The Roosevelt Corollary To The Monroe Doctrine ___

The Roosevelt Corollary, a significant amendment to the Monroe Doctrine, dramatically reshaped U.S. foreign policy and its role in the Western Hemisphere. This assertive policy, articulated by President Theodore Roosevelt in the early 20th century, declared the United States as the policeman of the Americas, with the right to intervene in the domestic affairs of Latin American countries to maintain stability and prevent European interference.

Understanding the Historical Context

The Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in 1823, served as the foundation upon which the Roosevelt Corollary was built. Initially, the Monroe Doctrine aimed to prevent European powers from further colonizing or interfering in the newly independent nations of Latin America. It asserted that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open for European colonization and that any attempt to extend European control would be seen as a threat to the United States.

However, by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, several Latin American countries faced significant financial and political instability. Many were heavily indebted to European creditors, leading to threats of intervention to collect debts. President Roosevelt feared that such interventions could lead to European powers gaining a foothold in the region, thereby violating the Monroe Doctrine.

The Genesis of the Roosevelt Corollary

President Theodore Roosevelt introduced the Roosevelt Corollary in his 1904 State of the Union Address. He argued that the United States had a responsibility to ensure that Latin American nations met their obligations to international creditors and maintained internal order. The core of the Corollary stated that if a nation in the Western Hemisphere demonstrated "chronic wrongdoing," or was unable to maintain order, the United States had the right to intervene as a last resort to ensure stability.

Key Excerpts from Roosevelt's Statements

Roosevelt articulated his policy with a blend of moral justification and strategic pragmatism. In his own words, he explained that the United States did not seek to acquire territory but was compelled to act as an international police power to prevent European intervention. Some key excerpts from his statements include:

• "If we intend to say 'Hands off' to the powers of Europe, then sooner or later we must keep order ourselves."
• "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."

Motivations Behind the Corollary

Several factors motivated Roosevelt in formulating the Corollary:

• Fear of European Intervention: Roosevelt was determined to prevent European powers from using debt collection as a pretext for establishing a permanent presence in Latin America.
• Economic Interests: The United States had growing economic interests in Latin America, including trade and investments. Maintaining stability in the region was seen as essential for protecting these interests.
• Strategic Considerations: The Panama Canal, then under construction, was a vital strategic asset for the United States. Roosevelt believed that a stable and friendly environment in the surrounding region was necessary to ensure the canal's security.
• Belief in American Exceptionalism: Roosevelt, like many Americans of his time, believed in the superiority of American institutions and values. He saw it as the United States' duty to uplift and guide its neighbors.

Implementation and Impact of the Roosevelt Corollary

The Roosevelt Corollary was not merely a theoretical declaration; it was actively put into practice. The United States intervened in several Latin American countries in the early 20th century, often using military force to restore order and ensure debt repayment.

Major Interventions

• Dominican Republic (1905): The Dominican Republic was facing severe financial difficulties and the threat of European intervention. The United States took control of the country's customs houses, using the revenue to pay off its debts. U.S. forces remained in the Dominican Republic until 1941.
• Cuba (1906-1909): Following a period of political instability, the United States intervened in Cuba to restore order. This intervention was authorized under the Platt Amendment, which had been imposed on Cuba after the Spanish-American War and gave the United States the right to intervene in Cuban affairs.
• Nicaragua (1912-1933): The United States intervened in Nicaragua to support a pro-American government and suppress rebellions. U.S. Marines occupied Nicaragua for over two decades, making it one of the longest interventions in Latin America.
• Haiti (1915-1934): The United States intervened in Haiti after a period of political turmoil and instability. U.S. Marines occupied Haiti for nearly two decades, overseeing the country's government and economy.

Consequences and Criticisms

The Roosevelt Corollary had far-reaching consequences for both the United States and Latin America. While it effectively prevented European intervention, it also led to resentment and distrust of the United States in the region.

• Increased U.S. Influence: The Corollary solidified the United States' dominance in the Western Hemisphere. It allowed the U.S. to exert significant influence over the political and economic affairs of Latin American countries.
• Economic Control: U.S. interventions often resulted in American companies gaining control of key industries and resources in Latin American countries. This led to accusations of economic exploitation.
• Political Instability: While the Corollary was intended to maintain stability, it often had the opposite effect. U.S. interventions frequently destabilized governments and fueled anti-American sentiment, leading to further unrest.
• Erosion of Sovereignty: Latin American countries viewed the Roosevelt Corollary as a violation of their sovereignty and independence. They resented the United States acting as a self-appointed policeman and interfering in their internal affairs.

The Roosevelt Corollary faced significant criticism both domestically and internationally. Critics argued that it was an overreach of executive power and that it contradicted the principles of non-intervention and self-determination.

The Clark Memorandum and the Shift in Policy

By the late 1920s, the Roosevelt Corollary had become increasingly unpopular in Latin America. President Herbert Hoover began to distance the United States from the policy, and his administration sought to improve relations with Latin American countries.

The Clark Memorandum

In 1928, Undersecretary of State J. Reuben Clark wrote a memorandum that challenged the legal basis of the Roosevelt Corollary. The Clark Memorandum argued that the Monroe Doctrine was intended to protect Latin America from European intervention, not to justify U.S. intervention in the region. It stated that the United States' right to intervene in Latin American affairs could not be derived from the Monroe Doctrine.

The Good Neighbor Policy

President Franklin D. Roosevelt further repudiated the Roosevelt Corollary with the implementation of the Good Neighbor Policy in the 1930s. This policy emphasized non-intervention and cooperation with Latin American countries. The United States pledged to respect the sovereignty and independence of its neighbors and to resolve disputes through diplomacy rather than military force.

The Good Neighbor Policy marked a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America. It led to improved relations and greater cooperation between the United States and the region. While the United States continued to exert influence in Latin America, it did so through economic and diplomatic means rather than through direct military intervention.

The Legacy of the Roosevelt Corollary

The Roosevelt Corollary remains a controversial chapter in U.S. foreign policy history. It represents a period of assertive interventionism and reflects the United States' ambition to dominate the Western Hemisphere. While the policy was eventually repudiated, its legacy continues to shape relations between the United States and Latin America.

Lessons Learned

• The Dangers of Interventionism: The Roosevelt Corollary demonstrates the potential pitfalls of interventionist foreign policies. While interventions may be intended to promote stability and protect interests, they can often lead to unintended consequences, such as political instability, resentment, and anti-American sentiment.
• The Importance of Sovereignty: The Roosevelt Corollary highlights the importance of respecting the sovereignty and independence of other nations. Policies that violate these principles can undermine international law and damage relations with other countries.
• The Need for Diplomacy: The shift from the Roosevelt Corollary to the Good Neighbor Policy underscores the importance of diplomacy and cooperation in foreign policy. Resolving disputes through negotiation and mutual understanding can lead to more sustainable and positive outcomes than through military force.

Contemporary Relevance

Although the Roosevelt Corollary is no longer official U.S. policy, its legacy continues to influence debates about U.S. foreign policy in Latin America. Some argue that the United States still has a responsibility to promote stability and democracy in the region, while others advocate for a more hands-off approach.

The Roosevelt Corollary serves as a reminder of the complex and often fraught history of U.S.-Latin American relations. Understanding this history is essential for navigating the challenges and opportunities of the present and future.

Criticisms and Alternative Perspectives

The Roosevelt Corollary has been a subject of intense debate among historians and political scientists. Critics argue that it was an expression of American imperialism and that it undermined the sovereignty of Latin American nations. They point to the negative consequences of U.S. interventions, such as political instability, economic exploitation, and anti-American sentiment.

Revisionist Interpretations

Some historians offer revisionist interpretations of the Roosevelt Corollary, arguing that it was a pragmatic response to the challenges of the time. They contend that Roosevelt was genuinely concerned about preventing European intervention and that he believed the United States had a responsibility to maintain order in the Western Hemisphere.

Latin American Perspectives

Latin American scholars often view the Roosevelt Corollary as a symbol of U.S. dominance and interference in the region. They argue that it perpetuated a relationship of dependency and inequality, and that it hindered the development of Latin American nations.

Case Studies: Evaluating the Impact

To further understand the impact of the Roosevelt Corollary, it is helpful to examine specific case studies of U.S. interventions in Latin America.

Dominican Republic: A Case of Financial Control

The U.S. intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1905 is a prime example of the Roosevelt Corollary in action. The United States took control of the country's customs houses to ensure debt repayment to European creditors. While this intervention did prevent European intervention, it also led to a long period of U.S. control over the Dominican Republic's finances and government.

Nicaragua: A Prolonged Occupation

The U.S. occupation of Nicaragua from 1912 to 1933 is another significant case study. The United States intervened to support a pro-American government and suppress rebellions. However, the prolonged occupation led to widespread anti-American sentiment and did little to promote long-term stability.

Haiti: A Legacy of Instability

The U.S. intervention in Haiti from 1915 to 1934 had a lasting impact on the country. While the United States made some improvements in infrastructure and sanitation, the occupation also led to political repression and economic exploitation. Haiti continues to struggle with poverty and instability, partly as a result of this intervention.

The Monroe Doctrine vs. the Roosevelt Corollary

The Roosevelt Corollary is often misunderstood as simply a continuation of the Monroe Doctrine. However, there are important distinctions between the two policies.

Key Differences

• Scope: The Monroe Doctrine was primarily concerned with preventing European intervention in Latin America. The Roosevelt Corollary went further, asserting the right of the United States to intervene in the domestic affairs of Latin American countries.
• Justification: The Monroe Doctrine was based on the principle of non-colonization and the protection of U.S. interests. The Roosevelt Corollary was based on the idea that the United States had a responsibility to maintain order and stability in the Western Hemisphere.
• Impact: The Monroe Doctrine was largely a statement of principle, while the Roosevelt Corollary was actively implemented through military interventions and economic control.

Similarities

• Protection of U.S. Interests: Both the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary were intended to protect the interests of the United States in the Western Hemisphere.
• Assertion of U.S. Dominance: Both policies asserted the dominance of the United States in the region and sought to exclude European powers.

Conclusion

The Roosevelt Corollary was a pivotal moment in U.S. foreign policy history. It reflected the United States' growing power and ambition in the early 20th century, but it also had significant negative consequences for Latin America. While the policy was eventually repudiated, its legacy continues to shape relations between the United States and the region. Understanding the Roosevelt Corollary is essential for comprehending the complex history of U.S.-Latin American relations and for navigating the challenges and opportunities of the present and future. The shift from interventionism to the Good Neighbor Policy underscores the importance of diplomacy, cooperation, and respect for sovereignty in foreign policy. As the United States continues to engage with Latin America, it must learn from the mistakes of the past and strive for a more equitable and mutually beneficial relationship.