- This topic has 4 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
Was the British engagement with Argentina in the Falklands War in the early 1980s something which should have triggered the Monroe Doctrine and therefore a U.S. response against it – or at least to intervene?
Was the British engagement with Argentina in the Falklands War in the early 1980s something which should have triggered the Monroe Doctrine and therefore a U.S. response against it - or at least to intervene?
I don't think Reagan and Thatcher would have crossed swords over that incident. Argentina lost and we accepted the outcome as did Argentina begrudgingly. Britain didn't push the issue any futher either so in a way everyone saved face to some degree.
Doesn't NATO trump the Monroe doctrine? Some (not many) say it does.
So you're saying that if you another NATO member it can battle with another country in the Americas with the permission of the U.S.? I thought the whole point of the Monroe Doctrine was to keep foreign influence out of our part of the world. Kind of ironic that other countries have not adopted an "anti-Monroe" stance to keep the U.S. out of engagements in other parts of the world (e.g. Kosovo), but that's another story....
The Monroe Doctrine was more to prevent colonization of the Western Hemisphere rather than preventing two sovereign nations from settling their disputes on the battlefield. Also Argentina began the war by occupying the Falklands even though Britain laid claim to them. So in a way, the U.S. already recognized British suzerainty over the Falklands. I guess it's more complicated, but from my understanding, this pretty much sums it all up. I'm not a big Wikipedia fan for sources, but you can read about it here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
You could be right in drawing the distinction at sovereign nations settling disputes. However, the MD came into play during the 1980s in regards to Soviet meddling in Latin America (i.e. a non-colonial issue). And now that you linked to Wikipedia I'll show point you to this part which shows other invocations of the Monroe Doctrine throughout the 20th Century. It's actually quite interesting for an old doctrine, the grounds of which are not entirely evident, to be used as justification for intervention throughout the ages, up to our time. I wonder what Hugo Chavez thinks of it. ???
One could say that America has misused this foreign policy at times to meddle in Latin America with the Banana Republics (CIA operations), but the invocation of it during the Cuban Missile Crisis was just the “official” excuse we cited. We weren't going to allow nuclear missiles within 90 miles of Florida no matter what. ;D
One could say that America has misused this foreign policy at times to meddle in Latin America with the Banana Republics (CIA operations), but the invocation of it during the Cuban Missile Crisis was just the "official" excuse we cited. We weren't going to allow nuclear missiles within 90 miles of Florida no matter what. ;D
What you said is what seems key to me - that there's been a misuse of the Doctrine as part of American foreign policy over the years. As you suggest, there can be good national security reasons for intervention in specific situations apart from a boilerplate policy which keeps foreign powers out of our backyard.
One could say that America has misused this foreign policy at times to meddle in Latin America with the Banana Republics (CIA operations), but the invocation of it during the Cuban Missile Crisis was just the "official" excuse we cited. We weren't going to allow nuclear missiles within 90 miles of Florida no matter what. ;D
What you said is what seems key to me - that there's been a misuse of the Doctrine as part of American foreign policy over the years. As you suggest, there can be good national security reasons for intervention in specific situations apart from a boilerplate policy which keeps foreign powers out of our backyard.
It was a foreign policy designed to keep the British and European colonial powers from interfering in the independence of nations far weaker than them so that their self determination could be securely achieved. However, it brandished the assumption that the United States would be the de facto hegemon of the Western Hemisphere...something no doubt resented by nations like Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela and others who might have sought relations with the colonial powers and later communist Russia and China. Make no mistake about it, the Monroe Doctrine began as a counterweight to European aggression, but soon devolved into a self-centered tool of "Manifest Destiny." Perhaps it's high time we scrap such thinking, especially since so many nations already resent us for other reasons. But then again, America, as a superpower, should exercise its ability to project its power especially when it is for the overall good of the world community...even if it is resented by despots, socialists, and other political ideologies opposed to democracy.
I see the British still insist on holding onto the Falkland Islands. I am unclear as to why they want to retain control of such lands.Gordon Brown tells Argentina Britain will not surrender the Falklands
