Introduction
In the 1800’s the European countries undertook an initiative to colonize different countries across the globe. The American states were not left behind in this quest by the European nations and as a result, their eagerness to colonize the American states faced opposition. This opposition led to the emergence of the Monroe doctrine in 1823 and it made provision that any effort by the European states to colonize any independent American state would be viewed as manifestation of unfriendly doctrine by the European states. It is important to note that the main reason for the emergence of this doctrine was due to the increased power by the European nations upon the conclusion of the Vienna congress in 1814 that led to the revival of the monarch states that existed in the European continent at the specified period. The Monroe doctrine and its legacy has adamantly influenced the United States of America and the Latin America states to present day . Therefore, the thesis of this paper is that it would address; essential characteristic of the Monroe doctrine and identify the core principles that arose. It will further explain how the Monroe doctrine was configured under the rule of Theodore Roosevelt and it would finally, take into consideration how the Latin America states perceived the Monroe doctrine.
Historical context of the Monroe doctrine, Essential characteristics and the core principles
The development of the Monroe doctrine was triggered by the assertion by the Russians in 1821 that, the area extending 100 miles towards the pacific could not be accessed by the non- Russians. This angered the United States of America who were tired of the rule by the European states and to curb the increased European domination in the America states, President James Monroe and the Secretary of state John Quincy Adams came up with the Monroe doctrine. However, it is worth noting that at the formative stages of Monroe doctrine it was quite dominant. In 1861, in as much as president Abraham Lincoln may have turned down the idea by the secretary of state, William H. Seward, it still indicates the attempted use of the doctrine to curb the increased war that was occurring in Cuba due to the European dominance
In 1890, the United States of America successfully applied the provisions set forth on the Monroe doctrine to resolve the conflict between Great Britain and Venezuela with regards to setting the boundary on British Guiana. Therefore, it is evident that the America states were fighting to retain their sovereignty as was prescribed under the doctrine of west philia in 1648 (Boyer 2006).
The three core principles of the Monroe doctrine include that; Any attempt by the European states to extend their power and authority in the American states, would be viewed as a threating the peace and security of the United States of America. In addition, the U.S.A was not to interfere with the internal affairs of the European affairs and finally, this led to the restatement of the non-colonization principles that had been set forth by John Quincy Adam, the secretary state of President John Monroe.
How did President Theodore Roosevelt configured the Monroe doctrine?
First and foremost, it is worth noting that, President Theodore Roosevelt served as the 26th president of the United States from 1901- 1909. However, one of his greatest contribution to humanity was with regards to the extension of the Monroe doctrine and the sole purpose of this to make provision that the Latin states ought not to pay any debts that they might owe to the European states who may have been their colonizers. The main objective of this initiative was to allow the Latin America states establish their own independent states that would maintain order with their neighboring states through respecting state sovereignty. However, ironically this acted as a lee-way enable the intervention of the Caribbean and the central America states. Therefore, it is worth noting that, this was referred to as the Theodore Roosevelt corollary.
How was the Monroe doctrine perceived by the people of Latin America?
Based on the fact that, the Monroe doctrine was initiated by the United States of America, it is viewed as being a selfish means through which the USA can achieve its own set goals. First and foremost, it is worth noting that the USA was established by the immigrants from the European countries who were affected by the agrarian revolution and therefore, could not sustain their livelihoods. Therefore, most Latin American states interpreted that this doctrine basically meant that it would forever be under the control of the United States of America and as a result, their perception is quite negative and in certain circumstances being viewed as being positive
However, in as much as the Monroe doctrine led to the solidarity of the newly independent American states, the implication was quite grave as the states were owe all their allegiances to the USA and in addition, recognize their political affinity to the United States of America generally. Jose Martini in its article, the truth about the United States of America he seeks to analyze the independent development of the Latin American states without any interference from the USA. He further illustrates that, generally each country does face various setbacks during its development and he emphasis on the USA due to its role in the implementation of the Monroe doctrine in 1823. USA has had its fair share of problem example the separation of North and South Carolina that is highly attributed to the fact that Abraham Lincoln declared that slavery should be abolished in the USA
As stated earlier, due to the Theodore Roosevelt’s corollary, it created a policy that made the Latin America sovereignty quite irrelevant. In today’s world, the USA has overtime used the provisions under the Monroe doctrine has had a negative impact on the Latin America states. It is worth noting that the United States of America has led to the downfall of about 41 Latin America between 1898-1994 (Finchelstein and Piccato 2013).
In 1843, the United Kingdom reaffirmed its sovereignty over the Falkland’s islands, however, the USA failed to play a role in defending the Latin America and this is despite the provision in the Monroe doctrine. The United States of America, later decided to politically interfere with the political regime of the Latin America that was largely communists example in Cuba. In addition, the USA has played a role in detaining leaders or citizens in Latin America who have been involved in criminal gangs
In the recent past the increase in the immigration policies against the Latin America does not indicate a system of good neighborhood. During the Ronald Regan administration, there was adamant increase in the drug peddling business in the USA and as a result, the USA decided to fight this vice from its root and decided to attack the Latin American countries involved. This led to the killing of Pablo Escobar one of the most influential drug peddler in Colombia.
Conclusion
Therefore, one can state that in as much as the Monroe doctrine started as a mere prevention of the European dominance in the Americas, overtime it has acted as a lee-way of the United States in the invasion of the Americas and the Caribbean states. This has effectively diminished the foreign policy of the USA and countries such as Cuba, although it was re-instated recently.
References
Boyer, Paul. 2006. The oxford companion to the United States of America history. Oxford University press.
Finchelstein, Federico, and Pablo Piccato. 2013. "The latin America sees through John Kerry's " Monroe" speech." The centries of monroe doctrine has little relevance to the US policy in region today.
Herring, George. 2008. From colony to superpower: US foreign relation since 1779. Newyork : Oxford publishing press.
Marti, Jose. 1894. The truth about the United States of America.
Scarfi, Juan Pablo. 2014. "The pan-American redefination of the monroe doctrine." In In the name of the Americas and international law to the Western hemisphere, 189-210. Oxford University press.
