For What Purposes Do Us Presidents Construct Doctrines And Do They Have A Defining Impact On Us Foreign Policy Or Are They Merely Rhetoric?

For what purposes do US presidents construct doctrines and do they have a defining impact on US foreign policy or are they merely rhetoric?

Many presidents of the United States of America have constructed doctrines during their terms in office that have come to define their foreign policy aims, from James Monroe in 1823 right up until the very recent Bush Doctrine. This essay will focus on three of these doctrines, namely the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the Truman Doctrine of 1947 and the Reagan Doctrine of 1984. Although there are many other presidential doctrines in the history of American foreign policy, several of these, such as Polk’s doctrine in 1845 and the Eisenhower Doctrine of 1957, appear to simply be reiterations of previous presidential doctrines. We will see that, although rhetoric is used quite freely in the president’s announcements of their doctrines, it would be wide of the mark to argue that the doctrines themselves are merely rhetoric. Instead should become clear that the doctrines shaped American foreign policy not only during the doctrine’s author’s term in office, but also for many of his successors.

The Monroe Doctrine came about for two main reasons. Firstly, a clash with Russia over the north-western coast of North America led Secretary of State John Adams to suggest the principle that the Western hemisphere was no longer an option for colonisation by the European powers. Also, more importantly, the US was afraid that reactionary European powers would seek to recolonise the newly independent Latin American countries. Unveiled by President James Monroe in his State of the Union Address in December 1823, the doctrine contained two main points. Firstly, the United States would commit to a policy of non-colonisation, with Monroe saying that �the American continents…are henceforth not to be considered as subjects to future colonisation by any European powers’ (Avalon Project, 1996). Hart (1916) suggests that this part of the doctrine came about due to the fact that it is �common sense’ that the US is �by right more interested in American affairs, both on the northern and southern continents, than any European power can possibly be’.

Secondly, Monroe warned that any attempt by the European powers to extend their territories in the Western hemisphere would be viewed by the United States as �dangerous to our peace and safety’ and �the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States’ (Avalon Project, 1996). In other words, if a European power attempted to take over any of the countries on the American continent, it would be taken as a direct threat to the safety of America. This suggested that the United States would take responsibility for the security of the entire continent, as if one country was threatened by a European power, America would also feel threatened, and would react accordingly. One of the first instances where the Monroe Doctrine was used was when the French Emperor Napoleon III placed Archduke Maximilian on the throne of Mexico in 1864, a direct violation of the doctrine. Although America was embroiled in civil war at the time, and as such could not afford to intervene directly, they refused to acknowledge the new regime in Mexico and demanded that the French armies who supported it were to leave Mexico. In 1866, after the end of the American Civil War, US troops were deployed along the Rio Grande, a natural border between Mexico and the US. This forced the French to leave Mexico, and ultimately contributed to the downfall and execution of Maximilian in 1867. This episode clearly shows that the Monroe Doctrine was taken seriously even after James Monroe had left office. Perhaps a better example of how seriously the Monroe Doctrine was taken by Monroe's successors is the Roosevelt Corollary.

The Roosevelt Corollary was an extension to the Monroe Doctrine, in which President Theodore Roosevelt declared that the United States would intervene in Latin America if it felt the nations there displayed an �inability or unwillingness to do justice at home and abroad’ which directly �violated the rights of the United States’ (Roosevelt, 1904). Whereas the Monroe Doctrine was originally intended to keep the European powers out of Latin America, this addition by Roosevelt was used as a justification for the US to intervene directly in Latin American countries. This alteration in policy came about due to the fact that many of the Latin American countries were struggling to repay loans from major European nations and therefore Roosevelt feared that the Europeans would come back to the area to chase up the debts they were owed, in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. Like the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary was used by the original authors successors. Even Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat and therefore a critic of Republican foreign policy, used the Roosevelt Corollary to justify armed intervention in Haiti in 1915 and in the Dominican Republic in 1916. However, unlike the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary cannot potentially be used to justify modern day American foreign policy, given that President Coolidge reversed it in 1928 on the recommendation of the Clark Memorandum, which argued that the Monroe Doctrine came about due to conflicts of interest between the United States and European nations, and did not include conflicts of interest between the United States and Latin American nations, meaning the US had no right to intervene in Latin American countries.

Gilderhus (2006) claims that the Monroe Doctrine has had a profound impact on American foreign relations for many years after it first appeared, in that it �established a rhetorical style associated many years later with similar pronouncements during the Cold War and after’. The Monroe Doctrine placed a great deal of emphasis on the view that America should help its neighbours in Latin America obtain and secure what it saw as key values, namely freedom, democracy and peace. This view has been echoed throughout the history of American foreign relations, most notably by George W. Bush who regularly talks about freedom and democracy in regard to his own doctrine and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Truman Doctrine also suggests that America must help Greece and Turkey to maintain their own freedom and democracy by advising that �the free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms’ (Avalon Project, 1997). This implies that the rhetoric of the Monroe Doctrine has been carried on throughout the history of the United States’ foreign policy and is likely to continue into the future.

It is not only