User:Typetowrite/sandbox

Pan-Americanism and the Monroe Doctrine
Serving as a core principle of U.S. foreign policy in the 1800s, United States President James Monroe announced in 1823 the establishment of the Monroe Doctrine, which implied that any further imperial actions into the Western Hemisphere by European countries would be unilaterally opposed by the United States. Subjugation under former imperial and colonial rule was a shared experience for most American nations, and this formed an important pillar of the Monroe Doctrine and consequently Pan-Americanism, where there was relatively unified opposition toward further inward imperial conquest by European nations.

Although the Monroe Doctrine originally declared U.S. opposition to new European expansion in the Americas, the United States used its increased influence in the region to promote its own strategic interests. Throughout the 1800s, the Monroe Doctrine was invoked multiple times in the Americas, including during the annexation of Texas (1845), the Mexican-U.S. War (1845-1848), and the 1861 Spanish Invasion of Santo Domingo. In almost all cases, U.S. influence increased in the region and the U.S. government’s policy toward Latin America became more expansionist in nature.

In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt added a “Corollary” to the Doctrine, which would later become known as the Roosevelt Corollary. Under this new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, opposition to European expansion continued, but in the event of “bad behavior” on the part of Latin American countries, “is was [now] the obligation of the United States to intervene in order to prevent European action.”

Meanwhile, U.S. diplomats were also pursuing a contrasting policy of Pan-Americanism—a political movement that sought to promote the respect of national sovereignty, continental cooperation and further integration. These conflicting foreign policy objectives launched by the U.S. government created intense discourse among U.S. and Latin American leaders regarding hemispheric anti-interventionist policies and doctrines at future Pan-American Conferences.

Despite the push by U.S. diplomats for further integrated and unified American continents, the U.S. government countered attempts by Latin Americans to enshrine the principles behind the Monroe Doctrine and Corollary in international law, instead favoring a form of American (United States) exceptionalism that allowed continued intervention by the United States in Latin American affairs to protect U.S. interests. While many Latin American countries and intellectuals immediately criticized the Corollary and viewed U.S. foreign policy regarding national sovereignty as hypocritical, Washington continued to push back against any formal attempts by countries in Latin America to establish a standard interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine and its Corollary—that is, any attempt to “Pan-Americanize” the Monroe Doctrine and apply national sovereignty rights equally to all countries in the Americas.