The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > Other Conflicts > Cold War

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-17-2018, 01:35 PM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sauk Village, IL
Posts: 21,783
Arrow Russia mocks Monroe Doctrine, plans military sales to Latin America

Russia mocks Monroe Doctrine, plans military sales to Latin America
by Joel Gehrke | Feb 16, 2018, 5:13 PM
RE: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ru...rticle/2649346

Russia plans to continue building military relationships in Latin America despite a warning from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that the U.S. would work to combat Russian and Chinese influence in the hemisphere.

"Military cooperation is a common form of interaction between countries,” Alexander Shchetinin, who directs the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Latin America bureau, told state-run media.

Tillerson denounced Chinese and Russian involvement in South America on the cusp of a recent trip to the region. He said that warning was in the tradition of the Monroe Doctrine, a foreign policy principle articulated in 1823 in which President James Monroe announced that the United States would not allow European powers to colonize the Western Hemisphere.

“Sometimes I think we have forgotten about the importance of the Monroe Doctrine and what it meant to this hemisphere and maintaining those shared values,” Tillerson said during a February 1 foreign policy discussion at the University of Texas in Austin. “So I think it’s as relevant today as it was the day it was written.”

Shchetinin confirmed “that Russia’s role in Latin America has been growing,” and predicted that Russia would continue military sales in the region. But he suggested that the United States should not be concerned.

"The main thing is that the development of such cooperation should not destroy the balance of power, raise tensions and fuel disputes between countries," he said. ”This is why we are open, our approaches are open, they are based on the relevant intergovernmental agreements, which refer to no secret agenda. We will boost this kind of cooperation with all countries who are ready for that.”

Tillerson sees those sales as a buttress for hostile or dictatorial regimes, such as Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. “Russia’s growing presence in the region is alarming as well, as it continues to sell arms and military equipment to unfriendly regimes who do not share or respect democratic values,” he said. “Our region must be diligent to guard against faraway powers who do not reflect the fundamental values shared in this region.”

The former Exxon Mobil CEO argued that Latin American countries should be wary of “predatory” Chinese investment. “China’s offer always come at a price – usually in the form of state-led investments, carried out by imported Chinese labor, onerous loans, and unsustainable debt,” Tillerson said. “Latin America does not need new imperial powers that seek only to benefit their own people. China’s state-led model of development is reminiscent of the past. It doesn’t have to be this hemisphere’s future.”

Tillerson argued that partnership with the United States, at the economic and military level, would lead to greater freedom and stability. “We do not seek short-term deals with lopsided returns,” he said. “The U.S. approach is based on mutually beneficial goals to help both sides grow, develop and become more prosperous, and do so by respecting international law, prioritizing the interests of our partners, and protecting our values. With the United States, you have a multidimensional partner – one that benefits both sides with engagement to support economic growth, education, innovation, and security.”

Shchetinin dismissed those warnings, mocking them as an outdated reprisal of the Monroe Doctrine.

"Washington makes no secret that it believes the Monroe Doctrine to remain relevant,” he said during an interview with TASS. “The doctrine will soon turn 200, which is a very respectable age. In the past 200 years, the world has changed but it seems that the America for Americans principle still stands.”

See next thread:
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 02-17-2018, 01:38 PM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sauk Village, IL
Posts: 21,783
Default

The Monroe Doctrine
RE: http://www.ushistory.org/documents/monroe.htm

from President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823:

At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the Minister of the United States at St. Petersburgh to arrange, by amicable negotiation, the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous, by this friendly proceeding, of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor, and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers....

It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal, to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked, that the result has been, so far, very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse, and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly, in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries, or make preparation for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere, we are, of necessity, more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different, in this respect, from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare, that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence, and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration, and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling, in any other manner, their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States. In the war between those new governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur, which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this government, shall make a corresponding change, on the part of the United States, indispensable to their security.

The late events in Spain and Portugal, shew that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact, no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed, by force, in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question, to which all independent powers, whose governments differ from theirs, are interested; even those most remote, and surely none more so than the United States. Our policy, in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy; meeting, in all instances, the just claims of every power; submitting to injuries from none. But, in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent, without endangering our peace and happiness: nor can any one believe that our Southern Brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course.
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-17-2018, 01:45 PM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sauk Village, IL
Posts: 21,783
Default

RE: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearc...srre1927012000

Refer to number #3 (Russia)

1. The announcement of the Monroe doctrine came as a direct result of a situation which threatened European intervention to restore to Spain her revolted colonies in the Western Hemisphere. In the period of turmoil that followed the Napoleonic wars a succession of revolts had spread throughout the new world and by 1822 there was left of the Spanish empire almost nothing except the islands of Cuba and Porto Rico.

2. To the European mind and to the American mind as well this succession of revolts seemed a continuation of the revolution that had begun in the United States and had swept Europe under the leadership of the French. Brazil, when it separated from Portugal in 1822, established an empire, but Spain's former possessions had broken up into federal republics based upon the model of the United States.

3. Meanwhile there had been signed at Paris, on September 26, 1815, at the earnest solicitation of Czar Alexander of Russia, the so-called Holy Alliance, by which Russia, Austria and Prussia united to defend religion and morality and what they believed the only sure foundation for religion and morality government by divine right, While the Holy Alliance itself did little, it inspired with its principles the quadruple alliance, of which France was a member and with which England sometimes cooperated.

4. This concert of European powers, dominated by the skillful diplomacy of Metternich, found itself confronted in 1820 with insurrections and revolts in Spain, Naples, Piedmont and Greece. For the purpose of putting down these revolts and reestablishing government by divine right throughout Europe it espoused Metternich's doctrine of intervention. The doctrine was that, as modern Europe was based upon opposition to revolution, the powers had the right and were in duty bound to intervene to put down revolution not only in their own states respectively but in any state of Europe, notwithstanding the wishes of the people of that state, in the interests of the established monarchial order. A change of government, within a given state was not a domestic but an international affair.
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-17-2018, 01:49 PM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sauk Village, IL
Posts: 21,783
Default

The US Needs to Recognize Russia’s Monroe Doctrine
By Ted Galen Carpenter - This article appeared on Defense One on December 5, 2014.
RE: https://www.cato.org/publications/co...onroe-doctrine

US. leaders once understood and accepted that strong powers would insist on a security zone and broad sphere of influence in their immediate geographic region. Indeed, as just a middling power, the United States boldly asserted such a policy with the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. The key passage warned conservative European monarchies: “We should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.”

Yet, U.S. policymakers now denounce as illegitimate similar bids to establish even modest security zones by other major powers. That point is especially evident in Washington’s conduct toward Russia.

The United States and its NATO allies officially repudiate even the concept of spheres of influence, contending that it has no place in the modern international system. Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s secretary of state, made that point explicitly in response to Moscow’s 2008 military intervention in Georgia. She scorned the notion of Russian primacy along the perimeter of the Russian Federation as the manifestation of “some archaic sphere of influence.” Secretary of State John Kerry expresses similar views. In November 2013, he even declared that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.” Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the Kremlin’s unsubtle support for secessionist forces in eastern Ukraine, Kerry asserted that “you don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion” by invading a neighbor.

The current U.S. attitude is more than a little hypocritical. Contrary to Kerry’s rhetoric, the Monroe Doctrine is very much alive. Washington has intervened militarily as recently as the 1980s (Grenada and Panama) or even the 1990s (Haiti) within its traditional sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Russia’s brass knuckles tactics toward Kiev may be jarring to Western observers, but U.S. leaders need to recognize that Ukraine has long had economic and strategic relevance to Moscow. Any Russian government was bound to resent an attempt to wrench Ukraine into the West’s geopolitical orbit. And that is what Washington and its European allies did by supporting the Maidan Square demonstrators who overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian, but duly elected, president, Viktor Yanukovych.

It is always a useful exercise for policymakers to view a situation as though the positions of the various parties were reversed. Imagine what the U.S. reaction would be if Russia (or any other major power) expanded a military alliance that it led and proceeded to incorporate Caribbean and Central American countries. That scenario is analogous to how a U.S.-led NATO expanded to include East European nations near or on Russia’s border. Consider further how Washington would likely react if the rival power then spoke openly of offering membership in its alliance to Canada and Mexico, and used its influence to unseat a pro-U.S. government in one of those countries. At a minimum, U.S. officials would be screaming about a blatant violation of the Monroe Doctrine and would regard the rival power’s moves as profoundly threatening.

It is illogical to assume that Moscow should view comparable Western machinations differently. The blunt truth is that the United States and its allies intruded into a traditional Russian sphere of influence—indeed, into a zone that Moscow considers essential to national security. U.S. leaders should recognize that their conduct has violated an implicit Russian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine. The West needs to back off before it triggers what former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev aptly described in a recent speech as a new Cold War.

Indeed, such a confrontation might not remain cold. Already, Russian military aircraft and their NATO counterparts have come dangerously close. The potential for an inadvertent clash or a tragic miscalculation by one side or the other is reaching worrisome levels. There is no justification for running such risks.

Russia’s behavior toward its neighbors may be abrasive, but it is operating as major powers tend to do in their sphere of influence. U.S. leaders once understood that reality. It is unfortunate, and potentially disastrous, that our current policymakers apparently do not.

About the writer: Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The National Interest, is the author of nine books, the contributing editor of ten books, and the author of nearly 600 articles and policy studies on international affairs.
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.