Foreign Policy and the Monroe Doctrine

This essay is rife with factual errors. First, although President James Monroe did send Congress what became known as the Monroe Doctrine as part of his State of the Union report in 1828, he did not deliver it in a speech. At that time, Presidents sent their State of the Union report in writing, and they were read aloud by a congressional officer, not delivered in person by the President.


Second, I have reviewed the history of the Tyler administration, and found no mention of the assertion of the Monroe doctrine as supporting the acquisition of Texas. The controversy over this annexation had to do with the balance between slave and free states in the Congress. As a matter of foreign policy, Mexico was by now independent, and there was no serious suggestion of any European power trying to colonize Texas, so I am not sure how the Monroe Doctrine could come into play.


On the other hand, one of the more aggressive steps that Tyler's successor took was his 1845 reaffirmation of the Monroe Doctrine, in effect warning Britain and France against any efforts to impede American continental expansion.


The essay also does not mention what became known as the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, under which Roosevelt asserted the right of the United States to intercede in Latin American affairs where this was necessary to protect the good order of these countries and impede European interference. Under this corollary, the United States ran the Dominican Republic for several years.


As far as our failure to come to the aid of South American countries, it depends on what sort of aid you wish to discuss. The United States has been very aggressive in aiding Latin American countries in our effort to end our drug problem, with such adventures as the invasion of Panama to seize Manuel Noriega. We have supplied Latin American countries with such wonderful substances as paraquat to help eradicate drugs.


We also have implicitly supported regimes throughout Latin America that have made a mockery of freedom, such as standing quietly by while Augusto Pinochet ousted an murdered Salvador Allende and imposed a military dictatorship that became one of the most repressive in the hemisphere, and tacitly allowing the Argentines to run the campaign of the "disappeared."


In Central America, our policies have been sufficiently anti-democratic to give the world the colorful term "banana republic," meaning a nominally republican government that in fact existed at the sufferance of such American corporations as United Fruit.


In short, the Monroe Doctrine has been more and les than this essay argues, and a return to the Monroe Doctrine will not do much to solve America's foreign relations problems with Latin America.

Hmm what you write is true and yet not entirely true. You forget that America gave aid to south-america so they could get more influence in their political and economical decissions. (America was the money, South- America needed money). As a result, South- America was highly in debt of the north and they were still as dependable as always. America took what they could and south-america could not do anything about it, nor could she call for help to Europe, because they were out of the game "thanks" to the Monroe- doctrine.


I agree with you on the giving aid part.

Though you should also look at the peace/war- oil statistics. Venezuela for example, gives oil. When the oil prices are high, there is but little peace towards the US. When the oil prices lower, Chavez starts to call Bush his friend. Its not only America being nosy or to busy in the middle east, it may also be -unfortunatly- a political game.