Dusting Off the Monroe Doctrine

In a piece from 1945 reproduced at RealClearDefense James Holmes, after explaining the Monroe Doctrine, notes that it might be poised for a comeback:

But if Latin American governments come to side with an overbearing China, it will become obvious that circumstances have corroded the inter-American ideal. Washington might resort to a more unilateral foreign-policy doctrine if the problem appears dire. If U.S. foreign-policy overseers conclude that China’s economic diplomacy poses a military threat, Monroeism could make a comeback—even if no one in officialdom ever utters the names James Monroe or John Quincy Adams. Here again, the history of the Monroe Doctrine supplies a yardstick for evaluating present-day foreign policy and strategy.

History need not repeat itself precisely to render valuable service. In fact, the differences between then and now may enlighten more than do the likenesses. So crack open an old volume of U.S. diplomatic history—and learn a lot about the present day.

To refresh your memory the Monroe Doctrine was the notion that any intervention by European powers in the Western Hemisphere was contrary to American interests and the U. S. reserved the right to respond to them. Later, under the original Progressives, it came to mean a belief in effective American hegemony over the entire hemisphere.

I’m more than a little skeptical since I think the Biden Administration will be more predisposed to favor engagement over confrontation with respect to China even in the face of obvious American interests for a simple reason: they, too, as Mr. Holmes suggests our Latin American neighbors may, are likely to favor even an ephemeral or elusive prosperity over securing our interests in the face of international disapproval.