What are the differences between the MOnroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary?!?
The way I see it is that the Monroe Doctrine called for an end of European intervention in both North and South America, while the Roosevelt Corollary dealt mainly with an end to European intervention to countries south of the US.
The Monroe Doctrine prohibited Europeans from interferring in Latin America, while the Roosevelt Corollary gave the U.S. the right to intervene there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
The Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary are both significant foreign policies in United States history, but they have some distinct differences.
To understand the differences, let's start by explaining what each policy is:
1. Monroe Doctrine: The Monroe Doctrine was a foreign policy statement made by President James Monroe in 1823. It asserted that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open to colonization by European powers and that any attempts to establish new colonies or interfere with independent nations in the Americas would be seen as a threat to the United States.
2. Roosevelt Corollary: The Roosevelt Corollary was an extension of the Monroe Doctrine and was introduced by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. It stated that the United States could intervene in the affairs of Latin American countries to maintain stability, preserve order, and protect American economic interests. Essentially, it gave the United States the authority to act as an international police power in the Western Hemisphere.
Now, let's discuss the differences between these two policies:
1. Scope: The Monroe Doctrine was primarily focused on preventing European colonization and any interference in the Americas. It aimed to protect the independence of existing countries in the Western Hemisphere. On the other hand, the Roosevelt Corollary expanded the reach of the Monroe Doctrine by asserting the right of the United States to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin American countries to maintain stability and protect American interests.
2. Justification for Intervention: Under the Monroe Doctrine, the United States claimed that it would only intervene if European powers attempted to establish new colonies or interfere with independent nations in the Americas. In contrast, the Roosevelt Corollary provided a broader justification for intervention, suggesting that the United States could intervene to maintain stability and order, even in the absence of European interference.
3. Timing and Context: The Monroe Doctrine was issued during a time when many Latin American countries were gaining independence from European colonial powers. It aimed to prevent any European powers from reasserting control in the region. The Roosevelt Corollary, on the other hand, was introduced at a time when the United States was emerging as a global power. It reflected America's growing interest in protecting its economic interests in Latin America and exerting its influence in the region.
In summary, the Monroe Doctrine focused on preventing European colonization and interference, while the Roosevelt Corollary expanded this policy by asserting the United States' right to intervene in Latin American countries for the purpose of maintaining stability and protecting American interests.