roosevelt corollary definition us history

roosevelt corollary definition us history

The Significance and Impact of the Roosevelt Corollary in U.S. History

1. Introduction to the Roosevelt Corollary

There are not many book-length studies of this most famous of all presidents. There is no agreement as to the principal meanings of “Rooseveltism.” This in part is due to the difficulty of capturing a significance neatly; in part, to the attempts of different scholars to make the active President Roosevelt yield support to their notions of how he ought to have behaved or how they personally would have behaved had they been president. There is an exasperating mélange of personal, sentimental, political, ethical, and political explanations of what Roosevelt was doing with so much apparent vehemence and uncertainty. Yet his career is crucial to the account of United States expansion into the Caribbean in the 20th century, and this essay is an effort to restore the Corollary to its place as significant, coherent, and traditional United States policy.

The Monroe Doctrine was the first presidential proclamation of American hemispheric predominance. Over the next fifty years, four presidents encouraged, endorsed, and enforced it. Yet when it appeared to be in danger, the fifth president, Theodore Roosevelt, did not hesitate to add to it the Corollary that is ever after linked to his name. In doing so, he neither expanded the scope of the doctrine in any serious way nor changed the character of United States relations with Latin America. Yet the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary together amounted to a declaration to the world that the United States, taking upon itself the mantle of Western civilization, expected to be and was in effect the dominating power in the Western Hemisphere. This was a far more grandiose claim than that of Monroe, which was aimed solely at the Holy Alliance.

2. Origins and Context: Monroe Doctrine and Latin American Relations

The early thrust of U.S. attentiveness came during the Cleveland administration when Cleveland attempted to construct a customs union to protect U.S. and Latin American markets from European economic penetration. However, the Latin republics resented the U.S. at that time, considered the U.S. to be grabbing economic markets, and refused to allow U.S. corporations or political initiatives to gain a foothold in their political affairs. However, U.S. interest aroused during the Spanish-American War because of the U.S.’ preeminent position in the Philippine Islands and the realization that a weak and divided Latin America could create an opportunity for European encroachment in Latin and Central American affairs.

After the revolutionary period in the early nineteenth century, Latin and Central America, the U.S. took an interest in the conduct of its neighbors and sought to maintain stability in the Western Hemisphere. In an attempt to halt and alter European activity in the Western Hemisphere, President Monroe proclaimed a mutual interest based on the doctrine that neither hemisphere has an interest in the affairs or conduct of the other and should not interfere in the political matters of Europe. The axis principle was that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open to European manipulation and interference and that further attempts by European powers to intervene in Latin or Central American political issues were an act of hostility.

3. Key Elements and Provisions of the Roosevelt Corollary

American interventions that motivated the following clause carved in section 1, Article 3: “if it [the United States] is evident that such obstruction or disruption in government of any one country is due to the flagrant and chronic wrongdoing of another small country or to a general condition of unrest and instability.” These statements highlighted Roosevelt’s eagerness to express that the United States would take collective action with other Western Hemisphere powers. It was designed to create better relationships with or to be approached by Latin American governments, at the same time recognize the responsibilities of the Western Hemisphere. Furthermore, Section 2 implied that the entire Western Hemisphere had its own black and white areas, with some on the good list and others on the bad list. These aspects demonstrate that Roosevelt was not backing down from a moral stance. The last clause, titled by Roosevelt as the “self-explanatory” part of the Corollary, authorized certain amounts of regimented intervention in both declaim and action. It disclosed Roosevelt’s power above other politicians on overseas issues and also accounts for the Roosevelt Corollary’s influence up until 1943.

Established in response to an address by President Theodore Roosevelt, the Roosevelt Corollary expanded on the Monroe Doctrine by declaring that the United States not only forbade the European powers from colonizing or interfering in the affairs of the nations of the Western Hemisphere, but also claimed the right to exercise an “international police power” itself. In other words, the Roosevelt Corollary allowed the United States to act as a policeman in the Western Hemisphere and intervene in the domestic affairs of its neighbors in the event of flagrant and chronic wrongdoing. Country after country felt the impact of the document’s influence, especially Central America and the Caribbean. The doctrine appeared to give the United States the authority to regulate the behaviors of its weaker neighbors. In 1905, Roosevelt failed to restrict European influence in the Dominican Republic. In 1906, he prevented a civil conflict from erupting in Cuba, leading him to set up an American military rule in Cuba. Subsequent events in Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic showed the Roosevelt Corollary in action.

4. Criticism and Controversies Surrounding the Corollary

Some complained that the United States was thus making the Monroe Doctrine into a “selfish” doctrine. We were only ungrateful for the Europe that had preserved us in their view. The Gung Ho interpretation of Pan-American interest, with its tendencies to exploit Latin America, lent some strength to these complaints. Many observers felt that the whole policy was not also a violation of our traditional policy. Only, they said, by including the rest of the world in our Miranda Club, could we consistently exclude the rest of the world. But compared to Roosevelt imperialism and the use of might was no more than a semi-colon: a corollary. Like Hughes and Adams after each was done, Roosevelt felt obliged to defend his corollary.

While the Roosevelt Corollary has had an immeasurable impact in shaping American foreign policies and actions and has greatly affected the nations of Central America and the Caribbean, it has also been a matter of controversy. Twice called “grave” while still President, Roosevelt himself was obliged to defend his Corollary. Critics have made many different charges against the Corollary. One set of charges revolves around the fact that the Corollary is, at the very least, an extension of the Monroe Doctrine into a policy of collective action when not only the Americas, but the whole world might be involved. Roosevelt and his supporters carefully protected the back door of the Monroe Doctrine. What seemed a simple doctrine at first now became a part of international law even when the rest of the world was involved. The United States’ interest in Venezuelan affairs as well as the belief of the Corollary in 1904 demonstrated this. It was thus critical for the United States to assume control of her meaning.

5. Legacy and Long-Term Effects on U.S. Foreign Policy

Intervention in the Caribbean in the area south of the United States in a time of crisis because that area was believed to be vital to the U.S., particularly for commercial purposes, and the commercial interests of other powers could not be tolerated. Such interference was deemed to be a threat to U.S. national security and that could be met by military action if necessary. It could now more easily be described as a policy of national security. The decision had been made that Caribbean islands were too close to the mouth of American ports, the path of commercial ships and naval arteries and too emotionally and economically tied to the United States for interference by anti-democratic European powers to be tolerated. The United States now possessed the ability to defeat a European military invasion. The situation provided a flexible tenet by which numerous and differing tests of the American naval fleet could pass, besides how young or inexperienced admirals would perform. The threat of using the corollary as a deterrent was more important than its deployment in enforcement. Since the United States was now the hemispheric policeman the protection of American interests were paramount.

The decision is more important than the legislation itself. In the context of the early twentieth century, the Roosevelt Corollary was a clear and concise declaration of his policy logic. It was a statement of his decision on what to do if a crisis were to develop in the Caribbean. In essence, the policy states that in the event of a serious emergency in a country in the hemisphere, particularly if it is a Caribbean nation, the United States would intervene if there was a threat of danger to American interests such as European action which could do harm. To foreign policy specialists, it was a declaration of strong American influence and capability in the Western Hemisphere and demonstrates to what extent U.S. expansionist thinking had evolved. But to Roosevelt and his administration, these concepts were nothing new. To their minds, such a policy was a given. Over the previous century, throughout the 19th century, the United States had put into place all the elements that such a policy would rest on and it was as a result of these actions that the Monroe Doctrine had evolved.