The United States has always wanted to expand its borders to “create new opportunities”. There have been many instances, especially in the “Western Hemisphere” which spanned from Samoa to Brazil. The U.S. “protects” these countries only when it politically or economically beneficial to the U.S.. While it could be argued that the U.S. has helped many of these countries, it can also be said that the U.S. needs to focus more on itself and less on the politics of other countries.
The U.S. even went to war with Spain because we wanted to have Cuba think highly of us so we could call in some favors later on. A similar situation happened with the country of Santa Domingo. Theodore Roosevelt did not want the Europeans in the Western Hemisphere , so when Santa Domingo could not pay back its debts, the U.S. took over Santa Domingo and got the money for Europe. That way the Europeans did not have to intrude on the Western Hemisphere and violate the Monroe doctrine.
Having said all of this, I have a few questions that I imagine are mostly opinion based. Did the U.S. actually help the countries that they fought in the name of? Is the U.S. too powerful since, at least in the 1900s, they seemed to think they had control over all of the Western Hemisphere? Were there good intentions behind the U.S. helping the countries around it? Or was this "help" simply for the United State's gain?
It seems to me that the United States generally claimed to oppose imperialism because of its undemocratic values, yet continuously imperialised other countries in the name of democracy. For example, the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary essentially banned Europeans from colonizing the Western Hemisphere, denoting an anti-imperialism value; however, in reality this doctrine allowed U.S. free reign to conquer whatever land it wanted in all of the Americas. Another similar instance occurred when the United States forcefully annexed Hawaii, even though Queen Lili’uokalani and her people, shown by the 1897 Petition Against Annexation, strongly opposed this movement. A third example is the Platt Amendment, that allowed the U.S. to intervene to protect Cuba’s independence, even though the Cubans did not want the United States meddling in their affairs. Yet another occurrence was when the United States helped a revolt in Panama against the Colombians in the quest for independence for Panama, only to have ulterior motives by building the Panama Canal and owning the land surrounding the massive canal. Additionally, the motives for fighting the Spanish-American War may at first seem genuine; however, the Treaty of Paris gave Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines to the United States, further spreading the country’s power and control. Finally, Emilio Aguinaldo's letter to the American People reveal that Mexicans strongly opposed the United States control, even though the U.S. claimed they were just helping the Mexicans out. In conclusion, the U.S. managed to be both for and against imperialism, depending on who was doing the imperialising.
ReplyDelete