Content area
Full text
This article presents a brief history of the Monroe Doctrine since its articulation in 1823. First conceived as a statement in opposition to European intrusions in the Americas, it became under President Theodore Roosevelt a justification for U.S. intervention. To cultivate Latin American trade and goodwill during the Great Depression and the Second World War, Franklin Roosevelt's administration accepted the principle of nonintervention. Later with the onset of the Cold War, perceived international imperatives led to a series of new interventions in countries such as Guatemala, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Chile. Though typically couched in idealistic rhetoric emphasizing Pan-American commitments to solidarity and democracy, the various versions of the Monroe Doctrine consistently served U.S. policy makers as a means for advancing what they understood as national strategic and economic interests.
The Monroe Doctrine as articulated before the U.S. Congress in 1823 established a rhetorical style associated many years later with similar pronouncements during the Cold War and after. Typically couched in the language of idealism and high principle, such affirmations of presidential purpose often purported to advance the cause of humankind, or at least a substantial portion thereof, by upholding values such as freedom, democracy, and peace. Such language sometimes served as a cover for less ennobling purposes connected with the defense of strategic and economic interests and usually contained some kind of threat to take countermeasures if other nations went beyond what the United States regarded as the appropriate bounds. The Monroe Doctrine also instituted a pattern by affirming defensive objectives.
Over the years, James Monroe's doctrine took on various meanings and implications, depending upon shifting policies and preferences, but nevertheless consistently served as a mainstay in the articulation of U.S. goals and purposes in the Western Hemisphere. Three stood out among them. Policy makers wanted to keep out the Europeans, to safeguard order and stability in areas of special concern, and to ensure open access to markets and resources. To be sure, the means of implementation varied from time to time, but the pursuit of these objectives remained much the same. Underlying them, another constant projected a sense of racist condescension. Usually viewed as unruly children in need of discipline and direction, according to a prevailing assumption among U.S. policy makers,...