The Monroe Doctrine: Republicans’ Perspective in the Formation Years of the Versailles-Washington System

The Monroe Doctrine occupies a unique place in the US history. It became one of the key foreign policy documents of its time and provided the basis for a wide variety of interpretations of the United States’ role and goals in the international arena at turning points of world history. One of these moments was the turn of the 1910s−1920s, when a new Versailles-Washington order of international relations was emerging. In the US public discourse, this period was marked by intense debates between supporters of the Democratic President V. Wilson and his isolationist opponents. Both Republicans and Democrats constantly referred to the Monroe Doctrine, on the one hand, to justify their own views on US foreign policy in the new conditions, and, on the other hand, to refute the arguments of their political opponents. The controversy surrounding the Monroe Doctrine has been reflected in publications in periodicals and analytical journals, as well as in cartoons. Studying these materials, it is possible to trace the evolution of the approaches of American politicians, experts, editors, and journalists to the Monroe Doctrine. The arguments of the Republicans against the ‘internationalist’ interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine that emerged in the face of the changing global context after the First World War are of particular interest. The study shows that at the initial stage of discussions (1920), the Monroe Doctrine was used by the Republicans primarily to criticize W. Wilson’s concept of international relations in general and his position on the League of Nations in particular. At the next stage (1921−1923), the debate focused around the need to revise the Monroe Doctrine itself, that aroused due to new trends in the development of international relations in the Far East and, in particular, because of the increasing competition between the United States and Japan. The author identifies several main approaches to the interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine formulated during the public debate in 1921−1923. It is shown that, despite significant divergences of view, both isolationists and internationalists eventually came to broader interpretations of the Monroe Doctrine, recognizing the need to extend its principles to the entire Asia-Pacific region.

1. Arrighi G., Silver B.J. 2001. Capitalism and world (dis)order. Review of International Studies, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 257–279. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210501008117.

2. Baker R.S. 1922. Woodrow Wilson and world settlement: In 3 vols. Vol. 1: Illustrations from photographs, facsimiles and maps. Garden City, Doubleday, Page & Co.

3. Collier R. 1981. 1941: Armageddon. London, Hamilton.

4. Cooper J.M. 2009. Woodrow Wilson: A biography. New York, Alfred A. Knopf.

5. Cooper R. 2002. The post-modern state and the world order. New York, Demos Medical Publishing.

6. Cox M. 2004. Empire, imperialism and the Bush Doctrine. Review of International Studies, no. 30, pp. 585–608. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210504006242.

7. Damrosch L.F. 2006. The ‘American’ and the ‘international’ in the American Journal of International Law. The American Journal of International Law, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 2–19. DOI: 10.2307/3518829.

8. Frost R.A. 1945. Reflections on British colonial policy. Pacific Affairs, no. 4, pp. 309–320.

9. Gilchrist H. 1945. Colonial questions at the San Francisco Conference. The American Political Science Review, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 982–992. DOI: 10.2307/1950038.

10. Gilderhus M.T. 2006. The Monroe Doctrine: Meanings and implications. Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 5–16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-5705.2006.00282.x.

11. Grayson C.T. 1960. Woodrow Wilson: An intimate memoir. New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

12. Hodge J.M. 2010. British colonial expertise, post-colonial careering and the early history of international development. Journal of Modern European History, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 24–46. DOI: 10.17104/1611-8944_2010_1_24.

13. Immerman R.H. 2010. Empire for liberty: A history оf American imperialism from Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

14. Johnson R.D. 1993. Article XI in the debate on the United States’ rejection of the League of Nations. The International History Review, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 502–524. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40106729 (accessed: 15.06.2023).

15. Khalil O.F. 2014. The crossroads of the world: U.S. and British foreign policy doctrines and the construct of the Middle East, 1902–2007. Diplomatic History, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 299–344. DOI: 10.1093/dh/dht092.

16. Kim J. 2015. Empire versus empire: American critiques of Japan’s colonial rule in Korea in the 1920s and 1930s. The Journal of American-East Asian Relations, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 315–342. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43898435 (accessed: 15.06.2023).

17. Kinsella W.E. 1978. Leadership in isolation: F.D. Roosevelt and origins of the Second World War. Cambridge, Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc.

18. Louis W.R. 1978. Imperialism at bay: The United States and the decolonization of the British Empire, 1941–1945. New York, Oxford University Press.

19. Maddox R.J. 1970. William E. Borah and American foreign policy. Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press.

20. Manela Е. 2006. Imagining Woodrow Wilson in Asia: Dreams of east-west harmony and the revolt against empire in 1919. The American Historical Review, vol. 111, no. 5, pp. 1327–1351. DOI: 10.1086/ahr.111.5.1327.

21. Marten K.Z. 2004. Enforcing the peace: Learning from the imperial past. New York, Columbia University Press.

22. Masaru I. 1989. Examples of mismanagement in U.S. policy toward Japan before World War II. In: Conroy H., Wray H. (eds.). Pearl Harbor: Reexamined. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, pp. 47–50.

23. Miller K.A.J. 1999. Populist nationalism: Republican insurgency and American foreign policy making, 1918–1925. Westport, London, Greenwood Press.

24. Morefield J. 2014. Empires without imperialism: Anglo-American decline and the politics of deflection. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

25. Myers D.P. 1966. Philip Marshall Brown, 1875–1966: An appreciation. World Affairs, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 4–6.

26. Parchami A. 2009. Hegemonic peace and empire: The Pax Romana, Britannica and Americana. London, Routledge.

27. Pires M.C., Nascimento L.G. 2020. The Monroe Doctrine 2.0 and U.S.-China-Latin America trilateral relations. International Organisations Research Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 202–222. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2020-03-08.

28. Robinson N. 1945. Problems of European reconstruction. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 1–55.

29. Ross W.G. 2013. Constitutional issues involving the controversy over American membership in the League of Nations, 1918–1920. The American Journal of Legal History, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 1–88. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2220369_code31032.pdf?abstractid=2175177&mirid=1 (accessed: 15.06.2023). DOI: 10.1093/ajlh/53.1.1.

30. Tohmatsu H., Willmott H.P. 2004. A gathering darkness: The coming of war to the Far East and the Pacific, 1921–1942. Lanham, SR Books, Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.

31. Tompkins E.B. 1970. Anti-imperialism in the United States: The great debate, 1890–1920. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.

32. Wolfe Р. 1997. History and imperialism: A century of theory, from Marx to postcolonialism. The American Historical Review, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 388–420. DOI: 10.1086/ahr/102.2.388.