On the Monroe Doctrine and US Imperialism

[El Justo]

some interesting remarks here.

i'll add my nickel's worth

the us did not fear british intervention in the caribbean or pacific at the close of the 19th century. it was germany that the us feared most in terms of gobbling up the former spanish possession that america "won" during the span-american war. the philippine islands is the most often cited area that Jerry was sniffing around. japan was a distant second in terms of a "threat". nowhere in my research have i found that the McKinley or Roosevelt admins felt threatened by the brits. as a matter of fact, McKinley's sec of war Elihu Root modeled the neophyte american colonial governance on the british model (curzon to be precise). furthermore, britain actually urged McKinley's people to take the whole of the P.I. prior to the ratification of the Treaty of Paris in 1898/99. the brits knew that they'd rather have a budding friend like the US in charge of the 7K+ islands instead of Germany.

John Hay, anglophile though he was, was also greatly responsible for warming relations between the british and americans.

we have to remember that when discussing american colonialism/imperialism that it is a hybrid of sorts and can not imho be compared directly against, say, the british or french model of the late 19th century. america, depsite her trampling on the soveriegnty of the P.I. and Cuba, operated a far more liberal (direct elections, provinical legislatures, constitutional conventions etc) colonial policy compared to europeans powers of the era. i mean, Curzon would never in his wildest dreams had allowed for such actions to take place under his watch. so in that breath, comparing american colonialism w/ the european style is almost like comparing apples and oranges.

i hadn't seen Elihu Root's name posted so far in this thread. and i find it curious since he almost single-handedly transformed the interpretation of the MD in a matter of a few months. yes, he circumvented Cuban independence but his approach to codifying the MD was brilliant imho. by this i mean that it's not as if i am in agreement w/ his sentiment; instead, he, along w/ Senator Teller and Leonard Wood, leaned on the legalistic aspects of the Treaty of Paris (ie right to Cuba, PI, and other former Sp possessions) as a basis for codifying (ie Teller Amendement to the Foraker Act) the MD...very interesting stuff albeit tragic for the Cubans. but most definitely one of the important actions in american foreign policy history.

 

[Patroklos]

the us did not fear british intervention in the caribbean or pacific at the close of the 19th century. it was germany that the us feared most in terms of gobbling up the former spanish possession that america "won" during the span-american war. the philippine islands is the most often cited area that Jerry was sniffing around. japan was a distant second in terms of a "threat". nowhere in my research have i found that the McKinley or Roosevelt admins felt threatened by the brits. as a matter of fact, McKinley's sec of war Elihu Root modeled the neophyte american colonial governance on the british model (curzon to be precise). furthermore, britain actually urged McKinley's people to take the whole of the P.I. prior to the ratification of the Treaty of Paris in 1898/99. the brits knew that they'd rather have a budding friend like the US in charge of the 7K+ islands instead of Germany.

The fear of British takeover of former Spanish colonies was not during the Spanish-American War, but rather 80 years earlier when Spain was being kicked out of South and Latin America by local rebellions. Or in other words when the Monroe Doctrine was originally made, which makes sense.

 

[El Justo]

i realize that but i'm referring to the new interpretation of it in the aftermath of the Sp-Am War.

 

[Patroklos]

Well yeah, obviously nobody was worried about Britain taking over the colonies then!

 

[amadeus]

An example would be Britain and Rhodesia(zambia) in 1960, its gdp was only six times less than Great Britain, but by 1996 Rhodesia's gdp has decreased to twenty eight times less than Great Britain.

I'm assuming you're speaking in per capita terms, in which case you are slightly off; Great Britain's GNP per capita at this time was about 9 times greater than that of Northern Rhodesia. Northern Rhodesia's economy did continue to improve until independence, when it stagnated (even during the prosperous 70s for Zambia, when copper prices were at an all-time high) due to Kaunda's incompetence, corruption, and hostility to capitalism.

Between 1950 and 2000, Zambia's actual GNP per capita declined nearly $20 a head, inflation-adjusted. Contrast that to the whole world, where average incomes tripled at this time.

Rhodesia is that the same state that endured a blockade? And was then run into the ground by a ruthless dictator? It's also probably the most extreme example in the world for that kind of failure.

Well, I assume he's talking about Northern Rhodesia since he put (Zambia) next to it. Now, in the case of Southern Rhodesia (the one ruled by the late Ian Smith) the economic picture was a lot more pleasant. Between 1965 and 1975, the GNP per capita increased 50%.

It was only after Portuguese decolonization that Rhodesia's economy began to stagnate, then decline. The port of Beira was Rhodesia's major point of importing and exporting goods. Interestingly to add, Mozambique at this time was also a major tourist destination for Rhodesians and South Africans -- nearly 300,000 visited Mozambique annually for tourism. Mozambique's tourism sector is still pretty small at just over $140 million, contrasted to a country even like Sudan drawing in nearly $100 million more.