The Monroe Doctrine Essay Example

The General View of the Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine was enacted in 1823 with the aim of preventing Europe colonialism in Latin America. The doctrine stated that any efforts by the Europeans to control any parts of the American part would be taken as an unfriendly move towards the United States. The doctrine also stated that America would recognize and respect the European colonies in existence and it would not interfere with the way they operate. The doctrine remained unchanged for many years although it was invoked by many presidents and statesmen. The main objective was to ensure that the newly independent countries in Latin America do not get colonized or used as battlefields by the old colonies that were stronger. The fear of the US government was that after the Congress of Vienna between 1814 and 1815, the monarchical governments would be revived. The doctrine faced different reactions across the world because many people not okay with it. Some view the same as a violations of rights for other countries and some treated it with suspicion. Generally, the doctrine emerged as a response to the political moves that emerged after the end of the Napoleonic wars. The Quadruple Alliance formed in 1815 was powerful and there were fears of its influence in Latin America.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The French revolution remained a lesson to many countries and there was a reason to form policies to prevent a repeat of the same. The doctrine is seen as one of the precautions taken by some of the countries in the world. The first challenge with the doctrine was that the United States did not have adequate naval and military resources to enforce it. For some of the states like Chile, they appreciated the protection against the European powerful monarchs. The conditions under which the doctrine was enacted were clear that the United States was fear the European powers that could have impacts on the politics and economic performance of the Latin America countries. President James Monroe became famous for the enacting a policy that formed a major base in the United States foreign policies. The doctrine had different impacts in different parts of the world and it was a diplomatic move by the US to expand in America.

The Views of the Latin America on the Doctrine

Some of the leaders from the South American region have expressed different views about the doctrine in the past. Some of them are in support of the doctrine but some are against it. Since it was enacted, it became a major control power and it influenced the way different countries in the region associate with the rest of the world. According to some of the leaders from South America, the doctrine was a mistaken view of the sovereignty of the countries in the region. The United States leaders have been quoted stating that if the doctrine remains in force, then the United States should also ensure these countries are economically stable. Some leaders also view the doctrine as the root cause of the foreign debts of the countries. The regulated association with the powerful European countries and monarchies reduced their chances to grow economically. The conditions in the Latin America today do not require the doctrine.

The countries in the Latin America today can do better even without the doctrine. The views of the leaders in the region indicate that there are no adequate reasons why they should be friendlier to the United States than they are to the European countries. The racial diversity, cultural differences, economic and intellectual growth and civilization progress in Latin America is adequate for them to associate themselves with the European countries than it was when the doctrine was enacted. The issues of corruption and abuse of capitalism have affected most of these countries even under the protection of the doctrine. It is also important to note that some of the largest cities in South America are geographical nearer the European continent than they are to the United States. It means they would develop more if the doctrine does not restrict the association with the European monarchies. The doctrine has also been looked at with suspicion since the efforts by the U.S. to conquer Cuba. Some leaders in the Latin America also view the doctrine as a violation of the international law of 1823 for regulating the operations of other countries. The legal standing of the doctrine has been questioned severally and challenged whether it applies geographically or politically. From the analysis, it is clear that the US used it to expand without much interference in America.

The Doctrine and the Nicaragua Canal

The Nicaragua Canal has been a point of interest for many countries in the world and has been at the center of controversies among many countries across the world. The canal offers many economic advantages to the people in the area as it stretches from the mouth of San Jan and extends to some few miles to the Pacific Ocean through Nicaragua. When the doctrine came into force, it was received with mixed reactions in the area. It had impacts on what the area do. The Nicaragua leaders make efforts in courts to reduce the impacts of the doctrine. The interference of the Mosquito Indians was also a violation of the doctrine and it led to legal battles with England. The increased business operations in the area with the Americans also affected the economic growth of the area. The leaders in Nicaragua questioned the need for the doctrine and there were many reasons why they felt the doctrine was choking the economic development in the Nicaragua Canal region. The US wanted to secure its operations in these regions using this diplomatic move.

Effects of the Doctrine in Hispanic America

The doctrine has determined the operations in Hispanic America in many ways and it is the main reason why the United States is involved in many political and economic operations in the region. For example, the intervention of the U.S. in Cuban elections only shows the practical impacts of the doctrine. The doctrine makes the US responsible for development issue and protects Cuba and neighbor. The control power of the doctrine made the US responsible for the growth of the region in political and economic matters. The doctrine was accepted by Hispanic America with mixed views and it was applied with reservations. The authorities in Chile approved the doctrine and appreciated the efforts by the US government to protect them from the powerful Monarchs in Europe. Then also the leaders in Central America accept the move to protect them and sends messages to the US president in appreciate. The views of most of the leaders in Hispanic America were that the doctrine was in line with the international law of self-protection. The intentions of the doctrine, however, have been termed as selfish because they regulated the interventions of the European monarchies but did not regulate the interference of the United States government in the same region.

Interpretations of the Doctrine

The doctrine is interpreted by many experts in different ways depending on their personal views. However, it is important to understand what President Monroe meant with the words he used when he introduced the doctrine to the Congress on December 2, 1823, and what the doctrine meant for the American people. The Monroe Doctrine was a selfish and anti-imperialistic policy that was meant to keep the European powers away. For example, the United States assured Nicaragua of its full support and protection from any external forces from Europe. However, the agreement did not regulate the interventions of the US to Nicaragua. The United States was worried that some parts like Maine and Fort Niagara would be under the control of the British government. The doctrine was enacted to reduce such chances and to leave the US with better chances to expand without having to compete with the European monarchies. The period between 1776 and 1865 was marked with a lot of foreign policy changes and this doctrine is one of the outstanding ones. It was a diplomatic way of securing expansion of the United States.

Bibliography

"The Monroe Doctrine and the Isthmian Canal." The North American Review 130, no. 282 (1880): 499-511. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25100857.

Adams, John Quincy. Writings of John Quincy Adams. Vol. 3. Macmillan, 1914.

Bingham, Hiram. "Latin America and the Monroe Doctrine." The Yale Review 99, no. 3 (2011): 17-30.

Gilderhus, Mark T. "The Monroe doctrine: meanings and implications." Presidential Studies Quarterly 36, no. 1 (2006): 5-16.

Hanaway, Roy Clark. "Latin American Opinion of the Monroe Doctrine." Social Science 1, no. 2 (1926): 113-121.

Inman, Samuel Guy. "The Monroe Doctrine and Hispanic America." Hispanic American Historical Review (1921): 635-676.

Keasbey, Lindley M. "The Nicaragua Canal and the Monroe doctrine." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 7, no. 1 (1896): 1-31.