The Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine
The ideal of isolationism has become a prevalent call from varying partisan factions. Although the appeal for xenophobic policy hails from disparate pockets of the political spectrum, the motivation is always in response to the perceived results of interventionist policies. This paper will summarize the Monroe Doctrine (MD), define its impact on United States (US) domestic and foreign policy, and discuss the implications of nationalist policies in a global community.

Historical Context of the Monroe Doctrine
On December 2, 1823 President James Monroe addressed Congress about the international conditions of the American continents. Several situations manifested in the years preceding Monroe’s stated position. States such as Columbia, Mexico and Chile fought for independence from Spain, taking advantage of its weakened power resulting from the Napoleonic Wars. “Napoleon’s occupation of Spain and his invasion of Portugal undermined the Spanish and Portuguese Empires and stimulated the emancipation of Latin America” (Page, 2003). Recognizing the strategic commercial rewards, the American government quickly recognized Latin American (LA) states as sovereign. In addition, Russia had lay claim to trade territory in the North American continent. “Simultaneously with granting the renewal of the Russian-American Company’s second charter in 1821, the Russian government determined that there were far too many foreigners and far too much foreign influence in Russian America. Having apparently learned nothing from Baranov’s quarter of a century of experience, it decreed that there be no trade with non-Russians in the territory north of fifty-first parallel¬–roughly the northern tip of Vancouver Island–and that the Russian-American Company settlements be supplied only by Russian ships. Further, Czar Alexander I issued a ukase (an imperial decree) prohibiting foreign vessels from coming within 100 miles of Russian territory, including all of the islands of the Aleutians” (Borneman, 2004). Furthermore, The Holy Allegiance (HA) of Russia, Prussia, Austria, and, following the removal of Napoleon from power, France, sought to restore monarchial rule and defend each other from revolutionary forces. Britain’s tentative commitment was interrupted when the HA proposed intervention in LA’s struggles with Spanish rule. “In 1822, at the congress of Verona, Britain opposes plans for intervention in Spain and Latin America - and subsequently withdraws from the Quadruple Alliance. (Regardless of this a French army marches into Spain in 1823 to restore Ferdinand VII to his throne.)” (Gascoigne).

Following the Congress of Verona, the British government sought to maintain trade profits from South America through a suggested allegiance with the American government to enforce sovereignty for the new LA states. However, many American officials wanted to avoid any European imbroglio. Moreover, the memories of the War of 1812 and the pre-American Revolution British rule left a bitter taste in the mouths of nationalists such as John Quincy Adams. The MD was therefore a procurement proclamation announcing America’s claim to the North American continent while recognizing the authority of existing inclusionary states such as Canada and Mexico.

Impacts on United States Domestic Policy
The domestic impact of the MD cemented the prevailing sense of entitlement expressed in the term Manifest Destiny. The American government enforced a strategy of impartial intercontinental commerce and blocked colonial impingement. Seemingly blind to the irony, US history is replete, perhaps fed by, American expansionism. Prior to the MD, Native American Indian tribes were subject to genocidal attacks by the encroaching “Whites.” “Andrew Jackson, from Tennessee, was a forceful proponent of Indian removal. In 1814 he commanded the U.S. military forces that defeated a faction of the Creek nation. In their defeat, the Creeks lost 22 million acres of land in southern Georgia and central Alabama. The U.S. acquired more land in 1818 when, spurred in part by the motivation to punish the Seminoles for their practice of harboring fugitive slaves, Jackson's troops invaded Spanish Florida” ("Indian removal: 1814 - 1858,”). The inherent racist attitudes extended to slavery and the minority worker forces treated like slaves, such as the Asian railroad laborers. Tinged with a perverse interpretation of Christian dogma and a capitalist thirst for resources, the principles of the MD fueled the darker chapters of US history. “The appropriation of Indian territory occurred in a period of great expansion, because Americans believed it was their ‘manifest destiny’ to acquire new lands. Advocates of this ideology believed that the United States had a providential right and obligation to assume control over less-developed areas in the name of republicanism, Christianity, and white supremacy. Expansionists even had a quasi-legal justification for building a continental empire, the Monroe Doctrine” (DeConde, Burns, & Logevall, 2001).

Impacts on United States Foreign Policy
The initial impact of the MD were partially realized as the HA did not attempt to recover Spanish control of the Latin American states. Although the chief factor of this was the powerful British Navy, America drew a proverbial line in the sand by announcing the implied determination to maintain LA autonomy. The years preceding the Monroe presidency bore witness to the invocation of the MD as a contract of defense. However, a redirection of the plan to include American interventionism was set forth by president Theodore Roosevelt in 1905. “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” (Roosevelt, 1905). The Roosevelt Corollary (RC) was both preemptive intervention and a new height of hypocrisy and hubris as it was developed in reaction to LA states defaulting on loans, also known as economic stabilization. The principles of the RC have underlined all future US global interference. America policing the world is a concept adopted to rationalize our military and political activities internationally. One can even infer that the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an extension of the RC.

US private industry, entangled in the American government from the beginning, secured economic, and eventually military, supremacy over the other world governments. After the establishment of the United Nations, the US exercised veto power as well as unilateralism in defiance of Security Council resolutions condemning American military acts of aggression. To many in the world, the US is a rogue state, concerned only with economic domination and military omnipotence. Without directly invoking the MD or the RC, US foreign policy has consistently demonstrated the core principles of both dogmas. Just as preemptive intervention dictates that the US intervenes before European powers do, so too a preemptive strike dictates that the US attacks before a perceived enemy can consider attacking. The essential element of these policies is that “the United States had a providential right and obligation to assume control over less-developed areas in the name of republicanism, Christianity, and white supremacy” (DeConde, Burns, & Logevall, 2001). More directly, US foreign policy has been dictated by the exploitation of global resources. The worldwide community was appalled by the genocide in Darfur, yet US policy focused on Iraq with its vast oil fields and strategic military position. Darfur’s resources were controlled by a corrupt regime, friendly to US private industry. Fundamentally, the moral choice would be for US intervention in Darfur, historically however, the US favored corrupt regimes that did business with US banks and corporations.

In conclusion, the MD and resulting corollary policies have led the US down a path of aggression and hegemony. Following American independence, the European states faced several years of war, revolution, and strife. The known world was hostile towards new states, hungry for resources, and spacious, with many places still undiscovered. The MD was more relevant to that place in time when the US needed to determine its boundaries. The advances in science, commerce, and communication have made the known world much smaller. As resources dwindle under increasing demand and the earth chokes on the excessive waste generated by the massive population, the US must adopt a new paradigm. The time to intervene globally for financial or military gain has passed. The international community must act as a single state to preserve mankind without regard for primacy or profit. Until we do recognize this basic truth, the end of humanity is imminent.

 
References

Borneman, W.R. (2004). Alaska: saga of a bold land. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

DeConde, A., Burns, R.D., & Logevall, F. (2001). Encyclopedia of american foreign policy, vol. 1. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Gascoigne, B. (n.d.). History of europe: quadruple and holy alliances: ad 1814-1822. Retrieved from www.historyworld.net

Indian removal: 1814 - 1858. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.pbs.org

Monroe, J. (1823). Transcript of Monroe Doctrine. Ourdocuments.gov. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from www.ourdocuments.gov

Page, M.E. (2003). Colonialism: an international social, cultural, and political encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Roosevelt, T. (1905). Transcript of Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. Ourdocuments.gov. Retrieved March 31, 2011, from www.ourdocuments.gov

Bibliography

Tucker, S.C. (2009). (2009). The encyclopedia of the spanish-american and philippine-american wars: a political, social, and military history. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

A Justification For War?

Okay, I know I am beating a dead horse, but it was an assignment for school.

"Was the Second Gulf War justified? Lets not debate how well it was or was not carried out. Lets just discuss whether or not the USA was justified in undertaking it."

Like any other issue in American foreign policy, the answer is not always clear-cut. On the one hand, Iraq was cooperating with United Nations (UN) weapons inspectors by 2002 when Iraqi representatives gave access to the inspectors to all areas of Iraq. On the other hand, Iraq government officials were not answering questions regarding weapons completely or accurately. For this reason, the United States (US) stepped up its rhetoric against Iraq and pushed for war. “Although Iraq was cooperative on what inspectors called “process”—allowing inspectors access to suspected weapons sites, for example—it was only marginally cooperative in answering the questions surrounding its weapons programs. Unable to resolve its differences with Security Council members who favored strengthening and continuing weapons inspections, the United States abandoned the inspections process and initiated the invasion of Iraq on March 19” (Crail).

Based on this alone, the Bush Administration and the coalition of the willing were not justified for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, this was not the only reason given. The Administration of George W. Bush (GWBA), as a necessary American defense, introduced the doctrine of Preemptive Strikes, the concept of Imminent Threat and a blatant disregard for idealism. “The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed. We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail our enemies’ efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies’ plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action” (Bush, 2002).

The plans to attack Iraq were also formulated by key members of the GWBA prior to George W. Bush being awarded the presidency in 2000 by the Supreme Court. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an ultra conservative think tank that produced documents throughout the Bill Clinton Administration (BCA). Although George W Bush was never a member, his brother Jeb was, along with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl and several other significant associates of GWBA. One of many documents developed by the PNAC was Rebuilding America’s Defenses, which paints a toxic view of Iraq, Iran, Libya and North Korea as well as the “dire” need to increase military spending, defensive technology and American defenses. The term “regime change” is never explicitly stated in regards to Iraq, but the message is implied throughout the document. Several PNAC reports and letters to Congress also exist that discuss the threat of Iraq and the need for regime change. For extended readings from this group on the subject of war with Iraq during the BCA, go to the following Uniform Resource Locator (URL): http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm.

The GWBA cited evidence in their case against Iraq to the United Nations, Congress and the American Press. Instances about Iraq seeking to purchase yellowcake (partially refined uranium ore that is often used as an intermediate step in the production of nuclear weapons) from Nigeria in 2002/2003 were claimed as ample proof that Iraq posed an Imminent Threat to America. However, several experts repudiated the claim as cherry-picked intelligence to paint a specific picture that was fundamentally untrue. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to verify the claims about Saddam Hussein’s attempts to purchase uranium from Nigeria. His report debunked the claims of GWBA and led to White House personnel breaking the law and ethical codes of conduct to punish Wilson for leaking his findings to the press. Thus, Valerie Plame was ousted as a CIA operative and could never work under cover for the agency again. The years preceding and immediately following the 2003 invasion of Iraq were filled with deceptive partisan maneuvers from all sides of the political spectrum, Machiavellian exploits from the GWBA and a decisive split amongst Americans regarding the war. Many Americans were led to believe that invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power was necessary to protect the US. However, in several discussions about this reason, not one person could explain how this actually protected us from terrorism. Any arguments given to defend this position are easily obliterated logically.

To complicate this element further, 500 tons of yellowcake was located in Iraq and sold to Canada during the end of the Bush presidency. This alone does not vindicate the GWBA invasion of Iraq, as the material cannot be used in a dirty bomb or as a chemical agent on its own. Nor does it prove that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Most importantly, the UN weapons inspectors would have been able to locate the same material without a military invasion and the subsequent loss of life.

One factor that I have explored, and has led some to label me a traitor, is the fact that George W Bush is a businessman: specifically, a corrupt oilman with decidedly a seemingly disdainful view of the lower classes and a predilection for insider business dealings. His prior business dealings notwithstanding, Gorge W. Bush’s presidency consistently rewarded his wealthy corporate base while damaging the rights of consumers and workers. Based on this and the historical record, I contend that the real reason we invaded Iraq was to privatize the oil. Several people have pointed out that the price of gas never dropped to a reasonable rate as a result of the 2003 Iraq War. This fact is true and proves that control of the oil was never about American consumers. Privatization of Iraqi oil was about controlling their two main clients, Russia and China. Bush even implied that control of the oil was necessary for security during a few speeches, for example: “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow — would — would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions” (Bush, 2007). Since the beginning of the Iraq War, the GWBA has been actively seeking privatization of the oil. The Iraqi government, to allow private company contracts, which ExxonMobile and several other transnational corporations are salivating over, is now discussing legislation. As I have said all along, this is about the oil. I do not think Bush is an evil man. He is merely a sleazy businessman (a blasphemy during his presidency).

In conclusion, the second Persian Gulf War is not justified. The GWBA should have committed true multilateralism by working with UN inspectors. The quasi-multilateralism (a coalition of mostly questionable states) to attack a weaker nation against the will of the majority of the world (including many Americans) does not justify the invasion either. This is an action that could have been resolved diplomatically, perhaps with a threat by NATO forces if necessary, without the millions of lost lives, torture, decimation of Iraq’s infrastructure, destabilization of the are and so on. Yes, it is true that Saddam was a monster. He used weapons of mass destruction on his own people and the Iranians. These are weapons that we supplied him during the Ronald Reagan presidency. Comedian Paul Mooney as the character Negrodamus on the Dave Chappelle Show said it best: “Girl in Audience ‘Negrodamus, Why is President Bush so sure that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?’ Negrodamus ‘Because he has the receipt.’ (Mooney, 2004).”

References

Bush, G.W. The White House, (2002). The national security strategy of the united states of america Washington D.C.: Retrieved from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/nss-020920.pdf

Bush, G.W. (2007, January 11). Transcript of president bush’s address to nation on u.s. policy in iraq. The New York Times, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/us/11ptext.html

Crail, P. (n.d.). Disarming saddam-a chronology of iraq and un weapons inspections from 2002-2003. Retrieved from http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron

Mooney, P. (Artist). (2004). Negrodamus - michael jackson. [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=219357&title=negrodamus---michael-jackson

Bibliography

Donnelly, T. (2000). Rebuilding america’s defenses. The Project for the New American Century, Retrieved from http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf