The 1823 Monroe Doctrine and its First Consequences for Global Politics: The Making the U.S. to be a Global Empire
President Monroe promulgated his doctrine for the reason that he saw an opportunity for the special geopolitical role of Washington in the Americas from Alaska to Patagonia [...]
The doctrine was presented by the 5-th U.S. President James Monroe (1817−1825) in 1823 as an official warning to (West) European powers that any European policy of imperialistic expansionism on the ground of the Americas (North, Central, and South or Anglo-Francophone and Latin, i.e., Spanish & Portuguese) was going to be taken into account by Washington as a threat to the U.S. national interests. In fact, the doctrine proclaimed the Americas as the sole business of the U.S. without any involvement or/and interruption from the outside world. In other words, James Monroe proclaimed the exclusive U.S. economic, financial, and geopolitical rights to deal (exploit) with the Americas (including Canada as well). The doctrine was later extended with practical consequences by both 26-th U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt (1901−1909) and 28-th U. S. President Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1913−1921) who used it to formally justify American imperialistic policies in several countries from Latin America from Mexico to Colombia.
James Monroe (1758−1831) was the U.S. Democratic Republican statesman and the U.S. President. He is remembered for two reasons: 1) In 1803 being a minister to France under U.S. President Jefferson he negotiated and finally ratified the so-called “Louisiana Purchase”, by which a large territory formally owned by (Napoléonic) France was sold to the USA (as Napoléon needed extra financial sources for his wars in Europe); 2) However, James Monroe is mainly remembered as the creator of the Monroe Doctrine which, in fact, drafted the U.S. imperialistic policy in the future.
What is the Monroe Doctrine? It is the U.S. foreign policy formal (diplomatic) declaration that was warning (West) European powers (in fact, the UK, Spain, Portugal, and France) against further colonization of the Americas (the New World) but, as well as, against intervention in the governments within the American hemisphere. As a counteroffer, the doctrine disclaimed any intention of Washington to take part in European political affairs (that was, however, valid till April 1917 when the U.S. took direct participation in WWI on European soil followed by the American military intervention in Russia during the Russian Civil War of 1917−1921).
The background of the doctrine that was uttered by President James Monroe in his annual speech to the U.S. Congress in 1823, was, at first glance, the political threat of military intervention by the post-Napoleonic Holy Alliance to restore the colonies of Spain in Latin America which already declared their independence from Madrid. However, it became soon clear that the U.S. imperialistic policy had to fill the vacuum in Latin America after the withdrawal of the Spanish power and administration.
The Monroe Doctrine was from time to time applied by the U.S. foreign policy in the Americas. Nevertheless, after the development of territorial interests in Central America and the Caribbean, it became a tenet of U.S. foreign policy. The doctrine in the first part of the 20th century became developed into a policy in which Washington concerned the U.S. as responsible for the security of the Americas – an umbrella of U.S. geopolitical colonization of the Americas especially during the Cold War. As a result, such policy consistently complicated U.S. relations with Latin American countries and only local dictatorships sponsored by Washington could control the people’s anti-American sentiments.
It is understood by political scientists that, in fact, it was in the cause of the balance that London influenced Washington to issue the Monroe Doctrine – the doctrine announced by President James Monroe to Congress on December 2nd, 1823. We have to keep in mind that the doctrine originally stated that (West) European states could not re-colonize the Americas or interfere in the affairs of already independent states of North and Soth America. At the moment, such an attitude was reflecting the U.S. and the U.K.’s concern about West European interference within the Western hemisphere, especially any effort by Spain to regain control over former colonial possessions in Latin America. Nonetheless, the focal slogan of the Monroe Doctrine – “America to Americans” in the following years, in fact, inspired U.S. colonial imperialism and since 1867 and especially 1898 became transformed into the policy of “The Americas to the U.S.A.”.
President Monroe promulgated his doctrine for the reason that he saw an opportunity for the special geopolitical role of Washington in the Americas from Alaska to Patagonia. However, originally, beating the Spanish and French colonial influences in the Americas was not imaginable at the time of the declaration without the British Royal Navy. Truly speaking, the aim of the U.K. was not to assist the U.S. but to beat France – a country that at that time dominated Spain. Therefore, the British Foreign Secretary George Canning (1770−1827), actually, encouraged the policy of Washington as a good way to count down Spanish (in fact, French) colonial power. In one word, The U.S. administration issued the Monroe Doctrine formally to prevent any further effort by Spain (and France) to regain its lost possessions in the New World (the Americas). Nevertheless, in practice, according to the doctrine, all European states have been obliged to respect the Western hemisphere as an exclusive sphere of geopolitical, financial, and economic influence by the U.S.A.
The first consequences (1897−1916)
The 1897−1903 Alaska border dispute with neighboring Canada (Dominion since 1867) was the first direct implementation of the Monroe Doctrine concerning the U.S. foreign policy with, in fact, the final geopolitical intention to incorporate Canada into the U.S.A. In other words, the rush to the Klondike gold fields in 1897 (land between Alaska and Canada) brought the dispute near the war between the two states. Canada feared the loss of the territories in the northwest. However, a politically oriented tribunal established to solve the problem with the U.K. judge holding the casting vote simply favored in 1903 the boundary line between Canada and the U.S. proposed by Washington.
The U.S. military intervention in the insurrection in Cuba in 1898 directly provoked the war with Spain. As the war became extremely successful for Washington, the U.S. obtained a protectorate over Cuba in 1903. However, the constant local revolts against U.S. rule brought several American military interventions on the island from 1906 to 1922. Nevertheless, similar U.S. military interventions happened in the Caribbean Dominican Republic twice – in 1905 and 1916−1924 followed in Haiti (1915−1934), and in Nicaragua (1909−1933). The next stage of the U.S. colonial imperialistic policy in Latin America according to the Monroe Doctrine was in 1917 when under Washington’s military pressure Denmark was forced to formally sell the Virgin Islands to the U.S. Nonetheless, the U.S. aggressive policy on Mexico in meanwhile brought two abortive American military interventions in that country in 1914 (invasion on Tampico and Veracruz) and 1916 (invasion across Rio Grande on Mexican provinces of Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Nuevo León).
Probably, the focal geopolitical and economic success of the U.S.A. in Latin America following the Monroe Doctrine was to obtain the Panama Canal zone’s control and protection (in fact, exploitation). Under the treaty with Panama (a former territory of Colombia taken out by the U.S.) in 1903 the U.S. leases the Panama Canal zone in perpetuity. However, at the same time, according to the treaty, Washington had to possess the zone as “if it were sovereign”. In fact, such contradictory diplomatic language caused unsolvable arguments from both sides. To keep in mind, the Panama Canal zone is 10 miles wide being bisected by the Canal which, contrary to the Suez Canal, has locks.
Woodrow Wilson and the Monroe Doctrine
The 28th U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (1913−1921) proclaimed to the U.S. Senate in January 1917 that both the principles and policies of the U.S.A. had to be accepted by the rest of the world as they were those of all mankind. More precisely, he argued that all nations of the world should “with one accord adopt the doctrine of President Monroe as the doctrine of the world” continuing that “no nation should seek to extend its polity over any other nation or people”. A result of proclaiming the 1923 Monroe Doctrine as the doctrine of all nations, should be “that every people should be left free to determine its own polity, its own way of development, unhindered, unthreatened, unafraid, the little along with the great and powerful”. That was, in fact, a formal expression of universalizing international relations founded on President Monroe’s doctrine (which originally dealt only with the Americas but now it was implemented to the whole world).
However, in practice, a different perspective of the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine by Washington (and others) prevailed as even within the Western Hemisphere the impact of the Monroe Doctrine was other than benign. The doctrine, unfortunately, even during the presidency of W. Wilson did not serve as a guarantee that all nations would be permitted to determine their destiny “unhindered, unthreatened, and unafraid” but, in fact, as a mechanism for making order of the relations between the stronger and weaker states either in regional or global politics according to imposed terms dictated by the stronger.
Actually, from the time of W. Wilson’s presidency, the 1823 Monroe Doctrine had evolved into a rationale for both U.S. military intervention and the expansion of U.S. power (hard and soft). W. Wilson, in 1915, was eager to see democracy prevail in the Caribbean being at the same time unwilling to tolerate anything that smacked of radicalism or instability and, therefore, he sent U.S. military troops into Haiti. Next year (1916), just several weeks before W. Wilson gave his January 1917 speech, American troops occupied the Dominican Republic. Nevertheless, the U.S. stay in each instance proved to be an extended one, and in neither country occupied by American troops did democracy flower as a result.
Woodrow Wilson was very confident that he and his administration had the right to make a destiny of the Mexican Revolution and were eager at the same time to teach others to “elect good men”. Consequently, his administration persistently interfered in Mexican internal affairs and even organized military expeditions into Mexico twice: in 1914 and 1916. Nonetheless, W. Wilson’s quest to make the revolution more democratic was abortive and he, basically, succeeded only in poisoning the relations with neighboring Mexico for a longer time. However, according to W. Wilson, all these U.S. military actions had the best intentions and were done following the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.
Last words
In conclusion, the ideological foundation for such American colonial imperialism in the Americas since the end of the 19th century was the 1823 Monroe Doctrine which implied an intention to treat the Americas (especially Latin America) as the exclusive geopolitical, economic, and financial sphere of influence by the U.S.A.
Many official advocates of an “open world” or “world without the border” (in fact, the globalists) are in essence proponents of M. Monroe’s doctrine and W. Wilson’s principles of a free world to implement U.S. principles and policies on a global scene. They, like W. Wilson himself, strictly reject the notion that others might construe American foreign policy as imperialistic. What is the climax of the matter, they advocate that the U.S. deserves to be above all other great powers (in fact, super- or even hyperpower) in order to employ their values to the rest of the world even using a power (soft or hard) to act on behalf of the global benefit. They propagate that openness is the cause of democracy, economic development, protection of human rights, and peace. However, in many cases, this openness is just a formal framework for the American crucial influence around the world which gradually was implemented after the official presentation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.
Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic
Ex-University Professor
Research Fellow at Centre for Geostrategic Studies
Personal disclaimer: The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution.
Origins of images: Facebook, Twitter, Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Flickr, Google, Imageinjection, Public Domain & Pinterest.
Read our Disclaimer/LegalStatement!
DonatetoSupportUs
We would like to ask you to consider a small donation to help our team keep working. We accept no advertising and rely only on you, our readers, to keep us digging the truth on history, global politics, and international relations.
As Europe’s longest ruler, it is a surprise that Milo Djukanovic is only 58. He has served as prime minister or president of various iterations of Montenegro since 1991 – spanning the collapse of Yugoslavia and across and beyond independence of the nation in 2006.What is the secret to Mr Djukanovic’s success? The answer is depressingly predictable: clientelism and the buying – or, depending on your perspective, stealing – of power.The beauty of Montenegro hides this ugly truth. Most know it as a tourist idyll with pristine beaches, crystal lakes and picturesque mountains. But holidaymakers rarely realize they enter less ...
How can it be that in virtually all of the Presidential-candidate head-to-head Democratic versus Republican polling that was done of both Democratic and Republican candidates during the primaries, the preferred Democratic candidate against any one of the Republican candidates was Bernie Sanders, but he almost certainly won’t be that Party’s nominee (and there’s more on that here); and the preferred Republican candidate against either one of the Democratic candidates was John Kasich, but he certainly won’t be the Republican nominee?Sanders and Kasich also scored the highest in his respective Party for net favorability rating, but almost certainly neither candidate will ...
The US marines in the mission of democratization of the Afghan Talibans.An authentic video clip.No comment, except: Can you imagine reaction by the CNN in the case of the Russian marines are doing the same in Syria with the fighters of the ISIL?Enjoy 38 sec. of the documentary clip on democratization of Afghanistan.Origins of images: Facebook, Twitter, Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Flickr, Google, Imageinjection, Public Domain & Pinterest.Read our Disclaimer/Legal Statement!Donate to Support UsWe would like to ask you to consider a small donation to help our team keep working. We accept no advertising and rely only on you, our readers, to ...
The Great European Powers and the BalkansThe Balkans is a term connoting peoples, cultures, and states that make up a peninsula of South-East Europe between the Black Sea, the Adriatic Sea, the Aegean Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea. There are three crucial points of the Balkan’s significance from the geostrategic point of view: The territory of the Balkans is an important connection between West and Central Europe and the Near and the Middle East. Wealthy of the region’s natural resources. The region which is located betwixt the Danube River, the Black Sea and East Mediterranean is an important part of ...
The details are supplied in an exhaustive 1,000-page biography of Jean Monnet by Éric Roussel, which was published only in France in 1996, and which seems to have been successfully suppressed. It has never been translated, and has no reviews even at Amazon. However, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of UK's Telegraph newspaper has provided some of the core information from it. Furthermore, Richard J. Aldrich's 2003 The Hidden Hand also provides key details, such as by Aldrich's saying, on page 366, about the American Committee for a United Europe: ACUE, more than any other American front organization of the Cold War, was a ...
The most useful parable about progressives is that offered by Bernard Sanders, self-styled “socialist-progressive-independent” rep from Vermont. Sanders owes his political career to rage against the Vietnam War among radicals, many of whom moved into the state in the early 1970s. They forthwith planned a long-term, carefully organized, assault on Vermont’s two-party structure. Sanders linked his political ambitions to this effort to organize a third force, the Progressive Alliance. He became mayor of Burlington and, later, congressman.At a rapid clip the emphasis moved from party-building to Sanders-building. By 1994, it was apparent that the only movement B. Sanders was interested in ...
Origins of images: Facebook, Twitter, Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Flickr, Google, Imageinjection, Public Domain & Pinterest.Read our Disclaimer/Legal Statement!Donate to Support UsWe would like to ask you to consider a small donation to help our team keep working. We accept no advertising and rely only on you, our readers, to keep us digging the truth on history, global politics and international relations.[wpedon id="4696" align="left"]Save
The genocidal rule of the Khmer Rouge began forty years ago this month. Their rise to power was inseparable from US intervention.On April 17, 1975, Khmer Rouge (KR) forces stormed Phnom Penh and reestablished Cambodia as Democratic Kampuchea — a supposedly self-sufficient, entirely agrarian society. Resetting the clock to “Year Zero,” the KR forced urban dwellers to the countryside, and began to “purify” Cambodia through a genocidal purge of intellectuals and minority groups. By the time the slaughter came to an end in 1979 — after Vietnam invaded Cambodia and removed the KR from power — some 1.7 million people (21 percent ...
“Now that the global circumstances have changed, and when the United States and NATO are losing their influence, and while the powers that are in favor of preserving Kosovo and Metohija – such as Russia and China – are strengthening, we are nevertheless pursuing a policy of complete surrender.”The aim of the internal dialogue conducted by the Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, should be to distribute responsibilities and to be the cover for the final surrender of Kosovo and Metohija.The government constantly assures us that it will never recognize Kosovo as an independent State, but here we must point out the ...
It was NATO’s first out-of-area operation, against its own Treaty and without a UN mandate. On March 24, 1999.Independent Kosovo was established – against UN SC resolution 1244. Thanks to the Clinton administration and Madeleine Albright. CNN’s Amanpour endorsed it generously on TV with her State Department husband, James Rubin, a chief operator in the non-negotiations at Rambouillet. And TIME of course knew the truth too.Serbia suffered tremendously from the 78 days of indiscriminate, hard bombing. I know because I was there.Finally, Serbia and its president Milosevic was threatened with total destruction of Belgrade. And gave in.Western hubris after the ...
There are more questions than answers to the Crimean ‘question’.After more than two decades belonging to an independent Ukraine, the Crimean peninsula has become part of Russia, which has thereby gained an extra 27,000 km2 of territory and over two million new citizens. Ukraine and the West see this unprecedented event as annexation and a sign of the Kremlin’s neo-imperial ambitions. To countries not directly involved in the Ukrainian crisis, it is a dangerous violation of the Eurasian status quo that could cause widespread destabilisation in the area, while in Moscow’s eyes it is ‘the return of Crimea and Sevastopol ...
I will not dwell either on the prehistory nor early history of the region of Kosovo-Metochia (KosMet) in this article.The Montenegrins and medieval SerbiaIt used to pass from one state to the other, until Stephan Nemanja (1166−1196), a nobleman from Zeta (present-day Montenegro), founded the state of Serbia, whose center very soon later became exactly in today’s KosMet. First a Byzantine vassal dukedom, Serbia became soon an independent state, to become an empire under the rule of Stephan Dušan (1331−1355), the first Emperor of Serbia.[1]Serbia’s Nemanjić’s dynasty ended with Dušan’s son, Uroš, disintegrating into many feudal possessions.[2] In the epic ...
This is definitely an unusual book, as heralded by its title and three subtitles, whose lengthy wording evokes that of several learned tomes of the 18th and early 19thcentury.Its author is a well-known personality in Switzerland. Guy Mettan is a prominent journalist, formerly editor-in-chief of Tribune de Genève; he once presided over the Great Council, the Geneva parliament, of which he is still a representative, elected on the Christian Democrat Party list; he heads the Swiss Press Club and has written several books on Switzerland and international Geneva.As he explains in his foreword, his interest for Russia came by happenstance: ...
Why Does America Keep “Losing” Its Wars?Below, we demonstrate that the U.S. keeps “losing” war after war.There are 3 potential reasons this might be happening: Is this chaos an intentional way to implement regime change and grab resources? Or is this a sign of the decline of the American empire … and we just can’t win a war anymore? Or do those in charge just not really give a damn about winning … and are they just focusing on one short-term goal after another?We’ll let you decide why you think this keeps happening. But if you don’t believe that the ...
If you want to know the untold history of the U.S.A., then a good place to start is with the history of US imperialism in Asia from the mid-19th century until today. Not only will that reveal the history of the criminality of US foreign policy, but it will also reveal the true nature of U.S. capitalism, imperialism, fascism and U.S. wars of aggression: past, present and future.For centuries the U.S. has preached that it believes in democracy, freedom and self-determination, but its actions towards other countries speak louder than words. Internationally the U.S. is a predator and a bully. ...
Six months into 2016 and the world looks decidedly nervous and edgy from a geo-political viewpoint. A dramatic oil price plunge has pushed producing nations into near crisis as the international scrap for market share follows a bid by a collapsing OPEC cartel to fight off American production. China’s economic woes continue to destabilise markets the world over. The USA is clearly becoming more hostile, even warlike towards Russia, who in turn appears to be gearing up to defend itself from increasingly belligerent and aggressive NATO commanders who are facilitating Europe’s encirclement of Russian borders. The latest weaponry pointed directly at Moscow does not help ...
I am now convinced that the Oligarchy that rules America intends to steal the presidential election. In the past, the oligarchs have not cared which candidate won as the oligarchs owned both. But they do not own Trump.Most likely you are unaware of what Trump is telling people as the media does not report it. A person who speaks like this:- is not endeared to the oligarchs.Who are the oligarchs?— Wall Street and the mega-banks too big to fail and their agent the Federal Reserve, a federal agency that put 5 banks ahead of millions of troubled American homeowners who ...
Perhaps no country on Earth is more misunderstood by Americans than North Korea. Though the country's leaders are typically portrayed as buffoonish, even silly, in fact they are deadly serious in their cruelty and skill at retaining power. Though the country is seen as Soviet-style communist, in fact it is better understood as a holdover of Japanese fascism.And there is another misconception, one that Americans might not want to hear but that is important for understanding the hermit kingdom: Yes, much of its anti-Americanism is cynically manufactured as a propaganda tool, and yes, it is often based on lies. But ...
Author’s note: The following article focussing on the jihadist terrorist insurgency in Macedonia was first published by antiwar.com in July 2001, barely two months before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.Known and documented, since the Soviet-Afghan war, recruiting Mujahedin (“holy warriors”) to fight covert wars on Washington’s behest had become an integral part of US foreign policy. A report of the US Congress had revealed how the US administration – under advice from the National Security Council headed by Anthony Lake – had “helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base” leading to the recruitment ...
The United States is immersed in a political St. Vitus’s dance typical of empires in convulsion. The confident colossus that watched its arch-rival disintegrate from 1989-1991 now has its highest office occupied by a malevolent clown enabled by supporters befitting a casting call for a Hieronymous Bosch panel. The liberal class gnashes its teeth and blames Trump, the Koch brothers, the Tea Party. But the shock is hardly credible. The current political trap befits a country that internalized its own Cold War propaganda campaign from 1945-1991. The unrelenting flow of messages aimed at keeping Americans fearful and accommodating debased our ...
The magazine is covering the research gaps uncovered by global Western hoax mainstream media platforms and academic teaching & research institutions.
This is an alternative information & academic research digest platform with the purpose to offer an alternative “another side of the truth”.
The magazine is independent, private, and free of any influence by any institution, organization, government, or pressure group. URL: www.global-politics.eu
The Doctrine (1823)
The first consequences (1897−1916)
Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic
