The Monroe Doctrine is a United States doctrine which, on December 2,

1823, proclaimed that European powers would no longer colonize or

interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the
Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between
European powers and their colonies. However, if these latter types of
wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such
action as hostile. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine
during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a
defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States.

The three main concepts of the doctrineseparate spheres of

influence for the Americas and Europe, non-colonization, and non-
interventionwere designed to signify a clear break between the
Americas and the autocratic realm of Europe. Monroe's administration
forewarned the imperial European powers against interfering in the
affairs of the newly independent Latin American states or potential
United States territories. While Americans generally objected to
European colonies in the Americas, they also desired to increase United
States influence and trading ties throughout the region to their south.
European mercantilism posed the greatest obstacle to economic
expansion. In particular, Americans feared that Spain and France might
reassert colonialism over the Latin American peoples who had just
overthrown European rule. Signs that Russia was expanding its
presence southward from Alaska toward the Oregon Territory were
also disconcerting.

Contents

[hide]
1 History

1.1 The Doctrine

2 The Roosevelt Corollary

2.1 Shift to the "Good Neighbor policy"

3 The Cold War

4 Criticism

5 References

6 External links

7 Credits

By the mid-1800s, Monroe's declaration, combined with ideas of

Manifest Destiny, provided precedent and support for United States
expansion on the American continent. In the late 1800s, United States
economic and military power enabled it to enforce the Monroe
Doctrine. The doctrine's greatest extension came with Theodore
Roosevelt's Corollary, which came to justify unilateral United States
influence in Latin America.

History

In the early nineteenth century, the United Kingdom was torn between
monarchical principle and a desire for new markets. South America as a
whole constituted, at the time, a much larger market for British goods
than did the United States. When Russia and France proposed that
Britain join in helping Spain regain her New World colonies, Britain
vetoed the idea. Britain was in fact negotiating with the United States
as to whether the policies in the Monroe Doctrine should be declared
jointly.

Of the regions of the Americas which were directly influenced by a

European colonial power, it is notable that the colonies and territories
of British North America were not included in the implementation of
the Monroe Doctrine. The War of 1812 had already been fought
between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canadian
colonials for possession of Lower and Upper Canada, and any further
attempts at intervening in the northern colonies would almost certainly
have led to another American-British war. It is also notable that the
presence of the coloniesand eventually the Dominion of Canada
within the Empire was viewed from within the colonies themselves as
being an important counter-weight to possible American hegemony.

The United States was also negotiating with Spain to purchase Florida,
and once that treaty was ratified, the Monroe administration began to
extend recognition to the new Latin American nationsArgentina,
Chile, Colombia, and Mexico were all recognized in 1822.

In 1823, France invited Spain to restore the Bourbons to power, and

there was talk of France and Spain warring upon the new republics with
the backing of the Holy Alliance (Russia, Prussia, and Austria). This news
appalled the British government, as Britain had worked hard to expel
France from the New World, while markets in the former Spanish
colonies that had recently become open to British trade might be
closed off if Spain regained control.
John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, was instrumental in the
formulation of the Monroe Doctrine.

British Foreign Minister George Canning proposed that the United

States and the United Kingdom join to warn off France and Spain from
intervention. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison urged Monroe
to accept the offer, but John Quincy Adams was more suspicious.
Adams also was concerned about the efforts of Russia and Mexico to
extend their influence over the Oregon Country, which had already
been jointly claimed by the Americans and British.

At the Cabinet meeting of November 7, 1823, Adams argued against

Canning's offer, and declared, "It would be more candid, as well as
more dignified, to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France,
than to come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war."
He finally won over the Cabinet to an independent policy.

In Monroe's Annual Message to Congress on December 2, 1823, he

delivered what has come to be called the Monroe Doctrine. Essentially,
the United States was informing the powers of the Old World that the
Americas were no longer open to European colonization, and that any
effort to extend European political influence into the New World would
be considered by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and
safety." The United States would not interfere in European wars or
internal affairs, and expected Europe to stay out of the affairs of the
New World.

The first use of the yet unnamed doctrine was in 1836, when Americans
objected to Britain's alliance with Texas on the principle of the Monroe
Doctrine.
The Monroe Doctrine was invoked when European powers became
involved in the repeated re-occupation of various territories of the
island of Hispaniola, which had been divided between France and
Spain. Both nations were interested in re-claiming their territories in
Hispaniola, or re-exerting their influence. Ultimately, the new Republic
of Haiti not only resisted recolonization attempts, but also gained
control of the other portion of the island, controlling it until 1844 when
it gained its independence as the Dominican Republic.

On December 2, 1845, U.S. President James Polk announced to

Congress that the principle of the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly
enforced and that the United States should aggressively expand into
the West, a policy which became known as Manifest Destiny).

In 1852, some politicians used the principle of the Monroe Doctrine to

argue for forcefully removing the Spanish from Cuba. In 1898, following
the Spanish-American War, the United States obtained Puerto Rico
from Spain and began an occupation of Cuba that lasted until 1902.

In 1863, French forces under Napoleon III invaded Mexico and set up a
French puppet regime headed by Emperor Maximilian; Americans
proclaimed this as a violation of "The Doctrine," but were unable to
intervene due to the American Civil War. This marked the first time the
Monroe Doctrine was widely referred to as a "Doctrine." After the war,
the United States government began to pressure Napoleon to withdraw
his troops, and he did so in 1867.
In the 1870s, U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant extended the Monroe
Doctrine, saying that the United States would not tolerate a colony in
the Americas being transferred from one European country to another.

In 1895, U.S. Secretary of State Richard Olney extended the Monroe

Doctrine to give the United States the authority to mediate border
disputes in South America. This is known as the Olney interpretation.

The Drago Doctrine was announced on December 29, 1902 by the

Foreign Minister of Argentina. Extending the Monroe Doctrine, it set
forth the policy that no European power could use force against an
American nation to collect debt. Two years later, U.S. President
Theodore Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe
Doctrine, which asserted the right of the United States to intervene in
Latin America. This was the most significant amendment to the original
doctrine.

In the early twentieth century, President Theodore Roosevelt used it to

proclaim America's right to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin
American states. The doctrine also contributed to the United States'
building of the Panama Canal (19041914).

The Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine (below) states three major ideas, with one more
added by President Theodore Roosevelt. First, it conveys that European
countries cannot colonize in any of the Americas: North, Central, or
South as well as islands of the Caribbean which were considered to be a
part of the Americas. Second, it enforces Washington's rule of foreign
policy, in which the United States will only be involved in European
affairs if America's rights are disturbed. Third, the United States will
consider any attempt at colonization a threat to its national security.
Roosevelt added to the doctrine, and summed up his additions with the
statement, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

from President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress,

December 2, 1823:

James Monroe

At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made

through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and
instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States
at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective
rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this
continent. A similar proposal had been made by His Imperial Majesty to
the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to.
The Government of the United States of America has been desirous by
this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have
invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their
solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In
the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the
arrangements by which they may terminate 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 have
assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects
for future colonization by any European powers....

It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great

effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition
of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted
with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the
result has been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of
events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much
intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been
anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States
cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and
happiness of their fellowmen on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of
the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never
taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only
when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent
injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in
this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and
by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial
observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially
different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds
from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the
defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much
blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most
enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled
felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor
and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and
those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their
part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as
dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or
dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall
not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their
independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have,
on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could
not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or
controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power
in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition
toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments
and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition,
and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no
change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities
of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of
the United States indispensable to their security.

The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still
unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced
than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any
principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the
internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be
carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent
powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even
those most remote, and surely none more so than the United States.
Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of
the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe,
nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal
concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as
the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it,
and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy,
meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to
injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are
eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied
powers should extend their political system to any portion of either
continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can
anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would
adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we
should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we
look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those old
Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious
that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United
States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers
will pursue the same course....

The Roosevelt Corollary

A political cartoonists' commentary on Roosevelt's "big stick" policy

The doctrine's authors, especially John Quincy Adams, saw the Monroe
Doctrine as a proclamation by the United States of moral opposition to
colonialism, but it has subsequently been re-interpreted in a wide
variety of ways, most notably by President Theodore Roosevelt.

The Roosevelt Corollary was a substantial alteration (called an

"amendment") of the Monroe Doctrine by U.S. President Theodore
Roosevelt in 1904. Roosevelt's extension of the Monroe Doctrine
asserted the right of the United States to intervene to stabilize the
economic affairs of small nations in the Caribbean and Central America
if they were unable to pay their international debts. The alternative was
intervention by European powers, especially Britain and Germany,
which loaned money to the countries that did not repay. The catalyst of
the new policy was Germany's aggressiveness in the Venezuela affair of
1902-1903.
Roosevelt's December 1904 Annual message to Congress declared:

All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries

stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct
themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation
shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency
in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations,
it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic
wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of
the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately
require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western
Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe
Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant
cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an
international police power.

The program spurred export growth and better fiscal management, but
debt settlements were driven primarily by "gunboat diplomacy."

Shift to the "Good Neighbor policy"

Presidents cited the Roosevelt Corollary as justification for United

States intervention in Cuba (1906-1910), Nicaragua (1909-1911, 1912-
1925 and 1926-1933), Haiti (1915-1934), and the Dominican Republic
(1916-1924).

In 1928, under President Calvin Coolidge, the Clark Memorandum

stated that the United States did not have the right to intervene unless
there was a threat by European powers. Released two years later, it
concluded that the Doctrine did not give the United States any right to
intervene in Latin American affairs when the region was not threatened
by Old World powers, thereby reversing the Roosevelt Corollary.

In 1934, Franklin D. Roosevelt further renounced interventionism and

established his "Good Neighbor policy," which tolerated the emergence
of dictatorships like that of Batista in Cuba or Trujillo in the Dominican
Republic, as long as they were not seen as agents of European powers.

In 1954, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles evoked the Monroe

Doctrine at the Tenth Inter-American Conference, denouncing the
influence of Soviet Communism in Guatemala. This was used to justify
United States involvement in 1954 Guatemalan coup d'tat, which
overthrew the pro-Soviet leader Jacobo Arbenz Guzmn.

The Cold War

During the Cold War, the Monroe doctrine was applied to Latin America
by the framers of United States foreign policy. When the Cuban
Revolution established a socialist regime with ties to the Soviet Union,
it was argued that the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine should be again
invoked, this time to prevent the further spreading of Soviet-backed
Communism in Latin America. As the situation escalated, the Monroe
Doctrine played a part in the Cuban missile crisis (1962), a
confrontation with the USSR over Soviet missile bases established in
Cuba.

United States President John F. Kennedy at an August 29, 1962 news

conference:
The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe
and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would
oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western
Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba
today. That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in
the Organization of American States and in other ways to isolate the
Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a
good deal of our effort and attention to it.

The United States thus often provided intelligence and military aid to
Latin and South American governments that appeared to be threatened
by Communist subversion.

The debate over this new spirit of the Monroe Doctrine came to a head
in the 1980s, as part of the Iran-Contra Affair. Among other things, it
was revealed that the United States Central Intelligence Agency had
been covertly training "Contra" guerrilla soldiers in Nicaragua in an
attempt to destabilize the country and overthrow the Sandinista
revolutionary government and its president, Daniel Ortega. CIA director
Robert Gates vigorously defended the operation, arguing that avoiding
American intervention in Nicaragua would be "totally to abandon the
Monroe doctrine."

In a case brought before the International Court of Justice by

Nicaragua, however, the court ruled that the United States had
exercised "unlawful use of force." The United States ignored the
verdict. The Carter and Reagan administrations embroiled themselves
in the civil war in El Salvador, again citing the Monroe Doctrine as
justification. The Monroe Doctrine was also cited during the later
United States intervention in Guatemala and the invasion of Grenada
under President Reagan. Critics of the Reagan administration's support
for Britain in the Falklands War charge that the United States ignored
the Monroe Doctrine in that instance.

Criticism

Some allege that, in practice, the Monroe Doctrine has functioned as a

declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the
of the Western Hemisphere. They point to 79 United States military
interventions in Latin America and Haiti since 1846.

Did you know?

The Monroe Doctrine has been ironically summarized in Latin America

as "America for the Americans"

Some Latin Americans have come to resent this "Monroe Doctrine,"

which has been summarized there in the ironic phrase: "America for
the Americans," translated into Spanish as Amrica para los
americanos. The irony lies in the fact that the Spanish term americano
is used to name the inhabitants of the whole continent. However, in
English, the term American is related almost exclusively to the nationals
of the United States. Thus, while "America for the Americans" sounds
very much like a call to share a common destiny, it becomes apparent
that it could really imply: America (the continent) for the United States.

Other critics have interpreted the Monroe Doctrine as isolationist in

intentin that it ignores the United States' responsibility to involve
itself overseas. For example, the Monroe Doctrine was cited in the early
stages of WWII to justify the United States staying out of the conflict.

References

Alagna, Magdalena. The Monroe Doctrine: An End to European

Colonies in America. Rosen Publishing Group, 2003. ISBN
9780823940400

Leavitt, Joshua. The Monroe Doctrine. Cornell University Library, 1863.

ISBN 9781429729369

Renehan, Jr., Edward J. The Monroe Doctrine: The Cornerstone of

American Foreign Policy. Chelsea House Publications, 2007. ISBN
9780791093535

Smith, Gaddis. The Last Years of the Monroe Doctrine, 1945-1993. Hill
and Wang, 1995. ISBN 9780809015689

External links

All links retrieved November 17, 2014.

Monroe Doctrine and related resources at the Library of Congress

www.loc.gov

Selected text from Monroe's December 2, 1823 speech

www.law.ou.edu

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed

the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia
standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-
sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with
proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can
reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the
selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite
this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history
of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Monroe_Doctrine history

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which

are separately licensed.