Monroe Doctrine

[atpollard]

The Monroe Doctrine, declared by President James Monroe in 1823, was a U.S. foreign policy stating the Americas were closed to further European colonization, that European interference in the hemisphere would be seen as hostile, and that the U.S. would not meddle in European affairs, establishing separate spheres of influence and becoming a cornerstone for U.S. involvement and dominance in Latin America. Its core principles are non-colonization, non-intervention, and separate American/European spheres, profoundly shaping U.S. expansion and global role.

Key Principles (1823)

• Separate Spheres: The political systems of the Americas (republican) and Europe (monarchical) are fundamentally different and should remain separate.
• Non-Colonization: The Western Hemisphere is no longer open to European colonization.
• Non-Interference: The U.S. would not interfere in European wars or internal affairs, and any European attempt to control or oppress nations in the Americas would be viewed as unfriendly to the U.S..

Historical Context & Purpose

• Post-Colonial Americas: Newly independent Latin American nations faced threats from European powers (like Spain and its allies) seeking to restore colonial control.
• U.S. Security & Trade: The U.S. sought to prevent European powers from expanding influence, which threatened its own security and free trade opportunities in the region.
• British Alignment: Great Britain, also favoring free trade and opposing Spanish recolonization, initially proposed a joint declaration, but U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams insisted on an independent American statement to assert U.S. sovereignty.

Impact on U.S. Foreign Policy

• Justification for Intervention: Later presidents, notably Theodore Roosevelt (Roosevelt Corollary), expanded the doctrine, justifying U.S. intervention in Latin America to maintain stability, leading to economic and political involvement.
• American Hegemony: It asserted U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere, becoming a guiding principle for U.S. grand strategy throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

There has recently been talk of the Monroe Doctrine in the news. Does it have any place in the 21st Century?
(This was nibbled at the edges in another discussion, so let’s open it up and address it head on.)

 

[Ben1445]

One thing to keep in mind in all this is that while another President may follow the Monroe doctrine, Presidential doctrine is not necessarily law. It is the policy of the administration. Just because Monroe had a doctrine of foreign policy, doesn’t mean that we should still be following it. I’m not talking about whether it was good or bad.
Just that it is a past or even present Presidents doctrine for whom it was named.
Do they follow every other doctrine?
Does it matter whether or not they do?
Only in the court of public opinion.

 

[Van]

Here is the actual text, at the end of the article.

Monroe Doctrine (1823)​

Note that Teddy Roosevelt and JFK created corollaries to the Non-Interference doctrine.

Also of interest, at least to me, was the efforts of the Third Reich to establish a clandestine beachhead in South America.
And the following "overreach" during the Eisenhower years, by Dulles and the CIA.

 

[Jerome]

Also of interest, at least to me, was the efforts of the Third Reich to establish a clandestine beachhead in South America.

How ridiculous.

 

[atpollard]

Here is what I wonder about.

There are people that criticize historic efforts by the US at “state building“ around the globe. Whether the intentions were right or wrong, history has certainly shown that the EXECUTION has certainly proven “worse” for the people living there than the prior conditions in some cases. This suggests that at least SOME “state building” is wrong. Somalia is certainly an example where the lives of the average person has not improved from “regime change”.

If we focus on the ”Americas”, we see “state building” efforts under way by external players like Russia and China and Iran. We see the life of the average citizen under many of these experiments have suffered in a way similar to the failed efforts at U.S. “nation building”. Venezuela (prior to and ignoring the US intervention) certainly illustrates this in a manner similar to Somalia … people were forced to eat pets to survive.

QUESTION 1:
The US certainly has the ABILITY to challenge foreign “state building” efforts in the Americas (where these efforts by stated enemies of the USA are to create problems for the USA). Should the USA defend itself by defending its neighbors? Is it reasonable? Is it justified? Is it moral?

QUESTION 2:
If it is reasonable for the USA to do “something”, what are the limits of that “something”? Should we demand FRIENDLY governments? Should we demand true DEMOCRACIES and accept the self-determination of those people? Should we seek to counter foreign influence but accept HOSTILE Despots? Should we accept outside influence and treat the “American” nations as enemy combatants?

 

[Van]

How ridiculous.

I have no idea just what your purpose and intent for posting. Marxist sabotage seems a possibility.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Trump has a new name for all this, it’s called the “Don-roe Doctrine” LOL!