banner



Home  ›  What Global Changes Prompted The Monroe Doctrine And What Were The Key Provisions?

What Global Changes Prompted The Monroe Doctrine And What Were The Key Provisions?

Written By Thursday, 31 March 2022 Add Comment Edit

The states foreign policy regarding Latin American countries in 1823

The Monroe Doctrine was a United states of america foreign policy position that opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the U.Due south.[1] The doctrine was central to U.S. foreign policy for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries.[2]

President James Monroe first articulated the doctrine on December 2, 1823, during his 7th annual Country of the Spousal relationship Address to Congress (though information technology would not be named later on him until 1850).[3] At the fourth dimension, about all Castilian colonies in the Americas had either achieved or were close to independence. Monroe asserted that the New World and the Old Globe were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence,[4] and thus farther efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the region would be viewed as a threat to U.Due south. security.[two] [5] In turn, the U.S. would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal diplomacy of European countries.

By the stop of the 19th century, Monroe's announcement was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-continuing tenets. The intent and event of the doctrine persisted for over a century, with only small variations, and would be invoked past many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.

Afterwards 1898, the Monroe Doctrine was reinterpreted past Latin American lawyers and intellectuals as promoting multilateralism and non-intervention. In 1933, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the U.South. affirmed this new interpretation, namely through co-founding the Organization of American States.[6] Into the 21st century, the doctrine continues to exist variably denounced, reinstated, or reinterpreted.

Seeds of the Monroe Doctrine

Portrait of the Chilean declaration of independence

Despite the United states of america' beginnings as an neutralist country, the foundation of the Monroe Doctrine was already being laid even during George Washington's presidency. According to S.E. Morison, "every bit early as 1783, then, the United States adopted the policy of isolation and appear its intention to keep out of Europe. The supplementary principle of the Monroe Doctrine, that Europe must keep out of America, was nonetheless over the horizon".[7]

While non specifically the Monroe Doctrine, Alexander Hamilton desired to control the sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere, particularly in North America, [ failed verification ] merely this was extended to the Latin American colonies by the Monroe Doctrine.[8] Only Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, was already wanting to constitute the United states of america equally a earth ability and hoped that it would suddenly go strong enough to continue the European powers exterior of the Americas, despite the fact that the European countries controlled much more of the Americas than the U.South. herself.[7] Hamilton expected that the Us would become the ascendant power in the New Globe and would, in the time to come, human action as an intermediary between the European powers and any new countries blossoming near the U.S.[seven]

A note from James Madison (Thomas Jefferson'due south Secretary of State and a hereafter president) to the U.Southward. ambassador to Spain, expressed the American federal government's opposition to further territorial conquering past European powers.[9] Madison's sentiment might have been meaningless because, as was noted earlier, the European powers held much more territory in comparison to the territory held by the U.Southward. Although Thomas Jefferson was pro-French, in an attempt to keep the British–French rivalry out the U.South., the federal authorities under Jefferson made it clear to its ambassadors that the U.S. would not support any future colonization efforts on the North American continent.

The U.South. government feared the victorious European powers that emerged from the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) would revive monarchical authorities. France had already agreed to restore the Castilian monarchy in exchange for Cuba.[10] As the revolutionary Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) concluded, Prussia, Republic of austria, and Russia formed the Holy Alliance to defend monarchism. In particular, the Holy Alliance authorized armed services incursions to re-establish Bourbon rule over Spain and its colonies, which were establishing their independence.[11] : 153–5

Great britain shared the full 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 Earth would be harmed if the other European powers further colonized information technology. In fact, for many years after the doctrine took consequence, Britain, through the Majestic Navy, was the sole nation enforcing it, the U.S. lacking sufficient naval capability.[8] The U.S. resisted a joint argument because of the recent retention of the War of 1812; however, the firsthand provocation was the Russian Ukase of 1821[12] asserting rights to the Pacific Northwest and forbidding not-Russian ships from approaching the coast.[xiii] [14]

Doctrine

The full document of the Monroe Doctrine, written importantly by future-President and then-Secretary of Land John Quincy Adams, is long and couched in diplomatic language, only its essence is expressed in 2 fundamental passages. The starting time is the introductory statement, which asserts that the New Globe is no longer subject to colonization by the European countries:[15]

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

The second key passage, which contains a fuller statement of the Doctrine, is addressed to the "centrolineal powers" of Europe; it clarifies that the U.S. remains neutral on existing European colonies in the Americas but is opposed to "interpositions" that would create new colonies among the newly contained Spanish American republics:[5]

We owe it, therefore, to artlessness and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider whatsoever attempt on their function to extend their system to whatever portion of this hemisphere equally dangerous to our peace and condom. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we take non interfered and shall non interfere. Only with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained information technology, and whose independence nosotros have, on not bad consideration and on but principles, best-selling, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other style their destiny, past any European power in any other low-cal than every bit the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the Us.

Furnishings

Gillam'due south 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 regular army at the time, the doctrine was largely disregarded internationally.[4] Prince Metternich of Republic of austria was angered by the statement, and wrote privately that the doctrine was a "new deed of revolt" by the U.Due south. that would grant "new strength to the apostles of sedition and reanimate the backbone of every conspirator."[11] : 156

The doctrine, however, met with tacit British approving. They enforced it tactically as part 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 gratuitous trade confronting mercantilism. Fast-growing British industry sought markets for its manufactured appurtenances, and, if the newly contained Latin American states became Spanish colonies again, British access to these markets would be cut off by Spanish mercantilist policy.[16]

Latin American reaction

The reaction in Latin America to the Monroe Doctrine was generally favorable but on some occasions suspicious. John A. Crow, author of The Epic of Latin America, states, "Simón Bolívar himself, nevertheless in the midst of his last campaign against the Spaniards, Santander in Colombia, Rivadavia in Argentina, Victoria in Mexico—leaders of the emancipation motion everywhere—received Monroe'due south words with sincerest gratitude".[17] Crow argues that the leaders of Latin America were realists. They knew that the president of the U.s. wielded very little ability at the time, particularly without the backing of the British forces, and figured that the Monroe Doctrine was unenforceable if the United States stood lonely confronting the Holy Alliance.[17] While they appreciated and praised their support in the northward, they knew that the future of their independence was in the easily of the British and their powerful navy. In 1826, Bolivar chosen upon his Congress of Panama to host the starting time "Pan-American" coming together. In the eyes of Bolivar and his men, the Monroe Doctrine was to become nothing more than a tool of national policy. According to Crow, "Information technology was not meant to be, and was never intended to be a charter for concerted hemispheric activity".[17]

At the same time, 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 only Americans are themselves".[18]

Post-Bolívar events

In Spanish America, Royalist guerrillas continued the war in several countries, and Spain attempted to retake Mexico in 1829. Merely Republic of cuba and Puerto Rico remained under Castilian rule, until the Castilian–American War in 1898.

In early 1833, the British reasserted their sovereignty over the Falkland islands, thus violating the Monroe Doctrine.[19] No action was taken past the US, and George C. Herring writes that the inaction "confirmed Latin American and peculiarly Argentine suspicions of the United states."[11] : 171 [twenty] In 1838–fifty Argentina was under constant naval blockade by the French navy, which was supported by the British navy, and as such, no action was undertaken by the U.Due south. to support their fellow Americas nation equally Monroe had stated should be done for commonage security confronting European colonial powers.[21] [19]

In 1842, U.South. President John Tyler applied the Monroe Doctrine to Hawaii and warned Britain not to interfere there. This began the process of annexing Hawaii to the U.Due south.[22]

On December 2, 1845, U.S. President James Polk announced that the principle of the Monroe Doctrine should exist strictly enforced, reinterpreting information technology to argue that no European nation should interfere with the American western expansion ("Manifest Destiny").[23]

In 1861, Dominican armed services 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, but with the U.S. occupied with its ain civil war, Kingdom of spain believed information technology had an opportunity to reassert command in Latin America. On March 18, 1861, the Spanish annexation of the Dominican Republic was announced. The American Civil State of war ended in 1865, and following the re-assertion of the Monroe Doctrine past the United states of america authorities, this prompted the Spanish forces stationed inside the Dominican Commonwealth to extradite back to Cuba within that same twelvemonth.[24]

In 1862, French forces under Napoleon Iii invaded and conquered Mexico, giving control to the puppet monarch Emperor Maximilian. Washington denounced this every bit a violation of the doctrine just was unable to intervene because of the American Civil War. This marked the beginning time the Monroe Doctrine was widely referred to as a "doctrine."[ citation needed ] In 1865 the U.Southward. garrisoned an army on its border to encourage Napoleon Iii to go out Mexican territory, and they did afterward remove their forces, which was followed by Mexican nationalists capturing and then executing Maximilian.[25] After the expulsion of France from United mexican states, William H. Seward proclaimed in 1868 that the "Monroe doctrine, which eight years ago was merely a theory, is at present 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 unmarried crown colony within the British Empire, and renamed equally British Honduras. The U.S. government did non limited disapproval for this activity, either during or after the Civil War.[27]

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

In the 1870s, President Ulysses S. Grant and his Secretarial assistant of State Hamilton Fish endeavored to supercede European influence in Latin America with that of the U.S. In 1870, the Monroe Doctrine was expanded under the proclamation "hereafter no territory on this continent [referring to Key and Southward America] shall be regarded as subject to transfer to a European ability."[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 U.k. over Guayana Esequiba, and hired former US ambassador William L. Scruggs to argue that British behaviour over the issue violated the Monroe Doctrine. President Grover Cleveland through his Secretarial assistant of Country, Richard Olney, cited the Doctrine in 1895, threatening potent activity against Great Uk if the British failed to arbitrate their dispute with Venezuela. In a July 20, 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."[xi] : 307 British Prime Government 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 scope of the Monroe Doctrine. Historian George Herring wrote that by declining to pursue the issue further the British "tacitly conceded the U.S. definition of the Monroe Doctrine and its hegemony in the hemisphere."[eleven] : 307–8 Otto von Bismarck, did non agree and in October 1897 called the Doctrine an "uncommon insolence".[30] Sitting in Paris, the Tribunal of Arbitration finalized its conclusion on October iii, 1899.[29] The award was unanimous, merely gave no reasons for the decision, only describing the resulting purlieus, which gave Britain well-nigh xc% of the disputed territory[31] and all of the golden mines.[32]

The reaction to the honour was surprise, with the award'southward 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'due south secretarial assistant, Severo Mallet-Prevost [es], received the Order of the Liberator in 1944), and abided by the honor.[31]

The Anglo-Venezuelan boundary dispute asserted for the first fourth dimension a more outward-looking American strange policy, particularly in the Americas, marking the U.S. as a world power. This was the primeval example of modern interventionism under the Monroe Doctrine in which the U.s. exercised its claimed prerogatives in the Americas.[33]

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

"Big Brother"

American poses with dead Haitian revolutionaries killed by US Marine machine gun fire, 1915.

The "Big Brother" policy was an extension of the Monroe Doctrine formulated past James K. Blaine in the 1880s that aimed to rally Latin American nations behind US leadership and open their markets to US traders. Blaine served as Secretarial assistant of State in 1881 under President James A. Garfield and again from 1889 to 1892 under President Benjamin Harrison. Every bit a part of the policy, Blaine bundled and led the Kickoff International Conference of American States in 1889.[35]

"Olney Corollary"

The Olney Corollary, also known as the Olney interpretation or Olney declaration was United States Secretary of State 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 border disputes in the Western Hemisphere. Olney extended the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine, which had previously stated merely that the Western Hemisphere was airtight to additional European colonization. The statement reinforced the original purpose of the Monroe Doctrine, that the U.Southward. had the right to intervene in its own hemisphere and foreshadowed the events of the Spanish–American War 3 years later. The Olney interpretation was defunct by 1933.[36]

Canada

In 1902, Canadian Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier acknowledged that the Monroe Doctrine was essential to his country'due south protection. The doctrine provided Canada with a de facto security guarantee by the U.s.; the US Navy in the Pacific, and the British Navy in the Atlantic, made invading Northward America almost impossible. Because of the peaceful relations between the two countries, Canada could aid Britain in a European war without having to defend itself at dwelling house.[37]

"Roosevelt Corollary"

1903 cartoon: "Become Away, Little Man, and Don't Bother Me". President Roosevelt intimidating Colombia to acquire the Panama Canal Zone.

The Doctrine's authors, importantly future-President and so Secretary-of-State John Quincy Adams, saw it as a proclamation past the U.S. of moral opposition to colonialism, but it has subsequently been re-interpreted and applied in a variety of instances. As the U.South. began to emerge equally a world power, the Monroe Doctrine came to define a recognized sphere of control that few dared to claiming.[4]

Before becoming president, Theodore Roosevelt had proclaimed the rationale of the Monroe Doctrine in supporting intervention in the Castilian colony 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 economic affairs of pocket-sized states in the Caribbean and Central America if they were unable to pay their international debts, in guild to prevent European intervention to do so.[38] The Venezuela crisis, and in particular the arbitral award, were cardinal in the development of the Corollary.[38]

In Argentine foreign policy, the Drago Doctrine was announced on Dec 29, 1902, by the foreign government minister of Argentina, Luis María Drago. The doctrine itself was a response to the actions of Great britain, Germany, and Italy, which, in 1902, had blockaded Venezuela in response to Venezuelan government'due south refusal to pay its massive strange debt that had been acquired under previous administrations earlier President Cipriano Castro took power. Drago set forth the policy that no European power could use force confronting an American nation to collect debt owed. President Theodore Roosevelt rejected this policy as an extension of the Monroe Doctrine, declaring, "We do not guarantee any country against punishment if information technology misconducts itself".[11] : 370

Instead, Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904, asserting the right of the U.S. to intervene in Latin America in cases of "flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American Nation" to preempt intervention by European creditors. This re-interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine went on to be a useful tool to have economic benefits past force when Latin nations failed to pay their debts to European and U.s. banks and business interests. This was as well referred to as the Big Stick ideology because of the ofttimes-quoted phrase from President Roosevelt, "speak softly and carry a big stick".[4] [11] : 371 [39] The Roosevelt corollary provoked outrage across Latin America.[40]

The Roosevelt Corollary was invoked to arbitrate militarily in Latin America to end the spread of European influence.[39] Information technology was the most pregnant amendment to the original doctrine and was widely opposed by critics, who argued that the Monroe Doctrine was originally meant to cease European influence in the Americas.[iv] They argued that the Corollary merely asserted U.Southward. domination in that expanse, effectively making them a "hemispheric policeman."[41]

Club Resolution

The then-called "Club Resolution" was passed[42] by the U.S. Senate on August 2, 1912, in response to a reported try by a Japan-backed individual visitor to acquire Magdalena Bay in southern Baja California. It extended the reach of the Monroe Doctrine to embrace actions of corporations and associations controlled past strange states.[43]

Global Monroe Doctrine

Scholars such as Neil Smith have 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 command and sporadic invasions and occupations across the planet has largely come to fruition with the American superpower office since World State of war Ii. Such a expansion of the doctrine is premised on the "nominal equality" of independent states. Such superficial equality is often undermined by material inequality, making the U.s.a. a de facto global empire.[44] Smith argued that the founding of the Un played a role in the establishing this global protectorate situation.[45]

Clark Memorandum

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

The Clark memorandum rejected the view that the Roosevelt Corollary was based on the Monroe Doctrine. However, it was non a complete repudiation of the Roosevelt Corollary just was rather a statement that whatsoever intervention past the U.S. was not sanctioned by the Monroe Doctrine merely rather was the right of the U.South. as a state. This separated the Roosevelt Corollary from the Monroe Doctrine past noting that the Monroe Doctrine only applied to situations involving European countries. 1 main indicate in the Clark Memorandum was to note that the Monroe Doctrine was based on conflicts of interest simply between the United states and European nations, rather than betwixt the U.s. and Latin American nations.

World War Ii

After Earth War II began, a bulk of Americans supported defending the entire Western Hemisphere confronting foreign invasion. A 1940 national survey found that 81% supported defending Canada; 75% Mexico and Fundamental America; 69% Due south America; 66% West Indies; and 59% Greenland.[46]

The December 1941 conquest of Saint Pierre and Miquelon past the forces of Free France from out of the control of Vichy France was seen as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine by Secretary of Land Cordell Hull.[47]

Latin American reinterpretation

After 1898, jurists and intellectuals in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, especially 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 not-intervention. Indeed, an alternative Spanish American origin of the thought was proposed, attributing it to Manuel Torres.[48] Still, American leaders were reluctant to renounce unilateral interventionism until the Skillful Neighbor policy enunciated past President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. The era of the Practiced Neighbor Policy concluded with the ramp-upward of the Cold War in 1945, as the The states felt there was a greater need to protect the western hemisphere from Soviet influence. These changes conflicted with the Proficient Neighbor Policy'south fundamental principle of non-intervention and led to a new wave of US interest in Latin American diplomacy. Command of the Monroe doctrine thus shifted to the multilateral Organization of American States (OAS) founded in 1948.[6]

In 1954, Secretary of Land 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 August 29, 1962 news briefing:

The Monroe Doctrine ways what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign ability extending its ability to the Western Hemisphere [sic], and that is why we oppose what is happening in Republic of cuba today. That is why we have cutting off our trade. That is why we worked in the OAS and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a expert deal of our try and attention to it.[49]

Cold War

The U.S.-supported Nicaraguan contras

During the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine was practical to Latin America by the framers of U.South. foreign policy.[fifty] When the Cuban Revolution (1953–1959) established a Communist government with ties to the Soviet Matrimony, information technology was argued that the Monroe Doctrine should be invoked to prevent the spread of Soviet-backed Communism in Latin America.[51] Under this rationale, the U.S. provided intelligence and armed forces assist to Latin and South American governments that claimed or appeared to exist threatened by Communist subversion (as in the example of Operation Condor).

In the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, President John F. Kennedy cited the Monroe Doctrine as grounds for the United States' confrontation with the Soviet Union over the installation of Soviet ballistic missiles on Cuban soil.[52]

The debate over this new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine burgeoned in reaction to the Iran–Contra affair. It was revealed that the U.South. Central Intelligence Agency had been covertly training "Contra" guerrilla soldiers in Honduras in an attempt to destabilize and overthrow the Sandinista revolutionary government of Nicaragua and its president, Daniel Ortega. CIA director Robert Gates vigorously defended the Contra performance in 1984, arguing that eschewing U.Due south. intervention in Nicaragua would exist "totally to abandon the Monroe Doctrine".[53]

21st-century approaches

Kerry Doctrine

President Barack Obama'south Secretary of State John Kerry told the Organisation of American States in November 2013 that the "era of the Monroe Doctrine is over."[54] Several commentators have noted that Kerry'south call for a mutual partnership with the other countries in the Americas is more in keeping with Monroe'due south intentions than the policies enacted after his death.[55]

America Beginning

President Donald Trump implied potential apply of the doctrine in August 2017 when he mentioned the possibility of armed forces intervention in Venezuela,[56] after his CIA Director Mike Pompeo alleged that the nation's deterioration was the issue of interference from Iranian- and Russian-backed groups.[57] In February 2018, Secretarial assistant of Land Male monarch Tillerson praised the Monroe Doctrine as "clearly … a success", warning of "imperial" Chinese merchandise ambitions and touting the U.s. every bit the region'due south preferred trade partner.[58] Pompeo replaced Tillerson every bit Secretary of State in May 2018. Trump reiterated his commitment to the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 73rd UN General Associates in 2018.[59] Vasily Nebenzya criticised the US for what the Russian federation perceives as an implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 8452nd emergency meeting of the Un Security Council on Jan 26, 2019. Venezuela's representative listed 27 interventions in Latin America that Venezuela considers to be implementations of the Monroe Doctrine : 20–21 and stated that, in the context of the statements, they consider information technology "a directly war machine threat to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". : 47 Cuba's representative formulated a similar opinion, "The current Administration of the United States of America has alleged the Monroe Doctrine to be in effect..." : 28 [60]

On March 3, 2019, National Security Advisor John Bolton invoked the Monroe Doctrine in describing the Trump assistants'due south policy in the Americas, proverb "In this administration, we're not afraid to use the word Monroe Doctrine...It's been the objective of American presidents going back to President Ronald Reagan to have a completely autonomous hemisphere."[61] [62]

Criticism

Historians have observed that while the Doctrine contained a delivery to resist farther European colonialism in the Americas, it resulted in some aggressive implications for American foreign policy, since there were no limitations on the Usa's own actions mentioned within it. Historian Jay Sexton notes that the tactics used to implement the doctrine were modeled after those employed by European imperial powers during the 17th and 18th centuries.[63] American historian William Appleman Williams, seeing the doctrine equally a form of American imperialism, described it as a course of "regal 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]

See also

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

References

  1. ^ Marking T. Gilderhus, "The Monroe doctrine: meanings and implications." Presidential Studies Quarterly 36.one (2006): 5–16 online.
  2. ^ a b "Monroe Doctrine". HISTORY . Retrieved December 2, 2021.
  3. ^ "Monroe Doctrine". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). 2002.
  4. ^ a b c d due east New Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. eight (15th ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. p. 269. ISBN1-59339-292-3.
  5. ^ a b "The Monroe Doctrine (1823)". Bones Readings in U.Southward. Commonwealth. U.s.a. Department of State. Archived from the original on January 8, 2012.
  6. ^ a b Scarfi, Juan Pablo (2014). "In the Name of the Americas: The Pan-American Redefinition of the Monroe Doctrine and the Emerging Linguistic communication of American International Police in the Western Hemisphere, 1898–1933". Diplomatic History. 40 (two): 189–218. doi:10.1093/dh/dhu071.
  7. ^ a b c Morison, Southward.Eastward. (Feb 1924). "The Origins of the Monroe Doctrine". Economica (10): 27–51. doi:10.2307/2547870. JSTOR 2547870.
  8. ^ a b "Monroe Doctrine, 1823". Office of the Historian. Us Section of Country. April 6, 2016. Retrieved March 26, 2016.
  9. ^ Nerval, Gaston (1934). Autopsy of the Monroe Doctrine. New York: The Macmillan Company. p. 33.
  10. ^ Boyer, Paul S., ed. (2006). The Oxford Companion to U.s.a. History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 514. ISBN978-0-19-508209-viii.
  11. ^ a b c d east f chiliad 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 Mediation: Appendix to the Case of the The states Earlier the Tribunal of Arbitration to Convene at Paris Under the Provisions of the Treaty Betwixt the United states of America and Great Uk, Ended February 29, 1892. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1892. p. 16.
  13. ^ Kennedy, David Grand.; Cohen, Lizabeth; Bailey, Thomas Andrew (2008). The American Pageant: A History of the Republic, 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. Section of State. Retrieved Nov 2, 2011.
  16. ^ Hobson, Rolf (2002). Imperialism at Bounding main. 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 Epic 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 Regime of Chile". American Political Science Review. 11 (ii): 231–238. doi:10.2307/1943985. ISSN 0003-0554. JSTOR 1943985.
  20. ^ Howe, Daniel (2007). What Hath God Wrought . New York: Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN978-0-19-507894-vii.
  21. ^ "What is the Monroe Doctrine?". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved July 14, 2020.
  22. ^ Debra J. Allen (2012). Historical Dictionary of U.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 ii, 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 up to European colonialism, Polk now stated that European nations had better not interfere with projected territorial expansion past the U.S.
  24. ^ "Annexation by Spain, 1861–65". U.South. Library of Congress.
  25. ^ 1000. M. McAllen, Maximilian and Carlota: Europe'southward Terminal Empire in United mexican states (2014)
  26. ^ Maass, Richard W. (2020). The Picky Eagle: How Democracy and Xenophobia Limited U.S. Territorial Expansion. Cornell University Press. p. 154. ISBN978-ane-5017-4875-2.
  27. ^ Byrne, James Patrick; Coleman, Philip; King, Jason Francis (2008). Ireland and the Americas. ISBN9781851096145.
  28. ^ Ulysses Simpson Grant; John Y. Simon, Editor (1998). The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant: November 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 Regal Historical Society December 10, 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 16, 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 Spanish–American War 1895–1902: Conflict in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Routledge. ISBN978-1-138-83742-3.
  35. ^ Lens, Sidney; Zinn, Howard (2003). The Forging of the American Empire: From the Revolution to Vietnam, a History of U.South. Imperialism. Homo Security Series (Illustrated ed.). Pluto Press. p. 464. ISBN0-7453-2100-three.
  36. ^ Immature, George B. (1942). "Intervention Under 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 ane, Chautauqua to Ogdensburg". Military Relations Betwixt the United states and Canada, 1939–1945. Washington DC: Eye of Military History, United States Army. pp. 2–3. LCCN 59-60001. Archived from the original on May seven, 2019. Retrieved December 2, 2016.
  38. ^ a b Matthias Maass (2009), "Catalyst 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, Book 20, Issue 3, pages 383–402
  39. ^ a b Roosevelt, Theodore (Dec six, 1904). "Land of the Spousal relationship Accost". TeachingAmericanHistory.org. Archived from the original on June 13, 2010. Retrieved December 20, 2008.
  40. ^ Thomas Leonard; et al. (2012). Encyclopedia of U.S. – 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 Electric current History: the European state of war, Book 9. 1917. pp. 158–159.
  44. ^ McGranahan, Carole; Collins, John F. (August 2, 2018). "Chapter 18". Ethnographies of U.S. Empire. Knuckles University Press. ISBN9781478002086.
  45. ^ Smith, Neil (March xix, 2003). American Empire: Roosevelt'due south 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. xx. Retrieved November 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 Journal of International Law. 8 (three): 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 past Whitaker, Arthur P. (1954). The Western Hemisphere Idea: Its Rise and Decline. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. p. 27.
  49. ^ "352 – The President'due south News Conference Baronial 29, 1962 response to Q[21.]". Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.
  50. ^ Dominguez, Jorge (1999). "Us–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 Baronial iv, 2010.
  51. ^ "Study Prepared in Response to National Security Study Memorandum 15". NSC–IG/ARA. July five, 1969. Retrieved August 4, 2010.
  52. ^ "The Durable Doctrine". Time. September 21, 1962. Archived from the original on March 6, 2009. Retrieved July fifteen, 2009.
  53. ^ Smith, Gaddis (1995). The Last Years of the Monroe Doctrine, 1945–1993 . New York: Hill & Wang. p. 201. ISBN978-0-8090-1568-9.
  54. ^ Johnson, Keith (Nov 18, 2013). "Kerry Makes It Official: 'Era of Monroe Doctrine Is Over'". Wall Street Journal.
  55. ^ Keck, Zachary (November 21, 2013). "The US Renounces the Monroe Doctrine?". The Diplomat . Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  56. ^ "Trump Says He Is Considering Military Action 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 'Royal' Chinese Ambitions". Strange Policy. The Slate Group.
  59. ^ "Remarks by President Trump to the 73rd Session of the Un General Assembly, New York, NY". whitehouse.gov. September 25, 2018 – via National Athenaeum.
  60. ^ "S/PV.8452 Security Council: Seventy-fourth twelvemonth: 8452nd coming together". United nations. January 26, 2019. p. 12.
  61. ^ "John Bolton: 'Nosotros're non afraid to use the word Monroe Doctrine'". March iii, 2019. Retrieved March 4, 2019.
  62. ^ "What is the Monroe Doctrine? John Bolton'south justification for Trump's push confronting Maduro". The Washington Post. March 4, 2019.
  63. ^ Preston, Andrew; Rossinow, Doug (November 15, 2016). Exterior In: The Transnational Circuitry of U.s.a. History. Oxford Academy Printing. ISBN9780190459871.
  64. ^ Sexton, Jay (March 15, 2011). The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in Nineteenth-Century America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. two–9. ISBN9781429929288.
  65. ^ Chomsky, Noam (2004). Hegemony Or Survival. Henry Holt. pp. 63–64. ISBN978-0-8050-7688-2 . Retrieved December 20, 2008.

Further reading

  • "Nowadays Status of the Monroe Doctrine". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 54: 1–129. 1914. ISSN 0002-7162. JSTOR i242639. fourteen manufactures by experts
  • Bemis, Samuel Flagg. John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Strange Policy (1949) online
  • Bryne, Alex. The Monroe Doctrine and United States National Security in the Early on Twentieth Century (Springer Nature, 2020).
  • Gilderhus, Mark T. (2006) "The Monroe Doctrine: meanings and implications." Presidential Studies Quarterly 36.1 (2006): v–16. 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 E. (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. extract
  • Meiertöns, Heiko (2010). The Doctrines of Usa Security Policy: An Evaluation nether International Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-76648-7.
  • Merk, Frederick (1966). The Monroe Doctrine and American Expansionism, 1843–1849 . New York, Knopf.
  • Irish potato, Gretchen (2005). Hemispheric Imaginings: The Monroe Doctrine and Narratives of U.Southward. Empire. Duke University Press. Examines the cultural context of the doctrine. extract
  • Perkins, Dexter (1927). The Monroe Doctrine, 1823–1826. three vols.
  • Poston, Brook. (2016) "'Bolder Attitude': James Monroe, the French Revolution, and the Making of the Monroe Doctrine" Virginia Mag of History and Biography 124#four (2016), pp. 282–315. online
  • Rossi, Christopher R. (2019) "The Monroe Doctrine and the Standard of Civilization." Whiggish International Constabulary (Brill Nijhoff, 2019) pp. 123–152.
  • Sexton, Jay (2011). The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in 19th-Century America. Colina & Wang. 290 pages; competing and evolving conceptions of the doctrine later 1823. excerpt

External links

Spoken Wikipedia icon

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

  • Monroe Doctrine and related resource at the Library of Congress
  • Selected text from Monroe's Dec 2, 1823 spoken communication
  • Adios, Monroe Doctrine: When the Yanquis Go Home past Jorge Yard. Castañeda, The New Democracy, Dec 28, 2009
  • As illustrated in a 1904 cartoon

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

Posted by: ballardloffinds.blogspot.com

0 Response to "What Global Changes Prompted The Monroe Doctrine And What Were The Key Provisions?"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel