This weekend, Democracy Now! co-host Juan González gives the opening plenary at American University's one-day conference, “Burying 200 Years...” The conference aims to examine the legacy and relevance of the Monroe Doctrine, a foreign policy doctrine introduced by the fifth U.S. president, James Monroe. The doctrine, which declared that any attempt by European powers to colonize or interfere with the affairs of states in the Americas would be seen as a hostile act, helped to establish the United States as a dominant power in the region.
The Monroe Doctrine was first introduced in 1823, during a time when European powers were looking to expand their influence in the New World. The doctrine was seen as a way to prevent further colonization and to protect American interests in the region. The doctrine was largely successful in achieving its aims, as European powers largely stayed out of the Americas.
However, the Monroe Doctrine has had a mixed legacy. While it helped to establish the United States as a dominant power in the region, it has also been used to justify American intervention in the affairs of other countries in the Americas. The doctrine has also been criticized for being outdated and no longer relevant in today's world.
In recent years, there have been calls to "bury" the Monroe Doctrine and to move towards a more cooperative and collaborative approach to foreign policy in the region. This has been particularly relevant in Latin America, where the doctrine has been seen as a symbol of American imperialism and interventionism.
One of the key criticisms of the Monroe Doctrine is that it has been used to justify American intervention in the affairs of other countries in the region. This has been particularly true in Latin America, where the United States has been involved in a number of coups and other interventions. In 2002, for example, the United States was involved in a coup against the democratically elected government of Venezuela. This intervention was seen as a clear violation of the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, which was supposed to prevent such interference in the affairs of other countries.
There have also been concerns about the relevance of the Monroe Doctrine in today's world. Many argue that the doctrine is outdated and no longer relevant to the current geopolitical landscape. In particular, the rise of China and other non-Western powers has shifted the balance of power in the world, making it more difficult for the United States to assert its dominance in the region.
Despite these criticisms, the Monroe Doctrine remains an important part of American foreign policy. It continues to be invoked by politicians and policymakers, and its legacy continues to shape American attitudes towards the rest of the world.
In recent years, there have been calls to reevaluate the Monroe Doctrine and to move towards a more collaborative approach to foreign policy. This has been particularly true in Latin America, where the doctrine has been seen as a symbol of American imperialism and interventionism. CODEPINK's Michelle Ellner, for example, has called for the doctrine to be "buried" in the region, arguing that it has been used to justify American intervention in the affairs of other countries.
There have also been efforts to update the Monroe Doctrine to reflect changing geopolitical realities. In 2013, for example, former Secretary of State John Kerry announced a new approach to the doctrine, which focused on promoting democracy and human rights in the region. This approach was seen as a way to move beyond the traditional focus on military intervention and to build stronger partnerships with countries in the region.
Despite these efforts, the legacy of the Monroe Doctrine continues to shape American foreign policy. The doctrine remains an important symbol of American power and influence in the region, and it continues to be invoked by politicians and policymakers to justify American intervention in the affairs of other countries.
In conclusion, the Monroe Doctrine remains an important part of American foreign policy, despite its mixed legacy and criticisms. While efforts have been made to update and reevaluate the doctrine, its legacy continues to shape American attitudes towards the rest of the world. As we move forward, it will be important to continue to examine the relevance and impact of the doctrine, and to work towards a more collaborative and cooperative approach to foreign policy in the region.
