With headlines like Trump Dreams of Empire Expansion and Trump's Favourite New Theme: 'Imperialism', it’s impossible not to think of how Trump’s current rhetoric echoes a dangerous, violent, imperialist past, especially amongst neighbouring countries. After mooting both a 25% tariff on, and accession into the union for, Canada and Mexico, as well as threatening to retake the Panama Canal and discussing a "soft invasion" of Mexico, Trump and his incoming administration’s rhetoric reimagines an American interventionist past of gunboat diplomacy à la President Theodore Roosevelt, and applying them to the 21st century as Trump aims to "speak loudly and carry a big stick" throughout his so-called “America First” foreign policy plans.
Throughout American history, US expansionist ideals evolved and developed to establish the country as a global power and influence. During the early 1900s, this foreign policy line was at its peak. President Theodore Roosevelt stressed US dominance and authority as a “moral imperative” over Western Hemisphere affairs and created the hard power, “Big Stick” policy, the Roosevelt Corollary, adding it to the existing Monroe Doctrine to execute these goals. Make no mistake, this policy was not used to design mutual development programmes or provide aid to developing neighbouring countries for the betterment of their people. It was, in essence, created to prevent European intervention in the region so the US could be an “international policeman for the Western Hemisphere,” starting the history of continued US intervention and violation of Latin American countries' sovereignty.
The impacts of this policy adoption were catastrophic to Latin American countries, as US interests were placed at the highest priority, disregarding any possible mutual development and sovereignty as the US enforced its rule of law through interventions and threats, a concept known as “gunboat diplomacy.” In 1903, we saw this when President Theodore Roosevelt sent warships to support Panamanian rebels fighting for independence. This action, while not directly interventionist, was a show of hard power and ultimately is what permitted the US to build and control the Panama Canal before the 1978 Torrijos-Carter Treaties restored power to Panama. Back to the early 20th century, we saw gunboat diplomacy at play again with more direct intervention in the Dominican Republic, as President Theodore Roosevelt seized control of the Dominican Republic's financial interests without the direct costs of formal colonisation as French and British creditors sought owed debt. Violating the country's sovereignty per US interests, Roosevelt also put in place an American economic advisor to become the country’s financial director, crossing the imperialism line to maintain US interests. This is something Trump wants to replicate.
During his inaugural address to the United Nations, Trump mentioned the words ‘sovereign’ or ‘sovereignty’ 21 times. Trump recognised that, despite each member state having sovereign rights, these rights can be limited or withheld if a state fails to “respect the people as sovereign,” as in America, “the people are sovereign.” Speaking about sovereignty in these varieties of contexts, Trump’s nationalist perspective poses several dangers at the intersection of new-aged imperialism, with the strongest being his “America First” aggression.
How do we see “Big Stick” sentiment through Trump’s “America First” aggression? Trump’s nationalist-populist rhetoric describes foreign policy issues as “tremendous”, posing significant threats to the average everyday American, whilst riling up his supporters and the Republican Party. Setting this rhetoric framework, he establishes a situation in which his administration can justify intervention and threats to other sovereign countries for the sake of his own nationalist interest of putting “America First” at any cost, something that we see directly with gunboat diplomacy and its more modern permutation, strongman politics. Trump and his administration have begun to set the foundation for this justification of intervention by claiming the Mexican government is inefficient in handling the fentanyl crisis, stating the US is being “ripped off” at the Panama Canal, and highlighting that Canada should act against illegal migration. The impact of this line of thinking from his incoming administration has the potential not only to damage bilateral relations but also all diplomatic efforts in the Western Hemisphere. This type of policy approach also calls us to examine the lengths to which world leaders will go to protect nationalist thinking, hinder diplomatic precedent, and maintain an image of “macho leadership” through interventionism, especially in the case of extremist leaders as it is known world dictators trade toolkits to cling to power.
In a speech to Congress in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt opined on the Roosevelt Corollary that, when applied in the modern day, strikes eerily similar to the premises of Trump’s interventionist “America First” policy, as Trump now seeks to justify intervention based on base nationalist strongman instincts:
While they thus obey the primary laws of civilised society they may rest assured that they will be treated by us in a spirit of cordial and helpful sympathy. We would interfere with them only in the last resort, and then only if it became evident that their inability or unwillingness to do justice at home and abroad had violated the rights of the United States or had invited foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations.
Image: Flickr/Trump White House (Shealah Craighead)
No image changes made.
Comments