Monroeism: The Doctrine, Its Historical Impact, And Relevance in the Current State of World Politics

The Monroe Doctrine, intialled by President James Monroe in 1823, has played an outsized role in the foreign policy of the United States and defined his nations behaviour towards the Western Hemisphere for close to two centuries. Originally thought of as way to stop European meddling in the Americas, the doctrine evolved rapidly into a key principle for U.S. foreign policy, coupled with both regional hegemonic growth and increasing global influence. As the decades progressed, the Monroe Doctrine became many degrees wider, and for a long time -- linguistically if not pol — ​tically -- whether we liked it our out was "Monroeism" an American yield doctrine.

In this article, the origins of Monroeism will be considered, its trajectory over time and its main tenets examined before discussing its legacy in U.S. foreign policy. We will learn how Monroeism was construed by different administrations in the U.S. and whether this logic applies to the current complicated geopolitical situation?

Historical Setting: The Monroe Doctrine (1823)

Sent to Congress on December 2, 1823 as part of his annual message, the Monroe Doctrine was a reaction to a convergence of geopolitical crises. Most of Latin America was then in the midst of independence wars against Spain and Portugal. Moreover, European monarchies were already looking at these new nations as possible lands to retake and gain control over the Western Hemisphere.

The Monroe Doctrine asserted that any further European attempts to colonize or interfere with the newly-independent countries of the Americas would be considered in open violation of U. Simultaneously, Monroe assured the promise that America would leave European internal affairs alone. The doctrine drew a literal line down the middle of the hemisphere granting the United States influence over all countries in the Western Hemisphere.

Monroe’s exact words were:

Any effort from them to spread their system to any part of this hemisphere we should regard as dangerous for our peace and safety.

The doctrine, though it did not yet have the weight of law when first proclaimed, was one that would set the stage for U.S. intervention in the region for the next one hundred fifty years or so. This principle, which eventually would come to be known as Monroeism, would govern U.S. policy in the Americas for much of the next century and a half, almost always justifying interventions with claims of upholding democracy and fighting outside influence.

Key Principles of Monroeism

Monroeism is essentially a doctrine with four main tenets that have steered U.S. foreign policy throughout the decades:

Separation of Europe: The Monroe Doctrine stressed the concept of non-intervention in European matters. The United States announced that it would stay out of European wars, and European powers must stay out of the Americas.

Rejection of European Colonialism: The Monroe doctrine categorically ruled out the notion that European actors could expand their colonial footprint anywhere on the American continent. In the Unites States, it regarded itself as the principal guardian of newly independent countries in the Western Hemisphere.

U.S. Hegemony in the Americas: Implicit in Monroeism was an assumption that, as a hegemonic power in the western hemisphere, it applied exclusively to the dominion of all of North and South America but fought to limit its reach across both continents over time. Part of American leadership was a U.S. role as an enforcer of order and stability in the Western Hemisphere, which often meant intervention or support for pro-U.S. regimes.

Protecting Sovereign Nations: Monroeism was also rooted in the belief that U.S. would be responsible for guarding the sovereignty of countries from European nations in the Americas. At times, this took on the form of military intervention, as was the case with the U.S. in Mexico, Cuba and Panama.

The Monroe Doctrine as Justification for U.S. Interventions: Over the years, Monroeism was deployed as a justification of U.S. military interventions in the Western Hemisphere— often when those interventions were described as necessary to maintain order, democracy or stability. The results of U.S. interventions have colored the perception of the doctrine, creating an almost bipolar view — positive in some instances and negative in others.

U.S. Interventions in Latin America and Monroeism

Monroeism originally aimed to block European actions in the Western Hemisphere while quickly turning into a way of justifying U.S. interventionism in Latin America. For the next century, the US would repeatedly intervene in Latin American countries from then on and often use the Monroe Doctrine as justification for their actions.

Among the earliest was U.S. military intervention in Mexico in the 1840s. Over the following decades, the U.S. would snatch enormous sections of Mexican land, including California, Texas and much of the Southwest as we know it today. The Monroe doctrine justified this as the United States viewed its expansionism as the key to the security of America.

A notable case happened in the 1890s, when the U.S. used the Monroe Doctrine as a rationale for intervention in its Spanish-American War. While the war also led to U.S. annexation of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines — an expansion of American power that had never been anticipated in the Hemisphere or outside it — War Fever only intensified.

In the early 1900s, President Theodore Roosevelt added to the Monroe Doctrine with what became known as the "Roosevelt Corollary," expanding the Monroe Doctrine's blueprint allowing US military and economic intervention in Latin American countries considered effective or at risk of becoming destabilized, or subject to European imperial territory. The phrase was invoked by Roosevelt to justify a variety of military actions, from the construction of the Panama Canal and other similar interventions in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Dominican Republic — all justified under his argument that the U.S. could step in "to maintain order and discipline."

Well into the 20th century, also justified under the guise of Monroeism, but this time with Cold War-era justifications for intervening in Latin America. The U.S. in many instances embraced right-wing dictatorships and fascist military regimes friendly to Washington, whose greatest offense often was their leftist rhetoric or sympathies. Utilizations of this knowledge is well documented, such as in the 1973 U.S.-backed coup in Chile, support for the Contras in Nicaragua and a military invasion of Panama a decade later.

Monroeism: Misconceptions and Reinterpretations

Although Monroeism has been a mainstay of U.S. foreign relations, it is also one of the most criticized. However, critics contend that Monroeism was merely a cover for U.S. imperialism and the economic exploitation of a large number of Latin American countries—feigning friendship while intervening in their political and social matters to maximize its own benefits often at the cost of the local people.

For the most part, hypocritical was how many Latin Americans saw the U.S. supporting authoritarian regimes as long as they were fighting what was thought of as an external and largely invented enemy (communism) -- these regimes have been responsible for human rights abuses and other forms of political repression. For this reason, Monroeism has been seen by many as at best a ruse to obfuscate the fact that while it may have professed benevolence and goodwill towards Latin Americans it ultimately sought only neo-colonial power over them.

Soviet advance and thus on the face of it during the Cold War U.S. interventions in Latin America were justified as safeguard against a more threatening Soviet expansion. Monroeism was brought to the forefront as a reason for U.S. intervention in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere in Latin America where communism became perceived as a threat to U.S. supremacy.

For decades now, academics and policy practitioners have been contesting the applicability of Monroeism to contemporary geopolitical circumstances. The Cold war is over, and much of the rest of the World — including China — has grown up and gained power; thus, America face new strategic challenges in its Yay Hemisphere. Opponents say the age of American hegemony in the Americas is over and criticize Monroeism as a bygone template no longer applicable to modern-day geopolitics. Others, by contrast, argue that the fundamental lessons of Monroeism—most importantly U.S. fidelity to its core national values and opposition to foreign interference—remain applicable against new pressures.

The Viability and the Legacy of Monroeism in this 21st Century

The Monroe Doctrine and Monroeism will not be fading into the background of U.S. foreign policy any time soon but are recasting themselves in the new millenium. Interest in its economic and strategic significance is at an all-time high as the U.S. faces growing competitor pressure from China, Russia and other power states seeking to re-reconfigure a new regional order across South-East Asia. Challenging the US historical monopoly over Latin America, both China and Russia look to strengthen their presence in the region with trade agreements, military alliances and investments.

Now, of course, the United States is no longer a single economy that is growing while all others stagnate or shrink: What we call Monroeism today must take account of its new status as an economic and potential political competitor — China. The Belt and Road Initiative, Chinas economic engagements with Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina are but a few key point examples of how the U.S. foreign policy from decades past face long-term consequences when it comes to China having an ever-growing direct influence in Latin America.

Simultaneously, there's an increased understanding in the U.S. that a better solution to deal with the challenges of the 21st century should focus on working together with multiple nations. Climate change migration drug trafficking international criminal organizations are just some of the challenges that require cross-national cooperation and the U.S. will have to reconcile its interests regarding deep influence in the region with partnership and mutual respect.

Monroeism's Enduring Legacy

Monroeism, the offspring of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, has been a lasting and influential force in U.S. foreign policy in the Americas. The U.S. has considered itself the king of the Western Hemisphere for decades, from military interventions, political alliances to economic leverage, and this mentality is still present today. As the initial focus of the doctrine on European colonialism transformed over decades, its overarching principles—preservation of U.S. sovereignty and resistance to foreign intervention—continue to define U.S. foreign policy nearly two centuries later.

Yet in an increasingly multipolar world, particularly with powers like China and Russia exerting their influence on a regional scale, Monroeism is being renegotiated (and even reinterpreted). Politicians have wielded the Monroe Doctrine as a nearly black-and-white set of guidelines for how the United States should behave in the world with reverberating impact, but as U.S. interests grow more complicated in a complex geopolitical landscape perhaps it is no longer that simple. Instead, Monroeism's underlying principles must be adapted to the