{"id":2710,"date":"2017-04-09T08:58:47","date_gmt":"2017-04-09T08:58:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-282pinsker\/?p=2710"},"modified":"2019-01-21T01:41:06","modified_gmt":"2019-01-21T01:41:06","slug":"good-neighbor-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-282pinsker\/2017\/04\/09\/good-neighbor-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Good Neighbor Policy"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/maps\/d\/embed?mid=1q9eWSwVR7Mdf3SwW6Y0fCoIFUGQ\" width=\"640\" height=\"480\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>The Good Neighbor Policy, 1933-1941<\/p>\n<p>Latin America has been a key part of the United States\u2019 (U.S.) foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine, and American presidents and secretaries of state tried wildly different techniques in the roughly 110 years between James Monroe\u2019s bold doctrine and Franklin Delano Roosevelt\u2019s (FDR) Good Neighbor Policy.\u00a0 In 1823, President Monroe advocated for a separate hemisphere approach.\u00a0 Monroe and John Quincy Adams, the author of the Monroe doctrine, wanted European powers to stay out of the Western Hemisphere and not to intervene in the affairs of newly formed Latin American republics or try to recolonize them, and in exchange, the United States would stay out of European conflicts.<\/p>\n<p>This was intended to protect the sovereignty of all independent nations in the Western Hemisphere but this changed with victory over Spain in the War of 1898 and the Roosevelt Corollary.\u00a0 The United States gained Cuba as a result of the war and gave them their independence shortly thereafter, but not without including the Platt Amendment in their constitution, which compromised Cuba\u2019s sovereignty by allowing \u201cthe United States to intervene in Cuba\u2019s internal affairs\u201d if they acquired too much debt or if they agreed to treaties that would \u201cimpair on its independence,\u201d an ironic notion.<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a>\u00a0 The Roosevelt Corollary adopted similar thinking in all Latin American affairs, adopting a more interventionist policy than the original Monroe Doctrine and asserting that the U.S. had police powers in the region.\u00a0 This was largely a reaction to the instability of Central American and Caribbean nations and their rising debts to European powers.<\/p>\n<p>After decades of military intervention and the Great Depression sapped the ability and will of the U.S. to continue with the Roosevelt Corollary\u2019s policies, FDR stated that \u201cIn the field of world policy I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor\u201d in his inaugural address.<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a>\u00a0 In time, this would come to mean a policy of non-intervention in Latin American affairs, the renegotiation of treaties with Cuba and Panama, an increase in trade, and overall, drastic improvement in U.S. \u2013 Latin American relations.<\/p>\n<p>A series of leadership changes through revolution and military coups started in Cuba in 1933, but as a testament to Good Neighbor diplomacy, the U.S. did not militarily intervene.\u00a0 It began with Cuban disapproval of General Gerardo Machado\u2019s dictatorship and the island\u2019s economic misfortunes during the Great Depression.<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]<\/a> \u00a0When tensions started to rise, FDR sent Assistant Secretary of State Sumner Welles, who helped to unseat Machado, and after two more leadership changes, Ramon Grau San Martin was made president.\u00a0 The island remained somewhat unstable, and Welles maintained that Grau was not an appropriate choice and did not represent the majority.\u00a0 In this time, Welles often asked FDR and Secretary of State Cordell Hull for marines or naval ships to be sent to the island to impose stability.\u00a0 Several ships and marines were sent to the island, but unlike incidents in the Roosevelt Corollary era, the marines never landed, and military force was never used on the island; it was merely for intimidation and would only be used in an emergency to protect Americans.<a href=\"#_ftn4\" name=\"_ftnref4\">[4]<\/a>\u00a0 Furthermore, the U.S. refused to recognize Grau\u2019s Cuba as legitimate.\u00a0 This became a problem for Cuba, so in January, 1934, Colonel Fulgencio \u201cBatista decided to depose the President in favor of Colonel Carlos Mendieta,\u201d finally producing stability.<a href=\"#_ftn5\" name=\"_ftnref5\">[5]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Several months later the U.S. signed a new treaty with Cuba which repealed the Platt Amendment, a huge step forward for Cuban sovereignty and Good Neighbor diplomacy.<a href=\"#_ftn6\" name=\"_ftnref6\">[6]<\/a>\u00a0 Another victory for the Good Neighbor policy came during the Montevideo Conference, which occurred in the fall of 1933 and coincided with the Cuban dilemma.\u00a0 The conference helped to shape Roosevelt\u2019s decisions in Cuba, as he wanted to make sure intervention would not mar the conference.\u00a0 He and Hull also sought to use the gathering of American nations to show their dedication to being Good Neighbors, and at one point, Hull told the Latin American delegates \u201cno government need fear any intervention on the part of the United States under the Roosevelt administration.\u201d\u00a0 The ensuing December 1934 treaty reflected this policy of non-intervention.<a href=\"#_ftn7\" name=\"_ftnref7\">[7]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>The Good Neighbor policy was not simply designed to prevent more intervention but also to end current intervention, in the form of military occupation.\u00a0 Haiti\u2019s president was assassinated in 1915, and to prevent anarchy and German influence, President Woodrow Wilson sent marines.\u00a0 After this initial stabilization, the U.S. exerted enormous influence on the Haitian government, and a marine force remained on the island for nearly 20 years until they \u201cofficially withdrew in 1934 from Haiti.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn8\" name=\"_ftnref8\">[8]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>As part of the 1903 Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty that allowed for the construction of the Panama Canal, Panama was sovereign, but in some ways, they were a protectorate of the U.S., who retained the right of intervention in order to defend the isthmian canal.<a href=\"#_ftn9\" name=\"_ftnref9\">[9]<\/a>\u00a0 This was source of resentment among the Panamanians, and this combining with Roosevelt and Hull\u2019s amicable Latin American policy led to the Hull-Alfaro Treaty, which meant \u201cIntervention in Panama was now legally void\u201d and abolished its protectorate status.\u00a0 Importantly for the U.S., Article X of the treaty still allowed them to defend the canal.<a href=\"#_ftn10\" name=\"_ftnref10\">[10]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Good Neighbor diplomacy had an economic aspect to it as well, and although the initial response to the Great Depression was to turn inward and raise tariffs, believing that the answer to economic crisis was domestic trade, eventually \u201cmost New Dealers were persuaded that economic recovery depended upon recapturing foreign markets.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn11\" name=\"_ftnref11\">[11]<\/a>\u00a0 With this in mind, FDR signed the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act in 1934, which gave him the authority to lower tariffs without congress.\u00a0 This policy applied to Latin American trade worked wonders, as between 1931 and 1941, U.S. and Latin American trade tripled.<a href=\"#_ftn12\" name=\"_ftnref12\">[12]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>It should be noted that FDR\u2019s predecessor, Herbert Hoover, originally coined the term \u201cgood neighbor,\u201d and FDR followed in his footsteps by engaging in personal diplomacy in Latin America.<a href=\"#_ftn13\" name=\"_ftnref13\">[13]<\/a>\u00a0 In Latin America, Roosevelt became synonymous with the Good Neighbor policy, and Latin Americans developed an affection for him that made him the most beloved president in history in Central and South America.\u00a0 The U.S.\u2019s fellow hemispheric nations appreciated the increase in trade and newfound respect they felt by non-intervention in their domestic affairs.\u00a0 They loved that he personally travelled to Latin American countries and met with their leaders.\u00a0 Roosevelt\u2019s appearance in Buenos Aires for the 1936 Inter-American Conference was \u201ctriumphal\u201d and served as a \u201ccapstone\u201d for the Good Neighbor policy, as the Latin American crowds and observers celebrated him like no president, save for Wilson in Europe, had ever experienced in a foreign nation.<a href=\"#_ftn14\" name=\"_ftnref14\">[14]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>FDR\u2019s Good Neighbor diplomacy in Latin America represented a radical break from his distant cousin\u2019s interventionist Roosevelt Corollary.\u00a0 The sole line in his inaugural address about foreign policy shaped interactions with Latin America for most of his presidency, an area in which his administration had great success.\u00a0 It inspired non-intervention in Cuba, the removal of interventionist clauses in Cuban and Panamanian treaties, and the recall of marines in Haiti.\u00a0 Additionally, trade with Latin American countries increased dramatically along with the drastic shift in their view of the United States.\u00a0 Though the United States\u2019 focus would switch to defense with the coming of World War II, the legacy of the Good Neighbor policy should perhaps best be remembered by FDR\u2019s unprecedented reception at the Inter-American Conference at Buenos Aires and the improvement of U.S. \u2013 Latin American relations.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Footnotes:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a> George C. Herring, <em>From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 <\/em>(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 325.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]<\/a> <strong>\u00a0<\/strong>Franklin D. Roosevelt:\u00a0&#8220;Inaugural Address,&#8221; March 4, 1933.\u00a0Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley,\u00a0<em>The American Presidency Project<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]<\/a> David E. Cronon, &#8220;Interpreting the New Good Neighbor Policy: The Cuban Crisis of 1933,&#8221;\u00a0<em>The Hispanic American Historical Review<\/em>\u00a039, no. 4 (1959): 538.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\" name=\"_ftn4\">[4]<\/a> Herring, 498-499.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref5\" name=\"_ftn5\">[5]<\/a> Cronon, 563.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref6\" name=\"_ftn6\">[6]<\/a> Herring, 500.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref7\" name=\"_ftn7\">[7]<\/a> Herring, 499.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref8\" name=\"_ftn8\">[8]<\/a> \u201cU.S. Invasion and Occupation of Haiti, 1915-34,\u201d <em>Office of the Historian<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref9\" name=\"_ftn9\">[9]<\/a> Herring, 368-369.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref10\" name=\"_ftn10\">[10]<\/a> Lester D Langley, &#8220;The World Crisis and the Good Neighbor Policy in Panama, 1936-41,&#8221; The Americas 24, no. 2 (1967): 140.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref11\" name=\"_ftn11\">[11]<\/a> Paul A. Varg, &#8220;The Economic Side of the Good Neighbor Policy: The Reciprocal Trade Program and South America,&#8221;\u00a0<em>Pacific Historical Review<\/em>\u00a045, no. 1 (1976): 49.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref12\" name=\"_ftn12\">[12]<\/a> Herring, 500-501.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref13\" name=\"_ftn13\">[13]<\/a> Herring, 497.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref14\" name=\"_ftn14\">[14]<\/a> Herring, 501.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Good Neighbor Policy, 1933-1941 Latin America has been a key part of the United States\u2019 (U.S.) foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine, and American presidents and secretaries of state tried wildly different techniques in the roughly 110 years between James Monroe\u2019s bold doctrine and Franklin Delano Roosevelt\u2019s (FDR) Good Neighbor Policy.\u00a0 In 1823, President [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3237,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2710","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-282pinsker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2710","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-282pinsker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-282pinsker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-282pinsker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3237"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-282pinsker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2710"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-282pinsker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2710\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-282pinsker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2710"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-282pinsker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2710"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/hist-282pinsker\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2710"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}