The answer of whether or not the Spanish-American and Philipine-American wars were created to build an American empire should be predictable, considering America’s history of beginning wars for their own benefit. Therefore, it is not that much of a shock that these two wars were commenced to benefit the United States in expanding their country and growing more powerful. Initially, President McKinley “did not want war; he had been sincere and tireless in his efforts to maintain the peace” (Zinn 293) against Spain. However, the mostly upper-class and businessmen of the country, who saw it as an opportunity to boost America’s economy, did. Eventually, so did the government, resulting in them giving into their citizens’ wants. They had “power and profit in mind as it observed the events in Cuba” (Zinn 289), and President
The United States has influenced many nations in the world throughout history. Some of the ways the U.S. has been able to dominate poor countries are with military action and corporate activities that allowed the United States to influence their governments. Since the United States extends its power with the previously mentioned methods, it is recognized as an imperialist nation. The United States has specifically demonstrated imperialistic forces in Latin America. The effects that the United States’ imperialism had on Latin American economies and politics were negative since it brought violence and caused the poor to struggle even more. When the United Sates government did not like policies that Latin American presidents were creating, they would take military actions to force American ideologies into Latin American countries’ governments by installing puppets into their governments. Generally, these countries would have flourished economically without the United States, but since the U.S. became involved with the countries’ policies, their economies have weakened because the U.S. wants the benefits of controlling countries’ resources without being responsible for the people who reside there. This pattern of the United States’ imperialistic behavior has been demonstrated many times in Latin America.
As was laid out in the previous section, the United-States always had a ‘hegemonic presumption’, the conception that Latin America was inferior, a supposition that gave the right to Washington to intervene in the region’s political and economic affairs (LeoGrande, 2007:384). This second chapter will explore how the U.S. intervened in Latin America, more specifically after the World War II. Indeed, the U.S. benefitted greatly from the aftermath of the war. A subsection will be dedicated to the Pink Tide in Latin America, with a focus on the U.S. foreign policy under President GW Bush and President Obama. The overthrown Presidents of Honduras and Paraguay were part of this movement and their outset signals a reversal in the region.
American attitudes towards Latin America can be summed up as an extension of larger global directives, and the exclusion of foreign powers in the region. This was highlighted especially during the Cold War as US involvement was essentially in competition with the USSR. Latin America was therefore a mere pawn in the larger context of US-Soviet competition for global dominance. The actions and methods used are also characterized by the lack of an international authority, or an atmosphere of inter-state anarchy, which shaped their calculations in the endeavor to increase their influence over Latin America. When one analyzes the situation, it seems only rational that the United States treated its southern neighbors so, due to the geographical
US interventionism in Latin America started a long time ago with the Monroe Doctrine, in 1823. A policy which stated that any intervention by external power for example from Europe is the Americas is a hostile act against the US. In simpler words, America is for the Americas. From the 1900’s till the beginning of the Cold War, the United States started the military intervention mostly in the Caribbean and Central American regions. This has started a long history of the United States intervening on Latin America issues.
“While stands the Coliseum, Rome shall stand; When falls the Coliseum, Rome shall fall; And when Rome falls - the World.” Lord Byron. This essay will discuss the similarities of military, economics and systems of government between the Roman Empire of the 6th century BCE and the United States of America of the 20th century. History has revealed that all superpowers fall eventually, although much time has passed since the glory days of Rome we see in 2015 the largest superpower in charge, the United States. There are many similarities that can be drawn between the American superpower and the Roman Empire such as the same founding of government and both dominated in military, as well as economic similarities. This leads
Throughout United States history, there have been a variety of trends in foreign policy. While these international relations are all unique, some share striking similarities. American foreign policy during the early 20th century in Latin America and the late 20th century in Asia are very similar as they share an important underlying factor: imperialism.
American foreign policy from 1890-1930 was driven primarily by our businesslike economic and strategic considerations based on American self-interest. With westward expansion over, there had to be a new way for the United States to continue expansion. In the name of maintaining our innovative spirit and political ideology, our conquest for money, resources and trade took us outside of our borders for the first time. After all, how could we continue this upward monetary and resource tick if we didn’t expand? All countries are very self-centered and driven by their own success, and ours is no different in this respect. Going from a country that could large in part be ignored, to a real world power
As stronger nations exercise their control over weaker ones, the United States try to prove their authority, power and control over weaker nations seeing them as unable to handle their own issues thereby, imposing their ideology on them. And if any of these weaker nations try to resist, then the wrath of the United States will come upon them. In overthrow the author Stephen Kinzer tells how Americans used different means to overthrow foreign government. He explains that the campaign & ideology of anti- communism made Americans believe that it was their right and historical obligation to lead forces of good against those of iniquity. They also overthrew foreign government, when economic interest coincided with their ideological ones
This incident, along with the progressive method of using Christian ethics and the progressive belief of pragmatism, changed Roosevelt’s idea about the Monroe Doctrine. Roosevelt believed that Christian citizens had “the duty of bearing one another’s burdens.” This belief influenced him to interpret the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine as “to safeguard like independence and secure like permanence for the lesser among the New World nations” as well as to prevent European colonization in the Western Hemisphere. However, after the Venezuela crisis, Roosevelt saw that the original doctrine was not enough to safeguard peace in the Western Hemisphere. He realized that wrongdoing from Latin American nations, for example, that Venezuela did not pay debts to European countries, could lead to European aggression in the Western Hemisphere. Roosevelt was afraid that the aggression stayed permanently and contravened the Monroe Doctrine. Using pragmatism to make the Monroe Doctrine not the “the emptiest of the empty phrases,” he stated that the United States had a duty to supervise ineffective Latin American governments, whose instability and economic problems could
As countries seek to avoid alliances that can lead to conflicts, noninterventionism has remained one of the most explored concepts in global politics. Having seen the impacts of the Revolutionary Wars on humanity and being home of people from different ethnic racial groups from Europe, the last 27th presidents of the United States have been adopting foreign policies that promote nationalism and internal growth rather than partnering with global powers. One of the approaches is isolationism, a policy that has always prevented the United States from involving itself in international conflicts. Since his reelection, President Woodrow Wilson has observed this tradition by maintaining neutrality for more than three years during the Panamanian Revolt against Colombia. However, the president should abandon this policy and adopt an approach that will protect humanity from the destructive war in Europe. As this paper seeks to discuss, joining the war offers more benefits to America and humanity than staying in isolation from world politics.
The United States has a very long history of military actions that helped expand its power in both peacetime and war to a much higher status. After independence, the United States took military control of the North American continent, acquiring territory from the native peoples, and from other countries such as Britain, France, Mexico, and more countries. Not only seizing territory but also offering help to any allies who needed it. The Roosevelt Corollary written by Theodore Roosevelt in 1904, is a great example of how the expansion of American influence has spread throughout North and Latin America, and also Asia. In the corollary, it basically says that if a nation cannot help keep up with its standard, as well as having chronic wrongdoing, the intervention of the United States will have to occur. Mainly this document is speaking to Latin America and the Caribbean /Central America.
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the United States was the most dominant power in the Western Hemisphere. European nations conceded to the United States their right of any intervention in the Western Hemisphere and allowed the United States to do whatever they wanted. The United States took this newly bestowed power and abused it. The United States intervened in many Latin American countries and imposed their policies on to these countries against their will. A perfect example of this aggression is what occurred in the Dominican Republic in 1904. The United States intervened in this sovereign nation and took control of their economy and custom houses. A memorandum from Francis B. Loomis, the United States Assistant
Generally, the US foreign policy concerning Latin America was of course for the US' own benefit. If the person in power was trying to nationalize their country's economy, the US accused them of communism and proceeded to push them out, unofficially, under the pretext of national security.
Previously, I perceived our opponents to be the “bad guys” and the United States to be the heroes that were helping people around the world. While this may be true in some applications, I’m no longer naïve to the fact that the U.S. isn’t handing out millions of dollars in economic interest simply because it’s the right thing to do. Rather, I believe that most military conflicts the U.S. has engaged in over the last century, as well as the current battles in Syria and throughout the Middle East, stem principally from economic motivations. While I’m undecided in the political debate that exists between political parties over the term imperialism itself, I’ve become keenly aware of how much of our country’s foreign policy is driven by the economic needs of its citizens. The profound change I’ve experienced is in remaining mindful as to the influence on foreign policy that receptive markets and favorable political conditions in countries throughout the world has.