the air force had caught up with each other despite. its low budget and great technical. as rapidly as could, we were developing modern aircraft like the very big saber jet, splendidly ready to prove themselves in battle, ready to serve our country by giving new strength to the rising power of the united states airport.

good evening. my name is narcotics and. i'm the director of education public programs advisor here at the national archives, and i want to welcome you to your national archives. 200 years ago this week, president james monroe his annual message to congress to assert our nation's budding role as a dominant world power in the western hemisphere. within that 34 page message, president monroe offered a roadmap for what we now call the monroe doctrine, which called for main principles, separate spheres of influence for the americas in europe non colonization of latin america by powers and nonintervention in internal european affairs by the united states. well, they've evolved over years. those principles remain at the heart of u.s. foreign policy today. and like our founding documents here at the national archives, we have preserved and protected

monroe's original address to congress as one of the historical, meaningful records that only serve to guide us today but help establish our national identity. if you get a chance, i hope you'll, visit the rotunda and visit the original. be able to see the original. monroe doctrine. it'll be on display until december 13th. i want to thank our partners, the james monroe or mgm, the james monroe highland, the university of mary washington for bringing together this esteemed panel of scholars to delve into the history and importance of the monroe doctrine for us tonight. i also want to thank the national archives staff and the national archives foundation for, their support this evening and now it's my great pleasure to welcome scott harris executive director of the university of mary washington and sara bon-harper executive director of james monroe highland, who will introduce our panel of scholars. help me give them more.

yes. well, thank you and good evening. the james monroe museum is located in fredericksburg, virginia, is administered by the university of mary washington. and james, when i was located just outside charlottesville, virginia, is owned by college of william and mary. i'm scott harris. it's my privilege lead the monroe museum and. my friend and colleague dr. sara bon-harper is highland's executive director. our institutions are grateful for the opportunity to collaborate with the national archives and records of administration to present tonight's program in this impressive venue. we're also grateful for financial support provided by the paul and jane jones trust, which is administered by j.

sheffield, the james monroe memorial foundation and the friends, the james monroe museum, their makes our public programs possible, and we really must acknowledge the tremendous work that doherty of the national archives or virtual programs director and lindsay crawford, our programs coordinator at the james room. the work they did in putting this program, they spent a lot of time logged a lot of hours giving us together and ready for this moment. we're very grateful for that. after our panel discussion, we will take questions from our audience here in, the theater and online and. we welcome both of those. president james monroe's seventh annual message to congress, which was on december 2nd, 18, 23, consists of thousand 354 words. approximately 1000 of these words appearing in several sections of the text, comprise the enduring foreign policy statement that bears monroe's

name but the german monroe monroe doctrine did not come common use until the 1840s, when president james k polk dealt with the mexican-american war and the oregon boundary dispute with great britain for the rest of the 19 century. the doctrine was referenced often elastically by subsequent administrations. several instances the french invasion of mexico in, the 1860s, a territorial dispute with great britain, known as the venezuelan crisis of 1895 and u.s. support of cuban independence that led the 1898 spanish-american war. in 1904, president theodore declared a corollary to monroe doctrine that sanctioned intervention by the united states in the affairs of latin america and are numerous other examples, big and small, where the doctrine has come into play, whether the zimmermann telegram on the eve of the us entry into the first world war, the cuban crisis and other instances, and

from the mid-twentieth century to the present day, almost every u.s. president has had a diplomatic, political or military policy that has become synonymous, with that president's name, increasing the applied not just to the western hemisphere but globally. this we will examine the origin content and application of the monroe doctrine over last two centuries. we also consider the doctrines contemporary relevance and its implications. the future that's a tall order, but we are fortunate to have a panel that is equal to the task. sarah will now introduce. thank you, scott. it's now my pleasure to. introduce our panelists to those of you here in the audience and the many who watching online. first, we'll start with our virtual panelist, dr. melissa martinez, who is an assistant professor in the department, political science and international affairs, the university of mary washington. we welcome you, melissa.

whose research focus is on relations and comparative politics. a particular focus on human rights, nonviolent and violent non-state actors in latin america. she's the author or coauthor of articles in the journals international studies quarterly political science quarterly, peace, political science and politics and social science quarterly. dr. teaches courses in us latin relations. latin american and drug politics in latin america. it's great to have you with us. dr. daniel preston, an award winning historian, began his professional career as undergraduate intern right here at the national archives from 1978 to 1979. he founded the papers of james monroe in historical documents publication project in 1990 and served as its editor in chief for 30 years, retiring in 2020. he is currently coeditor of the papers of daniel chester french, the american sculptor who two of the great icons of united

states, the minuteman statue in concord, mass. and statue of abraham lincoln. and the lincoln in washington, dc. welcome. dr. has written nancy kindler, chair of constitutional democracy, professor of history and director of the kinder institute at the university of missouri. he is also a distinguished fellow, the rothermere american institute at, the university of oxford. dr. sexton is the author of seven books, including the mona doctrine empire and nation in 19th century america, published in 11. we're glad to have you. dr. ray walser is a professor of practice at seton hall school of diplomacy and international. he served as a foreign service officer from 1980 to 2007 in a wide variety of overseas locations such as nicaragua, colombia, mexico, costa rica and south africa, as well as the bureaus african, european and western hemisphere affairs here in the us.

from 2007 to 2013. he was a senior policy analyst for the heritage, where he focused on political security issues in latin america. we're glad to have you here. well, our first question is a lightning round and it'll be for just basic points and then it'll get as we go along. start with dan preston and then with melissa martinez. finally, ray walser going in order with this question. what is the monroe doctrine? dan monroe doctrine as espoused by? president monroe in 1823 was an expression concern that the european monarchies may make an attempt to suppress the republics in the western hemisphere and. not so much warning them against doing it, but simply alerting the world that the united states

would consider such action as unfriendly and and and a threat. jay okay. i see some students in the audience so they'll know that the monroe doctrine is a trigger for ptsd from high school high school tests. that's probably how most people now encounter it used to think that the monroe doctrine was like a script for america's foreign policy and kind of plan to develop its power. i've changed my over the years. my definition of the monroe doctrine is that it's a contested political symbol into varying actors have loaded their agendas. so think of it kind of like an american flag pin. and i would just say one more thing. and lightning is that it's not just americans or those in the united states that have invoked monroe doctrine, indeed, some of

the most important invocations in the last hundred years have come from actors of the united states. melissa martinez what is the monroe doctrine? yeah, so the monroe doctrine was implemented a time where latin america was still very, very new, gained independ quite recently. and so at this point the united states wanted europe stay out of a weak region in latin america. however, i want to emphasize that the doctrine made it clear that it should not be interpreted as a desire to form security interests or treaties in the region. and it was from the very start, a unilateral policy. the us was not necessarily interested in forming alliances, coming from the doctrine and close ties with latin american

countries, but its main purpose was to focus on its own and unilateral approach in ray walser i think i think we go back to the sort of the concept of the old world and the new world and i think monroe was attempt ing to what i would say carve out sort of american exception, a term we often use that we are the new nation and sort of spread that that that mantle of exceptionalism that these new struggling independent states should be as we did to continue their forward progress to pursue their own of manifest destiny, so to speak. so i see it as is i think every other point is. well taken but i think where exceptional nation we are going to show leadership in the hemisphere and going to support our our fledgling brothers to the south. well that was getting to some discussion of these points. so now gotten the lightning

round out of the way and to preston who has probably spent time than anyone on the stage researching studying pondering of the career of james monroe what did james monroe in the the annual address that we extracted to become the monroe doctrine. what prompted him to raise the issues that he raised? what he hope to achieve. so what's what's a brief summary of the genesis and statement the doctrine. and as ben alluded to in the early part of the 19th century from roughly 10 to 1820, a number of spanish colonies in what we now refer to as south america, latin america what revolted against the colonial rule, spain. and by. 20 a half a dozen or so of them had pretty much achieved independence. they had they had expelled the spanish from from within domains. this was followed in 1820 by a

actual revolution in spain, an effort to establish a constitutional government not necessary only unseat the monarchy, but at least establish a representative constitutional assembly to help govern the country. this movement in spain was suppressed by it, invade john, of a large army from france, with the backing of austria, prussia, russia and allies of the spanish monarchy. the british opposed this move, and the spain were concerned that if the monarchies they succeeded in spain would continue their campaign and try to suppress the revolutions and, return the rebellious colonies of of south america into the spanish control role, and the

british called on the u.s. to make a joint statement and opposing any intervention by the european monarchies in in the western hemisphere. there was a lot of debate in the us among the leader leadership whether this proposal should be accepted or not. monroe gradually moved away from in favor of a more unified lateral statement because he wanted, as he thought about it, he wanted to say more about all the role the united states in this evolving world rather than just limit it to this one specific event. when monroe became president in 1817, there were two in dependent nations in the western hemisphere in 1823 at the time of message there were eight and more likely to come forth.

so there a rapidly evolving. change in in the world at the time and hope was in the united states that these new countries in south america would become republics like the united states. and monroe's fear was that the european monarchies being adamantly controlled excuse me adamant opposed to the spread of republicanism which was a direct threat to monarchy would indeed try to suppress these revolution new governments and by implication threaten the united states the united states the seed of a republican government in the world, the united states in 1817, when monroe became president, the only republic in the western world.

so he decided to use his annual message to congress which was the equivalent today we refer to it as the state the union address, but it was the major policy statement issued by the government each and everybody paid a lot of attention to it. so monroe knew that if he said something in this in his message that it would receive a lot of attention and people would pay attention to it. a lot of the message was was standard information given to congress of issues that congress would be dealing with in the upcoming session, that the state of the army, state of the navy improvements, the the the national budget, these sorts of things. but part of the way through he was talking. foreign relations and he brought up the subject of a negotiation with russia, referring to

russian interests in expanding its territory in the in what is now the pacific northwest east. and in talking about this and about the upcoming negotiations monroe one of the points that the united states would emphasize in its negotiations is that all of the territory in the west runs was either occupied by independent nations or were colonies of europe, and there was no room for any more colonies to be established within the western hemisphere. this later became known as the no, the non colonization principle. this was of totally separate from from whatever else became known as the monroe doctrine. let me let me jump on this and ask you about this, too, because if one googles the question, who wrote the monroe doctrine?

more than a few responses say it was john adams. and i know that there's nothing more likely to raise your than that that fact. and so between you and j, who maybe will that hostile response about what about john quincy adams? what about his role what about monroe's role in articulating statement? monroe depended heavily on the advice his friends and advisors when he received the message from england about the british proposal, he immediately wrote to his friends his, advisors, his close associates. thomas jefferson, james madison said, what do you think about this? and got their opinions on it, wrote two others. and then began to discuss it in the cabinet meetings as well. at that point, monroe was moving away from a joint statement thinking about an statement and adams more or less reinforced. he said that the united should make a unilateral statement and

not do something in in conjunction with with with with with great britain. adams envisioned the response to be a diplomatic that he as secretary of state would write to the four to to the secretary of for the foreign ministers of the various countries explaining the u.s. position on this. and if that had been the case we'd never heard of any of this. that have been it would have been a few adams a few scholars diplomatic history would have picked it up. monroe however, being a much better politician at understanding how better relate to the public put it in his annual message, which put it front center out to the american public and to the rest of the

world. adams wrote out the short clause about nine colonization, about negotiations with russia. monroe used. adams's wording precisely. and i think this is why people pick up on this. oh. adams wrote this and therefore he wrote everything. adams wrote about reform the army. adams wrote the part of the message about the budget. he wrote this, you know, it's a lot of what james is it? monroe doctrine oh, i know. i don't know if it really matters a whole i mean, in the grand scheme of things. i mean, one of the reasons why this debate been so persistent, like who who is the author of the monroe doctrine, is because one of the best sources have for its genesis, actually, john quincy adams, his diary. and we know that the is discussing how to respond to the

british offer how to respond this crisis over the course. several weeks six weeks more than a month and they're going back and forth it to ing and fro ing and. i think that what really matters about the message is to understand that rather than to say this deserves all the credit is to say that it was a compromised that was a product of these internal cabinet debates. and like most compromise says, the critical issues were kicked down the road so they could all agree and they being in the cabinet. we've talked president monroe secretary state john quincy adams, a yankee from new england, the other big guy we haven't talked about is south john c calhoun and if you want to see difference in the cabinet, it's between adams and calhoun and i think implicit maybe we can get this later in q&a it's because one is from an

increasingly state and one is becoming an anti-slavery politician the north. and that's kind of lurking beneath disagreements on how they understand national security. and that's what those debates are about. you might think about monroe's role. the way i think about it like eisenhower the hidden hand president. that's kind guiding a complex negotiation, internal policy through to its end. and the is monroe's message. so that's the key point there. two more things real quick. what what issues do they fudge and why does it matter? they fudge the issue of what are they actually going to do to support the latin americans and also the greeks, which is also part of this discussion? you know, they give support to them rhetorically. they're not prepared to actually do anything that questions discuss, but there's no decision made about it. the british offer, they just kick that can down the road. they don't actually rule it out that back later after the

message is delivered. there's no definitive on that. and then the real important question, which the attorney general, william wirt, is the only important thing we've discussed and we really haven't answered is what are they going to do if france actually deploys an army to south america and decides to intervene? there's no answer to any of those questions. so the key thing to know about monroe's message of 1823 is that it tells europe ins what they can't do, but it not decide what the united states should do. that's why? it's important. it's a blank canvas for subsequent generations, and they can deploy it on behalf all kinds of diverse foreign policy projects because no kind of active policy embedded in the original message. but i would say what makes it uniquely and rovian is when he gets to the meat of it it. he talks about how this implicit

threat of invasion and how a threat to the new south american republics is, a threat to the american republic. what monroe was concerned about and what the others weren't so much was the defense of republic ism. and what's interesting is in 1792, 1793, at the time of the revolution, monroe wrote series of newspaper articles saying why the united states should support the french. and he said exactly the same thing. the european markets are going after the french republic. and if they suppress the french republic, they're going to go after the other revolutionary republic, which is us and it's not. a.j. points out he doesn't say we should enter the war the side of the france we should of

france should do this. we should do that. it's simply an alert that he wants to issue to the american people that threat to this form of government, which was the time uniquely american may be threat and better think about it and be prepared to deal with it. and we've got to jump on our time machine now and go to the early 20th century. right. so so move way forward. one of the things, if you only know a couple of facts about the monroe doctrine you think about the roosevelt corollary so proclaim. in 1904. j what did it say what was the impact why does it matter? okay, so this now we're talking about the theodore roosevelt, not franklin roosevelt. there was still a theodore roosevelt. i mean, theodore roosevelt had been a advocate of american imperialism. there's a wonderful exhibit out there that was mentioned. great cartoon.

of uncle sam standing at the fork, the road. one path goes to. it's called the imperial highway for imperialism. the other path goes to the monroe. the point is that in the late 19th century, the monroe doctrine, was actually the symbol of anti-imperialist it was those who opposed like america going to war with spain and the philippines and cuba and guam, puerto rico, which is, of course, exactly happens in 1898. and is the program favored by theodore roosevelt now he becomes becomes president a few years later, he inherits some real crises in the caribbean. one in particular in santo domingo, what we call today, the dominican republic. he's concerned, just as monroe was concerned in 1823 that this instability will trigger european intervention or colonization of santo domingo and roosevelt issues. his famous call to the monroe

doctrine, which from the original of 1823 but has a fundamental difference to your question. the difference he's now answering what will the united states do? he's not just telling the europeans hands off. he's now saying in order to enforce this prohibition, the united states to take unilateral action, it needs to intervene in santo domingo, it needs to seize control of the customs houses. so it can to the united states, can repay the debts to european creditors. and then the united states needs to take a proactive in administering rule authority on the island. that's the original roosevelt. it is then used in more than two dozen instances for the united states to intervene in various crisis points in central america and, the caribbean, over the next, say, two decades or so. so the negative frame message is now a call for unilateral

intervention. melissa might want to come in on this a second because she was referring to it earlier. the one other thing i would say about why does this matter? it matters because the united states now finds itself in a series of quagmires in its own of influence, that are deeply unpopular, that cost a lot of money and don't seem to be leading to any strategic benefit for the united states. so if you want to know why isolationism becomes such a powerful force in america in the interwar period, one of the reasons is because of the roosevelt corollary to the monroe doctrine, which fosters all of these interventions. so i often tell the students it's kind of like iraq and in our lifetimes and how that's fueled a resurgence. isolationism because of the costs, these interventions. so it really matters in teeing up what will become a big grand debate about the future of american foreign as the world

enters those two great world wars in the in the mid 20th century. and so i'll ask a quick follow up that melissa wants to add. anything. well, let's get to melissa's question, because it does play right off of that and then maybe backtrack. we'll come back to the other one for you. melissa, have not forgotten you're there. we can see you in. you're looking over our shoulder. so jay noted and dan starting us off from 1823 on, really through the 19th century into the early 20th, latin america's vantage point of what the monroe doctrine means evolved. we probably safe, say, those former spanish colonies were initially the beneficiary of american statement and ultimately its power to be a shield against european interference. but over time, u.s. hegemony and intervention in the hemisphere has been increasingly resented. latin america. so how does or does not the monroe influence u.s., latin american today?

yes, i think it's got so, yeah, i mean, definitely times have changed the implementation of the monroe doctrine. now it's hard to say whether the monroe doctrine alone influences u.s. latin american relations today. however, the monroe doctrine was just jay mentioned earlier. right a company with related policies or policies, actions that were not very supported by that ultimately led a series of violations of sovereignty that keep that that keep happening over. now of these violations of of sovereignty you right over time we we tend to see a in what happens in latin american and the latin american region. again this is not something that

happens from one day to the next. but we start to see multilateral approaches that keep the united out. of course, us has been involved in multilateral organizations and you know, trade agreements. so organizations, the organization of american states. it was also part of the real in 1947 that i'm sure james might want to raise a point later. but ultimately on especially after the cold, there were a series alliances and organizations that intend really are meant to keep the united states out, which is fairly interesting. and a lot of that is evolving, trying to step away from this unilateral foreign policy that the united states had

implemented. right. so some of these organizations that come forward include, the bolivarian alliance for people of our america, also known as alba, which is a far left alliance that was promoted by cuba and. in 2001, and one of the many objectives of alba was to fight the autonomy of latin and oppose the us empire ism right. and then there are other, more moderate examples. for example, the union of south american nations, also known as unisuper which formed into eight. and that one formed to promote regional, which is still a topic of today is how to promote regional integration in the region. and a lot of the discussion is happening without the states based on experiences from the

past. and one of the other organizations that has also been promoted is that largely out is a community of latin american and caribbean states known as the la. and this was built actually, after much criticism of the organization of american states because of the influence that the united states has now, what's interesting is for for many strategic reasons, back then, when it was formed back in 1889, the the idea behind the organization american states was to include the united states. right. and for the united states to have also a be part of the of the discussion. right. of issues and disputes and and have mutual objective that are promoted in the region. and so ultimately the

headquarters are here, right in the united states. however, that also comes with many dilemmas for latin america. that means that if the united states does not want cuba, latin, nicaragua right or other far left governments, then can keep them out. it can keep them out from summit and ultimately, what happened, for example, last year, 2022 was after the that there was a large criticism right over? venezuela, nicaragua and cuba. and there was a discussion from the united states like there's an upside and not to include these country. the region reacted by well some of the members of the organization of american states by not going to the. right. so in in many ways they have

been able to recognize that although they do not agree with all objectives obviously do not also all have cuba ideologies or even and economic objectives, but they have found that there are some objectives that and there are there is power in numbers, especially when they are faced with a very hegemonic right, which is the united states and part of the big reason for the creation of, the last right had to do that criticism of the organization of american states. so and i say this because one of the central ideas behind monroe doctrine. what's it was unilateral approach to level and regional price. and so the alliances organizations that have formed right are a few examples that support the idea that the latin american region had moved

forward from a huge harmonic, unilateral foreign policy and really started to to build other alliances, organizations and trade pact to support their mutual interests. thank you. really glad to have that. and so let me follow up maybe for and or melissa. the rise of communism in the 20th century in russia, eastern europe and latin america has profound implications on the foreign policy of the united states and what role or roles did monroe doctrine play in our country's to communism, particularly in latin america? well the documents south. i'm not sure whether architects of foreign policy the late 1940s on i think it contained basically what i'd call sort of

three basic principles or sort pillars. one is this the geostrategic pillar, which is again that old world, new world. there are differences between, the two. but then you add in another, which is the democracy totalitarianism. or we went back sort of republicanism, monarchies and then there's the economics system, which is capitalism versus communism. so obviously not all of that was included in the original monroe doctrine. but i think the idea of the distinctions between the two worlds, the fence of democracy and the of our own security, i being a product, i was thinking of these students. they might know what the term duck and cover means somebody shouted out what's duck and cover get under your desk covers. that was not a student, by the way. okay. and get ready for that atomic bomb. i mean, in essence, i as.

i got a chance sort of get this question in advance. and i think we sort of see three waves of fear of of communism. first of all, is the 1947, the sending of the iron curtain. mao takes over in china. things are we go into a sort of a panic. we also begin to construct things such as malicious the organism. we reorganize the pan american system to become the organization of american states. we create the the rio treaty. we began security assistance in the western hemisphere. i think there were 4.4 programs or something like that. we add a new tool to our armament which called the central intelligence agency. so we begin. so the 1950s, see a positioning of fear of the communist threat leads to such things as 1954. and the overthrow arbenz and guatemala. perhaps he was an indigenous left social revolutionary, but

he had the fingerprints of moscow were supposedly on it. so we got it rid of him pretty cheaply then happens in 1959 which is sort of second wave and that's and fidel comes to power within three years has become an ally moscow and this really we have a young president john f kennedy. he's just been humiliated at the at the bay of pigs. he was humiliated, i think, in in he was humiliated in what was where he met with khrushchev after the everything that began the summit. yeah. the vienna summit and everything like. so he's coming at it. he's the things like the alliance for progress. but he's also going after cuba. we have the cuban missile crisis. he invokes the monroe in the lead up to and says, you know, we're not going to allow the soviets, the western hemisphere. so we fence along with that. the seventies we have the

interventions in chile and we have kind of a carter pause when he makes this famous speech. well we shouldn't have the inordinate fear of communism. we should really start thinking about who are so-called friends are in the neighborhood. the argentines, with their dirty wars, chile with pinochet and everything like that. this sort of moral stepping back and then comes nicaragua. my first post in the foreign service, one year after the sandinista revolution. all of a sudden, not only do we cuba, moscow, we now have that beachhead on, the isthmus with sandinista sandinistas as the launching point for the stabilizing of central america. so round number three occurs. reagan support for the contras, iran contra and all that sort of stuff. finally, something happens. what happens in in 1988 was 89. 89. what happens in 89?

the berlin wall falls. peace comes to poulos comes to central america. all of a sudden, the temperature, the air goes out. so the communist threat sort of, as i said, i think came in kind of three basic waves and then all of a sudden it just sort fades away. but cuba won't go away. it'll still be there. we can maybe talk about that later. but that is in my of snapshot view, the the influence of communism. there's a there's a beef uplift under chavez alba that she's talking about chavez linkage with iran and the like. but then that that's but but communism per se is no longer a driving force in hemisphere. well let's say you have a take on that that summary that phrase now. yeah i thank you and thank you for that. i would just want to add that i

mean during the cold war it wasn't at least the very beginning of the cold war. it wasn't a, you know, the view that the united states had towards latin america at stance the monroe doctrine had been very paternalistic. so initially the way to get make sure that communism did not get into the region was thought well we do need to keep the soviet union out. right those communists out. so it wasn't until really the cuban revolution or. you can argue that it was during nixon's visit in venezuela that there became to the to be alarm bells that perhaps. right. communism could emerge from within the latin american states. and so the approach that the

united states took towards in the region then changed along with their particular and in some cases it was overt, other cases it was covers. and so i would, you know, was how much that the monroe doctrine these perhaps i would you know, i would argue that in those instances right. and i you know for the very or initially especially in the planning of overthrow of huckleberry arbenz, it was highly covered. so it't you know, we you know, we really need to communism out that really happened a bit later on right before he was ousted. and so it's interesting, you know, when this this is used

right. of of of having this policy of keeping communism out and then the tactics that the united states uses, whether it's overt uncle and i think you know if we want to make those particular. makes more sense to use them when it's largely overt. well can i jump in real quick. the when we're talking about the era of the cold war and, the monroe doctrine, there's a brilliant paradox. on the one hand, this is the period in time in which the doctrine becomes kind of part of the american pantheon that's become noted by. everyone, of course, school kids or traumatized by their tests on the monroe doctrine commemorative coins or circulation, etc. so it's culture role standing has never been higher than during the days of the cold war. yet it's completely out of step with. american geopolitics and grand

strategy. i mean, monroe doctrine, though it was an amorphous thing at heart, as we heard is about separating the globe spheres of influences. that's not. post 1945 america with occupying armies in eurasia with throughout latin america, with leadership of new international institutions like the un, like the bretton woods system. and so. you know, that's the antithesis of the monroe doctrine. so if you want to see who's really talking about the monroe doctrine in this period time, you'd either find latin american eyes who are saying, hey, you intervening in our country is not the truth, not the true monroe doctrine or you would look for those old timers those old timers that were to the or to naito or to all these new global commitments, and they the monroe doctrine is like a guidebook from a simpler time when america could kind cocoon itself off from the wider world.

so that's the sort of paradox. the last point to say about post 1945 america and the monroe doctrine. and it's still with us today a fundamental kind of problem is that if america really wants to have a monroe doctrine, which means it can have its own sphere of influence and, it has certain privileges and responsibilities, imperial duties, if it wants to say it can do that well, russia or the soviet union can have its own sphere of influence. that's brezhnev doctrine. you know, if there's ferment in eastern europe role, in the soviet tanks or china, china can have its own monroe doctrine. if we were going to talk about reviving the monroe doctrine in the 21st century. so it's this fundamental paradox. and that's why when america had a global grand strategy, the monroe doctrine was not a useful instrument. even if it was a powerful symbol of cultural nationalism. i mean, one of the lines is the nonintervention in affairs. and right there we're intervening, the affairs, global

affairs around the world. so there is, as i said, i totally agree with you of this paradox that that exists. we mentioned earlier you were talking at the negotiations at the end of world war one and how they were evoking monroe doctrine, where as u.s. intervention in, world war one was a direct contradiction of the monroe doctrine, which said the united states will not, in european affairs. so and an older historical paradox is i hesitate say it but monroe almost had a cold war mentality and us versus them of of opposing ideals ages. but what was curious about it is in monroe's day i'll get in trouble for saying this. the us was playing the role that the communist played leader of where they were the revolutionary viewed the

stabilizing element in the established world of. and it's so important that is retired now. yeah yeah. yeah. he can say that i am not, but yes, the rest briefly reflect the ideological revolution. that was the new thought and that that was the role of republican napoleon losing. exactly. yes. and where the european monarchies is their policy was essentially a policy of containment to contain the contagion of republican revolution ism. so yes, it does. it does work way. and it's also the pairing of secure with ideology like that. that's what the monroe doctrine of 1823 is about. that's also the subtext that i started out war. exactly what you said. let me insert a point of order. this has been marvelous. we have 10 minutes left to give us more contemporary times than we have. two questions, sir. first in me that will bring us

more out of history into today. i want to pick on one thread there mentioning china. right. and, you know, we talk about ideology and secure ity. we can also talk about economics and political approach. right. recognizing that, you know, these are 100% the same thing. but talk about trying to talk about china's sphere of influence now in latin. what kind of policy do we need? is it economic? is it political. let's go to maybe melissa first to be in one of them, impacts of. yeah. so i'll start with i think three main points where china has increased influence in the region. so the first one is not only has it trade relations with latin america, but it has also expand investment interests that are, many have argued are a company with high costs. so china has slowly able to

create closer ties in the region and ultimately because it has a mutual point of interest and that development without providing political commitment. and so that that's the first place where it has been crease. and so one of them is the very perhaps well known to the students. and the audience is belt and road initiative. and so currently, excuse me, there are 21 latin american countries that are all part the belt and road initiative. and so although this is economics right and investment and it's not about security, some that criticize the belt and road initiative in the western hemisphere. right. is the debate that's well china tends to contain clauses that retain the right to demand payment than at any time.

and some argue that, you know, if they are unable to pay, china takes over control over their assets, then it can also have leverage over internal national policy. right. and even a political policy so that has been one of the main arguments there in terms of chinese influence and investment. that's one point that the second point of influence, a military contribution. so china has its military contribution in latin america. this includes venezuela, argentina peru, bolivia, ecuador. and so that's a that's a second a a point, right. where have seen an increasing influence here from china. and the third indicator i would argue that is an indicator that china's influence in the region is that there are more countries now that recognize china's claim

over taiwan. so currently over only seven countries recognize taiwan and so that you know that that speaks right to of the political influences that china has been able to promote the region if nothing else. and so i would that those are the three main main points of influence in the region. now, i also want to mention that the united states is one of latin americans, not one of. right. it's still the top trade in many places in the region. and so it has been able to create trade agreements and and also china tends to stay away from political influence. and so although there have been an increasing level of importance of chinese influence in the region. the united states still has a good leverage of influence in.

the region. the only ray is the diplomat i was just saying. and let me segue into my that follows that as we look at both the china influence we've got secretary of state john kerry 2013 saying the idea of the doctrine is over five years later. rex tillerson says it's as important today as it was. it was written. how do you reconcile those things in both politics and diplomacy with china and all the rest going? okay, well, let me add just a sort of a final point on on china's. when you think of of really of seeing, again, the sort of the tectonics with the brics particularly the war in ukraine, the emergence of what one calls a sort of the global south which would be sort of your anti monroe doctrine writ large, which just added iran, for example, to the brics. so it china is definitely throwing its diplomatic weight around and. i think your other three points are very trade, security assistance and taiwan so i totally agree with that.

yes. back in 2013, i actually was sitting in the big chambers, the big ballroom of the organization american states, when john kerry pronounced the monroe doctrine dead. and it was kind of like, huh, we really thought it was dead long ago. and he says, oh, that's a big and okay, we start clapping and everything like that moved to tillerson who makes a statement. i apparently in austin, texas saying yes, it's very much alive and well. take i see the monroe doctrine is kind of like an overcoat when it's chilly you put on you know when the winds are blowing the security wins everything like that are blowing. you put the overcoat on hard. my profanity. well, it warms up are good. you know. it's peace on earth and everything. you take the overcoat up the monroe doctrine goes back on the shelf. 2013, the world kind of going our way. there was no crimea. i mean, were plenty of problems.

but the world was sort of going our way. 2018 america first whole new sort attitude towards the hemisphere. as one of my colleagues said, well, you know, the monroe doctrine was initially there keep the europeans and now most americans want a wall to keep the south americans out. so so we the context completely tillerson brings it back in it it's brought out i think as jay said periodically and i think it's that sort of masculinity it's a sledgehammer with which you your opponent with. so tillerson brought it back the into the conversation i think biden has toned it down again he wants to. well it's definitely and if you're watching the 2024 republican primaries we've had two santos ramaswamy pence gives their foreign policy speeches endorsed monroe doctrine. there's been a new joint or

declaration from the report the senate foreign relations committee expressing allegiance to this old symbol from the days of sailing boats and so forth. i think there's two things going on. first, it just fits into our contemporary political moment, kerry. the is canceling. canceling a revered national tradition, declaring it dead republic. cans. you know, putting it on like a cloak. and it's like it mirrors 1619 versus 1776 thing. and way. history is politicized. i think that's the kind of surface level thing. the real thing that's going on here though. the real thing is that nexis between rapid geopolitical in the world, which we just heard about, and then a new domestic dynamic where americans are debating, what is our role in the world? what do want to do? do we really want to spend money to protect the taiwanese and the ukrainians?

we'd rather spend that money building a border wall. what should we do? what's the future direction? and if you look at those moments of the past, the monroe doctrine has appeared in public discourse. it's when the world is in flux and americans are internally divided about what they want do and what their role is. so i really think that the monroe doctrine is going to be something that's around with us for the foreseeable future. like it or not? well, thank you. let's hop right to then. i think that's the starting point of maybe our wrapping up lightning. before we go to audience questions and virtual questions, then from our audience online. let's see ray, do you want to take this first? on its 200th birthday, does the monroe doctrine still matter? excuse me, on this is our lightning round to wrap up on its 200th birthday. does the monroe doctrine still

matter? i can't. i can't displace what jay said it. it does matter is it is alive. just as 1776 is alive. 1619 project you. it is part of our historical fabric and i think at the memory of it. but remember it's just one component. it deal with a.i. cyber security, global warming, the other sort of thing which you know, those chaps with maps, you know had no inkling that was coming down road. so, yes, it's it's very important. but there are so many other things out there that are challenges. in addition, what monroe talked about. thanks, melissa. yeah. so if it matters, i agree with jay, it's going to depend on who you ask, right. and so i think that unilateral

focus it's time to really step away from that. and so the region now looks differently it has many countries with strong political institutions and experience with democratic. and so i think it's time that we consider mutual and economic interests in the region use that as an opportunity to tie no ties with the region instead of of the continued approach towards the region. thanks, dan. i think what jay said is pretty much sums it up. the the idea of the monroe doctrine has on a life of its own and and it has come to mean whatever who is espousing it wants it to mean and it can it gets interpreted in in so many different ways. but the name is there and the basic concept is there. and as long as people find it useful for whatever reason, they're going to use it.

have events like this. yesterday you said it was a symbol from the days of sailing ships. anything you want to add? yeah. i mean, i'll happily bet anyone. i think that there will be more invocations of monroe doctrine american politics ten years from now than there were this year. a second bet. more importantly. we didn't talk much about this, but i also predict that there'll be more invocations of foreign monroe doctrine. that's what we didn't talk about, but china's nine dash line where kind of charting its sphere of influence in contested south china sea waters that's like its own monroe doctrine of ukraine. the putin doctrine is a version of that. so i think that's the other place to look. and we'll also see that being an important. what you're saying is he should have trademarked it. good point. yes. patented it. yes, exactly. all right. well thank you. look, we've got questions on you each side. okay. so do you want to start there?

you have a question from somebody online. yes. so this from phil. and it's a question, melissa, specifically, and people can weigh in. melissa how did the doctrine reflect the foreign policy goals of the u.s. during the early 19th century? and what were its long term impacts on u.s. relations with latin american countries. i'm sorry, lindsey, can you repeat the first part again for me? how did the doctrine, the foreign policy goals of the during the early 19 century and what were long term impacts on u.s. relations with latin american countries? so i think perhaps. jay and dan can put in more of a us impact in. the early 19th century, but ultimately we in the how the

doctrine has affected the future mean i mean like others have said it's a it's a it's document that continues to be, you know, coming back and going but it's not a policy. so although some political actors have it back and mentioned the, you know, the monroe doctrine back in or where we got rid of the monroe doctrine. ultimately, though, i think what that says to the the latin american region. right. is there is no there's no stability. right. in terms of whether or not the united states or how the united states really feels about the region, whether it has abandoned monroe doctrine or it has not. and i just want to emphasize point in terms of how organizations have adjusted to the instability of, you know, whether or not it's brought back

in and experience it with the united states by creating their own alliances. so it's to continue to be discussed and political platforms here in the united states, but it's going to remain this unilateral document question. yeah. know we're here for the course of the two and reversal of the monroe doctrine. but of course i teach history well and i would hazard a bet i'd probably be 100 bucks that most of my students wouldn't know what the real pact of 1947 was or wouldn't be relevant. but in a way, isn't it but a better model perhaps for multiple approach to south america in particular. would that be a if you were to contrast that with the monroe doctrine we know we're going to have the monroe documents not

going to disappear but would that be a better roadmap per se? let me take one. if i could take a shot at that when i think that we have to. i always use that when i'm sort of teaching thing. there's sort of two paradigms. there is sort of the monroe doctrine, which is the unilateral declaration, which is if you go back to i pulled up an old article by abraham lowenthal, the head of the hegemonic presumption of the monroe doctrine and other hand. remember, there is that other strand. it's this kind of yin and yang, which is pan american ism. you know, inter-american dialog, iog and everything like that. the concept of the oas, the democratic charter. there is that other other side, good neighbor policy. that's the other sort of paradigm and, we're constantly, as you said, sort warring about it. i think you made that point in a kerry, the democrat you know, the dove and tillerson, the

hawkish republican and everything like that. but we we gravitate between the two, the two paradigms and. they're both. sometimes we have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time. it's such a great question, though, because everyone the students will know the monroe, but they won't know the real pact. i'll give you another version of it. they know george washington's address, but they will not know harry truman's farewell address of 1953, the most underappreciated, hated presidential speech like ever. and it's inverse of george washington when he's saying, you know, you know, no political binding, political. harry truman's making a folksy case for internationalism in that same era, of course, it's his administration that negotiated it's the rio pact. naito all, that sort of stuff. so the big is why is it that the internationalism has such a

legitimacy? why don't people how well it served america's and i think that's a big question that deals with economics deals with foreign but it also deals with education. so i'm delighted to hear that you teach your students the rio pact. so here. i've got one thing. oh, i see. i think you have the record of. oh, good evening. thank you for coming here tonight. you know. i really loved hearing your just your wisdom and all of your experience you guys have in this field. my question was, particularly for the monroe doctrine you said has come and has gone at times when it was convenient to our foreign the clearly on the other hand has that's something that has come and gone.

or is that something that remains in the american consciousness and? is that something that we will see again come or is it something that is essentially left the arena in our toolbox? it's definitely the jack in the box. it had it it had its time. i mean, there was an internal state department memo clark memo which kind of reviewed the roosevelt corollary and all the interventions and said, wait, this was a mistake. the monroe doctrine actually said that we were supposed to do this and provided cover. and then, of course, it's franklin roosevelt, who not only withdraws from these intervention, but formulates the good neighbor policy, which is the precursor to the real pact. so it's not still like operational with us today, but that idea absolutely is absolutely. and that's i guess, one of the questions for i guess for all you guys not for us old timers up but for the next generation to decide it. what's the appropriate foreign policy answers?

because the instability, the insecurity that comes with it, those are real. it's not like it's an easy thing. say, oh, let's just have a multilateral agreement and that'll solve all the problems. i mean, are real problems, but the course of action very much up for grabs? can i make an additional comment on and if i think if i remember the caller talks about sort of police action. yeah. and remember the whole thing, the the war on drugs, plan colombia, use of sanctions, everything like that. we do engage in substantial police actions in this hemisphere. it's not necessarily against, you know, the spaniards returning everything like that. but there is still that that policing aspect going after transnational crime. i spent far more time at the state department worrying about trans transnational criminal organizations and being in bogota in 1984, when pablo escobar rising. then i did worrying about them. monroe doctrine but i think that

the police power, law and order stability in the region is still a very critical and i think that is still sort of at the root of of roosevelt corollary the you may you mentioned it with roosevelt corollary the intervention in in the dominican republic. was it evoked again when the us again went into the dominican republic in the early sixties 60 or was that just sort of something that was separate and they really talked about. they never put an ideological on it. they just we just did it. well, it was to prevent it was 65 to prevent the dominican republic from going leftist from becoming another cuba. and johnson wasn't going to to allow, you know, another cuba to occur on his. but but did they evoke any sort

of ideological label it or was it just simply an expediency of the moment as as as suggesting for johnson the little guy and i'm not sure that it was mentioned. i you know, it was clearly another cuba means, another foreign you know, another base. the soviets will exploit it and everything that so there the logic was underlying it. yeah i mean is again the era the cold war is when presidents stop issuing corollaries to the monroe doctrine and start issuing their own. i mean truman's the first to do that and it really is because of this sphere of influence, this problem that that, you know, it might be a classic roosevelt corollary action to intervene in dominican republic in the 1960s. but you mustn't frame it as such, because then that gives license for the russians to do the same in czechoslovakia. i have to note in the collection of the james monroe museum is a political cartoon that shows a

very beleaguered lyndon johnson looking at a portrait of james monroe saying they don't seem to like it as much when you were in office. so at least johnson through that cartoon, invoking a little bit of the tradition it. i was checking to see whether we have any other online question do do we have question here we do mr. go ahead. i haven't heard much mention about the influence of the growing private business interests and interest in maintaining their investments. whatever in particularly in south and. my sense is that the monroe doctrine is invoked whenever, those interests are threatened justifying intervention. is there anything developing here? international corporations, principle based from the united states are in fluence in our foreign policy to protect their

interest. and as opposed to protecting republican government. melissa, you're teaching courses about the region these days. is this a topic that that factors in the particular question? if i understand it correctly so i understand it correctly so are there any policy ese that protect the latin american states from investors from that coming from the united that i think if that's the question the the answer to that is it depends on the government and that's other thing too that we didn't discuss is that, you know, with latin america, things have really changed. so there's there's also, you

know, the emergence of the pink tide, right? you have these and where it comes and goes, where you have the emergence of new left leaning governments that implement their own policies, that, you know, have shifted and provide more protection, spread that national protections in the region, that influence, you know, investors. and then you have other governments that are more invested in those particular investments and investment to their countries and economic growth and promoting development in their and their governments and those particular governments would not not have high restrictions. you know, for these particular investors. i mean, you know, you have like mexico depending on who's in

administration. brazil. right. you also have, again, depending on whose administration in the past. argentina. and so you have some governments that do want promote these particular opportunities. and then there's others like, bolivia under morales, definitely venezuela and are overcrowded. and maduro right at wants to have stricter protections of of external investors or and particularly those coming from the united states. i want to, if i might add something to this, i think your point is i think corporate interests had, you know, the twenties, the dollar, diplomacy, united fruit company seen to be behind the arbenz group of corporate interest. the you know, the power elite was much more integrated today.

things much more, you know, 1960 expropriation of us triggers the embargo in cuba. on the other hand in in 1930s we managed to accept the nationalization of the oil industry, mexico, part of the good neighbor policy and everything like that today corporate interests don't wield the same sort of that they that they used to. we have investment disputes, trade disputes, everything like that. but yeah, private economic interest in a market capitalist system, in an oftentimes socialist oriented hemisphere, still still clash we need to bring this wonderful discussion, which would have filled an entire day or more to a close with thanks. if there are questions that people have either online or here you're certainly encouraged to go to the website or the facebook pages. for instance of james monroe time. one of the james monroe museum. feel to post them that way i will be happy to work with our

speakers getting answers back to you. we want to continue the conversation and first an interest, but i want to thank our panel and sarah going to close us up. yeah, so thank you and i'd like to thank you our audience here in house and our audience online kind of as well as really our distinguished panelists for the conversation here this evening. i found it enlightening to hear your thoughts from various perspectives on this policy statement that has almost a life of its own for 200 years. it is it inspires us, really, i think, to reexamine the united states interaction with foreign powers, including our closest neighbors. we see monroe's long reach of geopolitics and our preservation, the united states, and the way that the us has cast itself in in so many different ways since then. regarding protection, intervention and its role in world. so thank you all. thank you. joining us. thank you all for coming.

please give a warm welcome for a battery intensive care nurse at university medical center. ms. jerri strasser.