–129. 1914. ISSN 0002-7162. JSTOR i242639. 14 articles by experts
• Bemis, Samuel Flagg. John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy (1949) online
• Bryne, Alex. The Monroe Doctrine and United states of america National Security in the Early Twentieth Century (Springer Nature, 2020).
• Gilderhus, Mark T. (2006) "The Monroe Doctrine: meanings and implications." Presidential Studies Quarterly 36.ane (2006): v–xvi. Online
• Lawson, Leonard Axel (1922). The Relation of British Policy to the Declaration of the Monroe Doctrine. Columbia University. ISBN9780231940924.
• May, Ernest R. (1975). The Making of the Monroe Doctrine . Harvard UP. ISBN9780674543409.
• May, Robert Due east. (2017) "The Irony of Confederate Diplomacy: Visions of Empire, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Quest for Nationhood." Journal of Southern History 83.1 (2017): 69-106. excerpt
• Meiertöns, Heiko (2010). The Doctrines of US Security Policy: An Evaluation under International Law. Cambridge Academy Press. ISBN978-0-521-76648-vii.
• Merk, Frederick (1966). The Monroe Doctrine and American Expansionism, 1843–1849 . New York, Knopf.
• Murphy, Gretchen (2005). Hemispheric Imaginings: The Monroe Doctrine and Narratives of U.S. Empire. Duke University Press. Examines the cultural context of the doctrine. excerpt
• Perkins, Dexter (1927). The Monroe Doctrine, 1823–1826. iii vols.
• Poston, Brook. (2016) "'Bolder Mental attitude': James Monroe, the French Revolution, and the Making of the Monroe Doctrine" Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 124#iv (2016), pp. 282–315. online
• Rossi, Christopher R. (2019) "The Monroe Doctrine and the Standard of Civilisation." Whiggish International Police force (Brill Nijhoff, 2019) pp. 123–152.
• Sexton, Jay (2011). The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in 19th-Century America. Hill & Wang. 290 pages; competing and evolving conceptions of the doctrine after 1823. excerpt

External links

This audio file was created from a revision of this article dated 29 Baronial 2019 (2019-08-29), and does not reflect subsequent edits.

• Monroe Doctrine and related resources at the Library of Congress
• Selected text from Monroe's December 2, 1823 voice communication
• Adios, Monroe Doctrine: When the Yanquis Go Habitation by Jorge One thousand. Castañeda, The New Democracy, Dec 28, 2009
• Equally illustrated in a 1904 cartoon

hamiltonlather.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

Share this post