What is the Monroe Doctrine?

A cornerstone of American foreign policy is once more under discussion

The Economist explains

Feb 12th 2019
by A.L.

LAST MONTH Juan Guaidó, the leader of Venezuela’s national assembly, proclaimed
himself the country’s acting president. He has been recognised as such by the
governments of the United States, and most of western Europe and Latin America. The
incumbent president, Nicolás Maduro, whose second term started in early January after a
fraudulent election last year, has described the upheaval as a US-backed coup. On the day
of Mr Guaidó’s declaration, Mr Maduro cautioned his supporters not to “trust the
gringos”. “They don’t have friends or loyalties,” he said. “They only have interests, guts
and the ambition to take Venezuela’s oil, gas and gold.” His warning echoes earlier Latin
American responses to America’s history of regional intervention. Such interventions were
often justified with reference to the Monroe Doctrine, a declaration made by President
James Monroe in 1823. What does it say?

By 1823 many Latin American countries had gained independence from Spain or Portugal.
The Russian tsar had also recently claimed sovereignty over an area stretching roughly
from modern-day Alaska to Oregon, and barred foreign shipping there. Britain, which had
extensive trade networks in Latin America and wanted to keep its European competitors
at bay, proposed a joint announcement with America that would warn against further
European intervention. President Monroe, influenced by his secretary of state, John
Quincy Adams, opted to make a unilateral declaration to Congress in 1823. He said that
the New and Old Worlds were to be two separate spheres. He promised that America
would not intervene in European affairs, and that any European attempt to colonise a
nation in the western hemisphere would be viewed as an act of aggression against
America. It was the starkest expression of American hegemony in the region to that point,
and indicated a pivot away from Europe.

For years the Monroe Doctrine was more optimistic than realistic. America lacked the
naval might to enforce it. It did nothing as Britain took the Falkland Islands in 1833 or
when Britain and France imposed a naval blockade on Argentina in 1845. But as America
got stronger it started to flex its muscles. It helped kick out Mexico’s French puppet
emperor in 1867, and in 1904 President Theodore Roosevelt expanded the remit of the
doctrine with a corollary stating that America could exercise “international police power”
in the hemisphere. By the 1930s America had annexed Puerto Rico, occupied Cuba and
encouraged a rebellion in Panama after that country’s Colombian rulers rejected a
proposal for an inter-oceanic canal. During the cold war, the Monroe Doctrine was used as
a broader justification for protecting America’s national interests in its “backyard”. In 1962
President John F. Kennedy referred to the doctrine to justify the trade embargo against
Cuba. On similar grounds, America has backed 18 attempts at regime change in Latin
America since 1945, ten of which succeeded, and provided arms and technical assistance
to military groups in the civil wars of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua.

The Monroe Doctrine was originally intended as an expression of resistance against

European colonialism, rather than an excuse for American intervention in Latin America.
But numerous such interventions have made Latin America suspicious of its northern
neighbour. Venezuela’s socialist leaders, Hugo Chávez and now Mr Maduro, derived much
of their political appeal from their resistance to American “imperialism”. It may have been
rash for President Donald Trump to reiterate, after Mr Guaidó's announcement, that “all
options are on the table” as America considers its response to Mr Maduro’s resistance.
Such a phrase is taken to refer to the possibility of military action. Though the importance
of the Monroe Doctrine has faded since the end of the cold war, some American
conservatives still express admiration for it. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s first secretary of
state, said the doctrine was “as relevant today as the day it was written”. That sentiment
may not have brought much comfort to Latin American listeners.