I remember learning about The Monroe Doctrine in history classes – mostly about the interpretation of it called Manifest Destiny. I found it enlightening to review some background surrounding this speech to Congress. In Wikipedia the doctrine is summed up like so:
President Monroe claimed the United States of America, although only a fledgling nation at the time, would not interfere in European wars or internal dealings, and in turn, expected Europe to stay out of the affairs of the New World.
Considering that this nation was not yet 50 years old this would be seen as presumptuous, but the Wikipedia summary missed a key distinction that Monroe specified:
With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere.
While the idea that the United States at that time could interfere with internal European affairs was laughable this was still a world in which proximity was of paramount importance and this “fledgling nation” had already shown that it could – because of distances – become a serious thorn in the side of one of Europe’s most powerful nations. I’m sure that despite the audacity of the statement the powers of Europe were only too pleased to have the United States promise not to interfere with their existing colonies.
What I wish regarding the Monroe Doctrine is that we would remember two other forgotten parts of it:
In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. (emphasis added)
This should not be interpreted as being limited to European powers – it should also apply to out treatment of the rest of the world. Unfortunately throughout the last half century it not only comports with but in fact has been our de facto policy to interfere. In contrast we should be able to say today that:
Our policy, in regard to {other nations} . . . is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations . . .
In case that is not perfectly clear to anyone I would say “hint, hint – think Honduras.” Instead of denouncing the removal of a dictatorial president we should treat the interim (read de facto) president as the legitimate leader of the country. Our relations with that nation should be no different today than they were last week (when their government was less secure than it is today).
Leave a Reply