Which Foreign Policy Was Best for America in the late 1800s
advertisement
Which Foreign Policy Was Best for America in the late 1800s-early 1900s? Option 1: Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” policy Option 2: Taft’s “Dollar Opening Statement 1. US just demonstrated dominance; we = power, so need to protect interests 2. Big Stick allows all other moral and economic interests to survive; we’ll be dominant in hemisphere 3. All future Presidents will back this position (other ideas ineffective) CX: What right to intervene? To protect interests Why do we get to dominate? Winning Spain war gives territ. gotta manage these What about Filipino people who lack representation? Phillip. Will eventually be ready to govern selves Was early US ready to govern in 1776? Yup—had plan for colonies and legislatures Ready for self govt. is key issue 1. Economic policy encourages trade and Attack Turning Hawaii into a base backfired during WW2 to hurt Hawaiians and Americans in turn You’re just imperialism and America has historically opposed imperial powers Defense Need to focus on what’s best in 1900s Clearly, big stick is best then Needed to establish selves because if we don’t, someone else will Given this, US is the best option—democratic We had control of nations and we needed to guide them Hawaii control was key for US, tho maybe not Hawaii—base, trade stop Couldn’t just take over— needed to guide and establish own control Closing Statement Neutrality and Isol. Weren’t option—there were problems needing our attention and if we sat back, others would come forward and be the imperialist power, putting us on the defensive So, decide what kind of intervent is key Economic? No effective and send in troops Moral? Not effective and still send in troops when you send in the troops, you look pretty bad Gotta be pragmatic—use the stick where necessary; protect economic and political interests Big stick includes other interventionist policies and made Amer the power it is today Dollar diplomacy doesn’t Everyone is selfish— Dollar is best then and boost others—only arrogant to say we aren’t now Diplomacy” Option 3: Wilson’s “Moral Diplomacy” protects current investments 2. Don’t try to change people to be more like you Unamerican 3. Military as last resort CX: Nicaragua troops? Had to put down bad govt. How protect without force? Economic power comes firstdon’t need force if other nations doing well What is unamerican? American = focus on own country and interests so later can help others 1. We take the moral ground in opposition to earlier beligerence 2. Self determination: chose govt. best for them to support their values 3. Protect Self-D in other nations because it’s the right thing to do CX: What does fat have to do with it? Full of it protects US economic interests --selfish and greedy; protect investments abroad that support dictators and oppresive govts. Nicaragua intervention brought in unpopular leader, proving you’re economically and militarily abusive Even tho economic focus, you impose culture and eventually the military to get what you wantproves you’re violating your moral beliefs You’re just big stick— buy someone a stick is the same thing Self-Det is hypocritical -You sent troops to Carribbeanwhat’s that all about Who decides what’s morally right and wrong? Not everyone is Christian—religious freedom is key Moral Diplo. Leads to We can help other countries with money numerous dictators result from US intervent. Hard to predict leaders—we choose person who favors US interests and marines were sent to protect interests We stay true to money equals power—only use force to protect interests We can’t agree on or push morals, but we all agree on money Democracy is good, so is Self-Det. No mask—we need a chance to clean up your mess Troops were necessary in short term We need a chance to help others spread democracy Allowing self-govt. Moral is best policy— others force groups into camps in Cuba or result in forced takeover of countries Key to high living standard Being neutral won’t pay the bills Need to protect economy to prserve our democracy We respect rights with Self-Det. In long run, only looking at own interests will Option 4: Queen Liliuokalani’s Perspective (American isolationism) Is democracy only good thing? No Why is money bellig? Corrupt regimes caused by money Whose equality? League o Nat. Wilson’s race thoughts? Well, Self-D is good; race attitudes were complicated but ideals are good No civil rights act? Was more interested in for. pol. Can we enforce equality if unequal at home? Gotta try Can we force ideals? Have to be pragmatic Strict Isolationism is best: both morally correct and pragmatically good 1. Self determination violated—wealthy overthrow Queen 2. Takeover is bad PR— Queen is well liked and attack fuels anti-White sentiment 3. Not even that big a gain— harbor bombed and economy in the tank 4. Much turmoil in contemp. Hawaii—could be avoided with isolationism CX: How isolationism moral? Isol. Supports Self-Det; shouldn’t have foreign intervention using more force than in the past—wastes money and lives People don’t buy our values allows us to grow as democracy as well Stick no good—leads to oppression Going in for money only creates enemies build enemies League of Nat. was supposed to foster cooperation—need to talk to avoid another world war Need to think of others, not own interests How do you know what does on in the future? We need the military base now in 1900 We’re already involved in other countries—this is inevitable Ok to talk about future Isolationism good morally and pragmatically You say Pearl H. is key, but we can have naval base without taking over Wrong to marginalize countries (okinawa) nation and people You say racism inevitable, but the Whites are still going to Queen’s new constit was be in control on island supposed to be better and there’s still gonna be for racial equity US race issues invasion stops this and doesn’t allow to come to fruition Not pragmatic—ruins territ. Econom, politically US worse off in future Intervention hurts US and others No such thing as moral intervention Option 5: General Weyler’s Perspective (American neutrality) So ok to avoid all conflict? Wilson would respect sovereignty—not intervene without request Couldn’t Hawaii have been worse? Were content with constit. Monarch; undemoc. Revolt WW2? No bomb w/o US ctrl. How isol. Benefit Haw.? White minor reaps wealth—natives not benefit 1. Neutrality best—don’t get involved in other countries’ affairs 2. No clear evidence Maine was attacked by Spain 3. American papers shouldn’t dictate foreign policy— freedom of speech not always good CX: Difference btw. Neutrality and Isol.? Isol = only look at your problems; Neut = don’t always have to act Spain should follow own beliefs, not ours Why was war not in interests? Not US business to promote ideals—against Amer values How big a deal is Maine? Key source of war w/ Spain; Cuba not a big deal til papers make it one To make advances for ourself, we need to be involved around the world Nobody really attacked usneutrality is a good idea Mention of needing the money from abroad, but that’s not true—didn’t need it from abroad and didn’t take it All policies taken out by each others’ attacks Dollar Diplo = big stick, as does moral diplomacy Look at post-war period: multiple interventions (many examples) Colossus reputation In interest of values, should develop own econ and trade some Don’t be isolat, but don’t take over other nations White man’s burden: bad attitude towards persons in nations being taken over Few gain from intervent. In America itselfs
