"President Obama officially closed a chapter in U.S. history that has guided presidents since nearly beginning, indicating the United States will no longer act to resist overseas influence in the Hemisphere. Obama, who spoke Friday during a “civil society” forum in Panama City, Panama, disparaged past efforts by the United States to forestall the spread of Communism in Latin America and suggested similar missions would no longer be undertaken. “The days in which our agenda in this hemisphere so often presumed that the United States could meddle with impunity, those days are past,” Obama said." With Iran trying to spread it's influence in Latin America and Russia's attempt at a comeback, is this really a wise choice?
Come on, Obama did not "officially" end the Monroe Doctrine. It is just not true. He never mentioned it and what he said does not even refer to it. The Monroe Doctrine was about stopping European colonial powers from interfering with their newly independent colonies in the new world. It stated that efforts by European nations to re-colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention. What Obama is referring to is the century-long American policy of military interventions in central and South America to forestall home-grown revolutionary movements. We have intervened militarily in Latin America 56 times in 15 countries between 1895 and 2009, all against domestic insurgents. Simon Bolivar and his descendant revolutionaries are not old-world powers, but domestic ones. American intervention in the domestic politics of South America has caused us a lot of bad will for a long time in the region and still does. It costs us lots of trade opportunities and political animosities. We are trying to engage these countries by luring them to American-style economic wealth and freedom rather than stifling their internal politics. We are trying to undercut the Venezuelans from trying to export their socialist agenda to other South American countries just as Cuba is finally coming around. And for once doing it without military intervention. They portray us as the giant evil hegemonist of the north that imposes its will of the weaker Latin American countries. So we are taking their propaganda away. Exactly what mischief have Iran and Russia been up to in Latin America? Are they efforts to invade, colonize land, or interfere with states in North or South America? Well, no. All of these Latin American nations have diplomatic relations with old-world countries, trade alliances, and conduct commerce with them, those are not Monroe Doctrine issues. Venezuela had a visit from Ahmadinejad once, an OPEC partner that shared hostility to the US. But Iran was not trying to interfere with or colonize Venezuela. Russia has had a long political relationship with Cuba that is greatly weakened and is now being undermined by Obama. Sounds like a wise choice to me. Did Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush also "end the Monroe Doctrine"? Cuba will not long be able to resist the huge America market 90 miles away and all of the culture and freedoms that come with it. Alliance with Russia has only gained them poverty. Russia and Iran have practically no influence in Latin America and are not interfering with or invading any of them.
That is not exactly true about Iran... http://www.businessinsider.com/aeroterror-venezuela-iran-and-latin-america-2015-3
You misunderstand me. There is no doubt that Venezuela is in league with Iran on several fronts. But to rise to a Monroe Doctrine violation, it would have to be Iran interfering with Venezuela, which is clearly not the case. The MD does not forbid anybody from trading, making alliances, or even scheming together.
There comes in the life of many diplomatic relationships, a point when the US must decide between supporting the government of a country or the people of the country. We have chosen poorly at times and we have chosen well at times. Bottom line is whatever is in the best interests of the US.
