The Myth of the Monroe Doctrine and Its Power.

in the historical and political consciousness of the americas there has been the idea of the monroe doctrine dominating the geopolitics of the entire region. the understanding is that united states has been the hegemon dictating policies to all other nations, even playing an imperial and bullying role. but, how much truth is there in this?

first off, this topic interested me when pat buchanan recently said that russia should have control of eastern europe and central asia in the way that US has control over all of the americas.
morally, this seems a dubious proposition, a notion based solely on 'might is right'. according to buchananism, america should ignore small and weak nations and deal only with big important ones... as long as the big nation is NOT at war with the US. this is a reiteration of buchanan's point about Nazi Germany in 'Republic, Not an Empire'. in that book, UK and france--and certainly not the US--should NOT have stood in hitler's invasion of Poland. germany was big and strong, poland was weak and backward. let germans kill and conquer all those polacks; it's none of our business. following buchanan's logic, US should have looked the other way when China was supporting the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, leading to the deaths of 2 million out of 7 million. since china is big and important and cambodia is small and unimportant, so what if china is supporting mass murder in a small country... as long as china is willing to do business with the US.
anyway, the same attitude that buchanan has about nazi germany, he now has about putin's russia. since it's no longer communist, russia is the new white-knight-right nation in europe. and since its borders are threatened by all those chinese--just as american whites are threatened by all those mexicans--american white right should unite with russian white right. together, they should act for racial-national self-interest. there is some validity to this argument... but not when the moral dimension is completely ignored.

america's power in the world hasn't been founded only on military might but on fairness and moral values. sure, america hasn't been perfect, and there are many anti-americans around the world. still, most people know that US saved the world from both nazism and communism in WWII and its aftermath. even those who bitch about the US would prefer americanism over nazism or communism. US didn't just win the Cold War with better weapons and a larger economy but with superior moral values. when reagan called soviet union an 'evil empire', he was making a moral statement. and framed in such manner, it was not just a political but moral victory over communism. but, buchanan wants the american role in the world to be only self-serving, cynical, and mercenary. if a big nation stomps on small weak ones, US should deal with the big nation and ignore the plight of the small ones.
this is like saying if there's a big important rich guy who exploits poor people, we should deal only with the big rich guy and ignore the poor people exploited under him.
this is so un-american. i'll be the first to admit that there are limits to idealism. and naive idealism often does more harm than good. BUT, idealism and moral values should play SOME role in american foreign policy. otherwise, US is not a nation of just values and fairness but just a big rich powerful nation who chums up with other big powerful nations.
is this the kind of nation we want the US to be?
now, it's true that big powerful nations exert great deal of influence on its neighbors, but not all such influence are of the same kind. american influence over canada and mexico cannot be compared with nazi influence over poland and czechoslovakia, nor with soviet-russian influence over hungary or estonia.
american influence over its neighbors is partly justified because america is a fair and just nation. in contrast, russian, chinese, and nazi german influence on neighboring nations have been war-mongering, murderous, and imperialist.
if buchanan says US role in the americas is of the same kind as russian influence over its neighbors, he has very little respect for america.
that's like comparing the influence a husband has on a wife with the power that a pimp has over a prostitute. to say that russian bullying of its neighbors is no different than american influence on its neighbors is to say that US has indeed been a bullying, murderous, and imperialist power in the americas. if buchanan is right, then che guevara is also right--with different conclusion. buchanan says US owns the americas and should be left alone to do as it pleases. similarly, all of central asia and eastern europe falls under the sphere of russian influence so russia should have a free hand.
i can see the need for realpolitik and cold-eyed thinking in politics, but when such is the ONLY way to see the world, then america will NOT be a special nation but just a big thug among other big thugs. what US must do is balance idealism with realism. too much of the former gets us into quagmires like iraq. too much of the latter will turn america into just another china or russia or nazi germany--a nation without scruples that will do anything for national interest. the fact is we can have both. we can realistically deal with russia while supporting freedom movements in central asia and eastern europe. as long as we don't overplay either hand, US can maintain both its tough realistic policy and its unique idealism. sure, we may look a bit hypocritical but all nations understand that no nation can be totally good.

the more important question is has the monroe doctrine really been the nature of the relationship between US and latin america? or, has it mainly been a myth.
yes, it's true that there has been great deal of american investment in latin nations but this didn't come about due to american military pressure but simply because latin nations were unable to build certain industries on their own. so, they relied on american companies to extract certain minerals, oil, and other natural resources. in due time, american business did gain great influence in the region, but this is par for the course in such relationship. it had little to do with the monroe doctrine.
also, latin weakness was the product of its own history. if US and Canada were settled and developed by forward-looking anglo-americans and some french, much of latin america was settled by reactionary and feudalistic spanish and portuguese elites. also, if US and Canada was both predominantly white and united culturally, racially, and nationally, much of latin america was divided along three layers of whites-at-top, mestizo-in-the-middle, and indians-at-the-bottom. and in brazil, cuba, venezuela, and some other places there were also many blacks.
so, due to the racial/cultural divisions, much of latin america lagged behind and stagnated under a climate of mutual hostility, distrust, and suspicion. indeed, suppose US had been 1/4 white, 1/4 white/indian mixed, 1/4 indian, and 1/4 black; it would have been a historical mess and failure. US did have a large black population, but the racist ideology of the US discouraged race mixing and so the white majority had a clear sense of its identity, values, and future. if US had promoted race mixing like brazil, it could today be like brazil.

anyway, american role and influence in latin nations have been vastly exaggerated. and one of the reasons has been that the white latin elites have been eager to deflect the blame for all the problems onto the lap of america. like che guevara said of latin americans, there is no white, no indian, just mestizo. nice try!! according to che and even the latin right, all latinos--whites, mixed, or indian--should be united as victims of evil gringo USA.
this would be like american whites saying there are no whites and no blacks in america. only mulattos who are oppressed by the chinese.
the fact is latin whites felt shame for their lack of progress, for their history of oppression, for their backwardness, weakness, corruption, etc. yet, they didn't want to face the guilt and responsibility. so, it was fashionable to adopt marxism or (simon)bolivarism, feel washed of the guilt of the past, pretend to stand to for the revolutionary future, and then blame US as the villain standing in the way of progress.
given this mindset and worldview, it became convenient for latinos to explain all their failings and weakness on the monroe doctrine. yes, it was US that kept latin america weak, it was the US that forbade latinos to make progress, it was the US that kept latin america poor; and latin elites were corrupt because they were supported by US power.
it was all america's fault. of course, all the problems that latin america is facing today were deeply entrenched in the latin americas way before US gained the hegemonic role in the hemisphere. as spain and portuguese settled in the americas first and had a decisive headstart, they had every opportunity to be the dominant power in the americas. they failed due to their own problems. US may have taken advantage of latin weakness but US didn't cause that weakness. and without US investment, latin america today would be even poorer and more backward.
just look at cuba, a nation liberated from US imperialism. and notice that venezuela, while condemning capitalism, is making all its wealth by selling oil to capitalist nations like the US. without evil US to buy the oil, what economy would venezuela have? without foreign multi-nationals to drill the oil and set up the industry in the first place, what economy would venezuela have? also, if US imperialism is so evil, how come Chile, which does business with the US, is doing so well? and, hasn't south korea made great strides thru its business with the US? certainly more so than north korea, a communist paradise free of american imperialist influence.

even more surprising is the fact that despite the so-called monroe doctrine, american involvment in europe and asia has been much greater. if anything, europe and asia have been america's 'bitches' much more than latin america. US entered europe twice in the 20th century. first in WWI and then in WWII. following WWII, US maintained a significant military presence in western europe. and post-war recovery and political stability in europe largely depended on US aid, US advice, US influence, and US pressure. if anything, US influence and pressure were much greater on western europe during and after WWII than in any part of latin america.
monroe doctrine said european influence was not welcome in the americas, but in the 20th century, europe pretty much became US's 'bitch'; in the 20th century; it's as though monroe doctrine applied more to europe than to latin america(meaning US would not tolerate nazi or communist rule in western europe and would use military power to defeat Nazi germany and hold USSR at bay) western europe was saved from nazism and then from communism under US presence, pressure, and protection.
yet, no one calls this american-influence-on-europe a form of imperialism. of course, western europe following WWII made great strides, built up their economies, and became stable democracies. these goodies eluded the nations of latin america. so, one is tempted to conclude that americans treated western europeans as equals while treating latinos as inferior imperial subjects. but, this is not true. the reason why western europe recovered quickly and made great strides is that they were populated by talented, skilled, intelligent, serious, and united peoples. when US aid and investment poured into europe, much of it was used intelligently and seriously. also, US investment served as an inspiration for europeans to learn, imitate, and compete.
in contrast, aid given to latin nations were largely lost thru corruption. and latin elites weren't industrious in trying to emulate the american economic model, learn skills, and compete with america. rather, they were happy to let americans to build all the industries, get a share of the profit, and live well. as for the poor masses, the latin elite didn't care to educate them or invest in them. if europe after WWII had been populated by the kind of people in latin america, marshall plan would have gone down the drain. it would all have been wasted.

anyway, it wasn't just europe but asia that became america's 'bitch'. though there had been military incursions by the americans in parts of latin america, america was never engaged in a truly mega-military way in the region. US never invaded huge territories or defeated huge armies in the latin americas. the exceptions could be made of mexico during the mexican-american war, the spanish-american war, invasion of grenada, and invasion of panama. but all these were limited and local wars or military actions.
in contrast, US was engaged in a Total way in the pacific region. in WWII, US totally crushed japan. and until the communist takeover of china, much of asia was under US sphere of influence, much more so than latin america. so, the so-called monroe doctrine was applied more to western europe and asia than to latin america. instead of US-to-south influence, american influence has been more US-to-east and US-to-west.
in both western europe and asia, US involvement and presence was total.
germany following WWII was essentially a US military base, and germans had to swallow their pride and just live with it; it was relatively easy to do since the alternative was falling under russian domination. and even with china falling to communism, US military, political, and economic influence and presence was very great in japan, south korea, taiwan, philippines, all of southeast asia(except vietnam when it fell to communism).
if US policy on latin america was the monroe doctrine, let's call the american policy on europe the marshall doctrine(based on the general), and let's call american policy on asia the mccarthur doctrine. all in all, the marshall doctrine and mccarthur doctrine was much more heavy handed and 'pushy' and 'bullying' than the monroe doctrine. yet, western europe and asia made much more progress than latin america. latin america blamed US 'imperial' bullying for all its troubles, yet such 'imperial' bullying and pressure seem to have done wonders for western europe and asia. so, the real problem facing latin americas has never been US bullying or imperialism, but its own failings. had US never ever engaged in any part of latin america in any way, does anyone think latin american politics would be cleaner, economies more functional, populations more united and law-abiding, etc? i think not.
indeed, all over latin america, certain groups succeed a lot more than other groups. i dare say that if a nation like peru were populated with only jews or germans and had to deal with the same old US policy, that nation would be first rank economy and a democracy in 50 yrs. it's the people and culture, not US policy.
US policy can be same to nations A, B, and C. if nation A makes it while nations B and C don't, it says more about the problems inherent in nation B and C than in the US policy.
marshall plan will not work in africa because africans are corrupt, childish, unintelligent idiots.
latin america is diverse, so some nations--generally those with more whites--and certain populations within a nation--mostly jews, asians, germans, etc--have done much better than others.

what i find rather funny about latin american complaints about american imperialism is that latin american nations are still in the stage of imperialism. when the era of imperialism/colonialism ended in africa and asia, white europeans all went home--even those settlers who had lived in the colonies for many generations. all brits left kenya and india, all french left algeria and vietnam.
yet, why are spanish and portuguese whites still in the latin americas? if people like che and castro are really the enemies of imperialism, they should take their white asses back to spain, just like white french left algeria.
it's funny that 'liberation' movement in latin american nations have almost all been led by latin whites. this would be like white british or white french leading the struggle for kenyan or algerian liberation, and then playing the dominant roles in government after the 'liberation'.
because of the myth of american imperialism, latin imperialist whites who'd done so much to oppress and exploit the native populations have created this notion that ALL people--latino whites, imported blacks, and indigenous indians--of the latin americas are equal victims of gringo aggression and exploitation. this is alot of crap, of course.
this would be like the french in algeria telling algerians that they are all victims of german or american imperialism and therefore must unite and defend algeria from the bad guys.
to their credit, algerians nor the vietnamese would have fallen for this crap, yet so many indigenous folks of the americas have bought these lies.

also, if latin america is really to be liberated in the way that asia, middle east, and africa were liberated, not only the whites but blacks ought to leave. after all, the british brought many asian-indians to work and settle in africa, but when african gained their independence, africans kicked out not only the british but the hindus.
blacks were brought to the americas by whites as hindus were brought to africa. if africans had the right to kick out both the whites and hindus, why don't the indigenous folks of latin america have the right to kick out both whites and blacks?

historical consciousness is just alot of bullshi*.