What explains the UK's Monroe Doctrine lapses?

[raharris1973]

Its a truism that the Monroe Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by the US but only enforced by the Royal Navy. And yes the UK traded with Latin American republics and opposed reconquest by Spain or any European coalition in the 1820s.

But what explains the lapses in the policy, most importantly, the toleration of the French attempt to set up the Empire of Mexico, the Spanish reoccupation of Santo Domingo in the 1860s, and its occupation of Peruvian and Chilean Pacific territories? Later, why the toleration of German and Italian intervention in Venezuela?

[MrP]

Originally Posted by raharris1973

Its a truism that the Monroe Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by the US but only enforced by the Royal Navy. And yes the UK traded with Latin American republics and opposed reconquest by Spain or any European coalition in the 1820s.

But what explains the lapses in the policy, most importantly, the toleration of the French attempt to set up the Empire of Mexico, the Spanish reoccupation of Santo Domingo in the 1860s, and its occupation of Peruvian and Chilean Pacific territories? Later, why the toleration of German and Italian intervention in Venezuela?

I was under the impression that the Monroe doctrine evolved over time to its present state. Or, more simply, America lacked sufficient power projection capability during its nascent period. Now it can do what the hey-diddle-diddle it likes.

[raharris1973]

1823 Canning from the UK proposes a US-UK joint declaration opposing recolonization of western hemisphere.

John Quincy Adams opts for a unilateral declaration of the same thing, tossing in some hint that the US will also stay out of the eastern hemisphere. Royal houses of Europe laugh in contempt. However, Concert of Europe schemes to recapture Latin America for Spain are deterred by British, not US, power.

....everyone forgets about monroe doctrine for awhile.

Its name is invoked again by US Secstate Seward in 1861 when he objects to French occupation of mexico and Spanish occupation of Santo Domingo.

....everyone forgets about monroe doctrine for awhile.

UK-Venezuela boundary dispute, US asserts the right to demand arbitration, UK and US backdown somewhat, UK backs down more than it has to in immediate material terms, but probably influenced by long-term strategic considerations.

1900 Theodore roosevelt adds Roosevelt Corrolary to Monroe Doctrine. In an era when the standard method to collect unpaid debts is to occupy ports and customshouses, Roosevelt asserts preemptive US right to do such occupations to preempt European powers from doing it. US will occupy and restructure debts on behalf of all foreign investors including Europeans.

Taft - dollar diplomacy - maximize the share of american capital in these countries to preempt excessive growth of European interests there.

Wilson - Preempt revolutions and attempt to restart failed democratic systems, "teach them to elect good men"

Spanish-American War, Open Door notes and WWI violate interpretation of Monroe Doctrine which suggests US will leave eastern hemisphere alone.

Postwar disillusionment with WWI reinvigorate Monroe Doctrine concept of keeping Americans out of Europe and Europeans out of the Americas again.

1920s Presidents cntinue the TR, Taft, Wilsonian interventionism.
1930s, FDR, continuing some late Hoover trends, implements monroe Doctrine through srict non-interventionist policies, USG no longer in position of protecting anyone's foreign investments in Latin America, local countries free to nationalize.

late 1930s, Monroe Doctrine and concept of western hemispheric security zone proposed by US as a away to justify defense build-up without advocating intervention in Europe or China.

Cold War, Monroe Doctrine brought up as a justification in opposing governments with the slightest chance of being friendly to Moscow.
Some objection in some US quarters to UN involvement in western hemisphere security affairs, a preference for using the Organization of American States.

1990s - Monroe Doctrine dies, absorbed into larger doctrines of humanitarian intervention or collective security. Participation of French or chinese in UN peacekeeping missions in places like Haiti, or Peru and Ecuador, just is not an issue anybody cares about anymore.

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by raharris1973

Its a truism that the Monroe Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by the US but only enforced by the Royal Navy. And yes the UK traded with Latin American republics and opposed reconquest by Spain or any European coalition in the 1820s.

But what explains the lapses in the policy, most importantly, the toleration of the French attempt to set up the Empire of Mexico, the Spanish reoccupation of Santo Domingo in the 1860s, and its occupation of Peruvian and Chilean Pacific territories? Later, why the toleration of German and Italian intervention in Venezuela?

In the instances of Mexcio and Venezuela British interests were involved regarding foreign loans (or at least in Mexico's case). Better flesh this out, remember that forces from Britain, France and Spain were landed to compel Juarez to repay loans. When Britain and Spain figured out what France was up to, they withdrew.

[Tocomocho]

The objetive of Britain in the 1820s was to open the Spanish colonies in America to the British market. Once Spain herself was open to British free investment (by the 1840s), Britain had not any problem in the event of a possible Spanish reconquest. In short words, Britain didn't support Monroe doctrine due to some loosely philosophical idea about national freedom, but simply because it was good for her commerce.

Originally Posted by raharris1973

But what explains the lapses in the policy, most importantly, the toleration of the French attempt to set up the Empire of Mexico

As said above, that didn't hurt British interests. On the other hand, Britain directly supported the intervention and sent troops at first in order to force Benito Juárez to pay Mexico's historical debts. When the French stayed and proclaimed Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico, the British withdrew, because that wasn't their business.

the Spanish reoccupation of Santo Domingo in the 1860s

In that case there is also the thing that the Dominican governement actually asked for the reincorporation, and that the Dominican Republic was a backwater in which Britain had not any interest -even strategical.

and its occupation of Peruvian and Chilean Pacific territories?

Same. By the way, none Chilean territory was occupied. Chile, Ecuador and Bolivia sided with Peru because they though that any of them would be the next to pay and kiss the Spanish flag if the Peruvians were forced to do that. Their governments were also extremely paranoic about the Spaniards after the occupation of Santo Domingo and the intervention in Mexico - even today, if you ask a Pacific-South American he probably will say you that Spain was planning to reconquer the Andes with that intervention. But that isn't really the truth.

Later, why the toleration of German and Italian intervention in Venezuela?

Because it was also a British intervention. Cipriano Castro had many debts with several European countries, including Britain. Venezuela was bombed again some years later, this time by the Dutch.

That is why, in the end, I consider the Monroe Doctrine one of the most overrated things in alternate history. The UK wasn't a firm support of it after 1850 and the US hasn't really capacity to enforce it totally till the early 1890s.