a1000
09-16-05, - 11:31 AM
I have been reading recently, with great concern, the seemingly widening rift between the American Ambassador (and by extension the U S State Dept) and the current Bahamas Govt.
I am a Bahamian who currently resides in the UK, so most of the news I read / listen to concerning the Bahamas is obtained via the internet from the limited Bahamian newspaper websites, Bahamian political tabloid websites, and the one Bahamian radio station (Love '97) that you can still listen to via the internet.
I was home for the Christmas holidays when the U S Ambassador made certain critical remarks concerning corrupt members of the Bahamas Defence Force. I was shocked by the public outcry that his departure from protocal was somehow an infringement on Bahamian soveriegnty. The essence of what he was saying was lost in the soveriegnty retoric.
The US Ambassador's recent comments indicating his inability to see various ministerial officials, his concerns about safety for US officials at both the Nassau Int'l Airport and Freeport Int'l Airport, his frank and public discussions about the possibility of his government's removal of its pre clearance facilities from the Bahamas and the State Dept's recent travel advisory to Americans thinking of visiting the Bahamas (the increased prevelance of crime and drugs in the Bahamas may pose a threat to your safety). These statements, specificially the forum in which they are being discussed trouble me greatly.
There may not be a grain of truth to some of what the US Ambassador/Gov't is saying, but we Bahamians must realise that his opinions carry a great deal of weight with persons in the US who have the ability to crush us as a country, and without ever firing a shot).
I think we Bahamians need to familiarise ourselves with the Monroe Doctrine (principle of American foreign policy enunciated in President James Monroe's message to Congress, Dec. 2, 1823. It initially called for an end to European intervention in the Americas, but it was later extended to justify U.S. imperialism in the Western Hemisphere). This brand of foreign policy remains alive and well today.
We are insignificant to the leaders of the US. They only tolerate us as long as we remember our place, so to speak. As soon as we show them we have a voice, and disagree with them, then we're perceived as arrogant ungratefuls who should be taught a lesson. I fear the lesson will be a dire economic one.
In our short past as a soveriegn nation, we have had persons from both sides of the 'political isle' who seemed to understand this one-sided relationship the US fosters with small black countries of the caribbean. They played the game well, and we prospered as a nation. We now seem to have politicians too niave to play the game, or too filled with self pride that they're willing to let the entire country suffer rather than put their perceived self importance to one side.
We have a symbiotic relationship with America. That coutry is the greatest contributor to our GNP, and in turn we spend virtually all of our hard earned dollars, every chance we get, to export the lifestyle and materialism we see on their television stations back to our shores. Most Bahamians know that the typical American (WASP) don't love or respect us. Most of us know that they resent us for living in a country blessed with beautiful waters and beaches. If only they could find a way to take our land, and kick us blacks out...(if Iraq had no oil do you really think the US would be so anxious to launch a moral crusade to liberate the poor opressed Kurds; what about all those poor black Liberians, Hutus, Zimbabwians etc, when will their moral crusade begin in Africa).
So lets check the pride at the door Mr politician, we will never be seen as equals by the US - so play the game or get the hell off the court!!
i am going to add this bit of info to this very important topic:
Legacy
Although it would take decades to coalesce into an identifiable policy, John Quincy Adams did raise a standard of an independent U.S. foreign policy so strongly that future administrations could not ignore it. One should note, however, that the policy succeeded because it met British interests as well as those of the United States and, for the next 100 years, was secured by the backing of the Royal Navy.
The first use of the yet unnamed doctrine was in 1836, when Americans objected to Britain's alliance with Texas on the principle of the Monroe Doctrine.
On December 2, 1845, US President James Polk announced to Congress that the principle of the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced and that the United States should aggressively expand into the West (see Manifest Destiny).
In 1852 some politicians used the principle of the Monroe Doctrine to argue for forcefully removing the Spanish out of Cuba.
Between 1864 and 1867, Napoleon III invaded Mexico and set up a puppet regime, and Americans proclaimed this as a violation of "The Doctrine" (See Maximilian Affair). This was the first time the Monroe Doctrine was widely referred to as a "Doctrine".
In the 1870s, President Ulysses S. Grant extended the Monroe Doctrine, saying that the U.S. will not tolerate a colony being transferred from one European country to another.
In 1895, U.S. Secretary of State Richard Olney extended the Monroe Doctrine to give the U.S. authority to mediate border disputes in South America. This is known as the Olney interpretation.
The Drago Doctrine was announced in 1902 by the Foreign Minister of Argentina. Extending the Monroe Doctrine, it set forth the policy that no European power could use force against an American nation to collect debt.
In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which asserted the right of the U.S. to intervene in Latin America. This is the largest extension that has ever been added to the Monroe Doctrine.
In 1930 the Clark Memorandum was released, concluding that the Doctrine did not give the United States any right to intervene in Latin American affairs when the region was not threatened by Old World powers, thereby reversing the Roosevelt Corollary.
[edit]
Cold War
During the Cold War, the Monroe doctrine was applied to Latin America by the framers of U.S. foreign policy. When the Cuban Revolution established a Communist regime with ties to the Soviet Union, it was argued that the spirit of the Monroe doctrine should be again invoked, this time to prevent the further spreading of Soviet-backed Communism in Latin America. During the Cold War the United States thus often provided intelligence and military aid to Latin and South American governments that claimed or appeared to be threatened by Communist subversion. This in turn led to some domestic controversy within the United States, especially among some members of the radical left who argued that the Communist threat and Soviet influence in Latin America was greatly exaggerated.
In the early 1970s, the democratically-elected government of Chile was overthrown. See History of Chile#1970-1973 and Chilean coup of 1973.
The debate over this new spirit of the Monroe Doctrine came to a head in 1984, as part of the Iran Contra Scandal. Among other things, it was revealed that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had been covertly training "Contra" guerrilla soldiers in Nicaragua in an attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government and its President Daniel Ortega. During the period of the civil war the Contras killed an estimated 40,000 to 70,000 people and were responsible for the displacement of more than 150,000. CIA director Robert Gates vigourously defended the Contra scheme, arguing that avoiding US intervention in Nicaragua would be "totally to abandon the Monroe doctrine".
Critics of the Reagan administration's support for Britain in the Falklands War charge that the U.S. ignored the Monroe Doctrine in that instance (even though an American nation, Argentina, attacked the possession of an existing European power Britain that predated the Doctrine).
[edit]
Present day
The Monroe Doctrine is still being applied. The United States plays a major role in the internal destinies of Latin American countries by means of economic or political pressure. The United States also continues its embargo against Cuba which has been in place for more than 40 years.
[edit]
Further reading
Dexter Perkins, The Monroe Doctrine, 1823-1826 (1927)
Samuel Flagg Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy (1949)
Ernest R. May, The Making of the Monroe Doctrine (1975).
Joel S. Poetker The Monroe Doctrine Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc, (1967).
Donald Dozer The Monroe Doctrine: Its Modern Significance New York: Knopf (1965).
[edit]
See also
LLEYTON
I am a Bahamian who currently resides in the UK, so most of the news I read / listen to concerning the Bahamas is obtained via the internet from the limited Bahamian newspaper websites, Bahamian political tabloid websites, and the one Bahamian radio station (Love '97) that you can still listen to via the internet.
I was home for the Christmas holidays when the U S Ambassador made certain critical remarks concerning corrupt members of the Bahamas Defence Force. I was shocked by the public outcry that his departure from protocal was somehow an infringement on Bahamian soveriegnty. The essence of what he was saying was lost in the soveriegnty retoric.
The US Ambassador's recent comments indicating his inability to see various ministerial officials, his concerns about safety for US officials at both the Nassau Int'l Airport and Freeport Int'l Airport, his frank and public discussions about the possibility of his government's removal of its pre clearance facilities from the Bahamas and the State Dept's recent travel advisory to Americans thinking of visiting the Bahamas (the increased prevelance of crime and drugs in the Bahamas may pose a threat to your safety). These statements, specificially the forum in which they are being discussed trouble me greatly.
There may not be a grain of truth to some of what the US Ambassador/Gov't is saying, but we Bahamians must realise that his opinions carry a great deal of weight with persons in the US who have the ability to crush us as a country, and without ever firing a shot).
I think we Bahamians need to familiarise ourselves with the Monroe Doctrine (principle of American foreign policy enunciated in President James Monroe's message to Congress, Dec. 2, 1823. It initially called for an end to European intervention in the Americas, but it was later extended to justify U.S. imperialism in the Western Hemisphere). This brand of foreign policy remains alive and well today.
We are insignificant to the leaders of the US. They only tolerate us as long as we remember our place, so to speak. As soon as we show them we have a voice, and disagree with them, then we're perceived as arrogant ungratefuls who should be taught a lesson. I fear the lesson will be a dire economic one.
In our short past as a soveriegn nation, we have had persons from both sides of the 'political isle' who seemed to understand this one-sided relationship the US fosters with small black countries of the caribbean. They played the game well, and we prospered as a nation. We now seem to have politicians too niave to play the game, or too filled with self pride that they're willing to let the entire country suffer rather than put their perceived self importance to one side.
We have a symbiotic relationship with America. That coutry is the greatest contributor to our GNP, and in turn we spend virtually all of our hard earned dollars, every chance we get, to export the lifestyle and materialism we see on their television stations back to our shores. Most Bahamians know that the typical American (WASP) don't love or respect us. Most of us know that they resent us for living in a country blessed with beautiful waters and beaches. If only they could find a way to take our land, and kick us blacks out...(if Iraq had no oil do you really think the US would be so anxious to launch a moral crusade to liberate the poor opressed Kurds; what about all those poor black Liberians, Hutus, Zimbabwians etc, when will their moral crusade begin in Africa).
So lets check the pride at the door Mr politician, we will never be seen as equals by the US - so play the game or get the hell off the court!!
i am going to add this bit of info to this very important topic:
Legacy
Although it would take decades to coalesce into an identifiable policy, John Quincy Adams did raise a standard of an independent U.S. foreign policy so strongly that future administrations could not ignore it. One should note, however, that the policy succeeded because it met British interests as well as those of the United States and, for the next 100 years, was secured by the backing of the Royal Navy.
The first use of the yet unnamed doctrine was in 1836, when Americans objected to Britain's alliance with Texas on the principle of the Monroe Doctrine.
On December 2, 1845, US President James Polk announced to Congress that the principle of the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced and that the United States should aggressively expand into the West (see Manifest Destiny).
In 1852 some politicians used the principle of the Monroe Doctrine to argue for forcefully removing the Spanish out of Cuba.
Between 1864 and 1867, Napoleon III invaded Mexico and set up a puppet regime, and Americans proclaimed this as a violation of "The Doctrine" (See Maximilian Affair). This was the first time the Monroe Doctrine was widely referred to as a "Doctrine".
In the 1870s, President Ulysses S. Grant extended the Monroe Doctrine, saying that the U.S. will not tolerate a colony being transferred from one European country to another.
In 1895, U.S. Secretary of State Richard Olney extended the Monroe Doctrine to give the U.S. authority to mediate border disputes in South America. This is known as the Olney interpretation.
The Drago Doctrine was announced in 1902 by the Foreign Minister of Argentina. Extending the Monroe Doctrine, it set forth the policy that no European power could use force against an American nation to collect debt.
In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which asserted the right of the U.S. to intervene in Latin America. This is the largest extension that has ever been added to the Monroe Doctrine.
In 1930 the Clark Memorandum was released, concluding that the Doctrine did not give the United States any right to intervene in Latin American affairs when the region was not threatened by Old World powers, thereby reversing the Roosevelt Corollary.
[edit]
Cold War
During the Cold War, the Monroe doctrine was applied to Latin America by the framers of U.S. foreign policy. When the Cuban Revolution established a Communist regime with ties to the Soviet Union, it was argued that the spirit of the Monroe doctrine should be again invoked, this time to prevent the further spreading of Soviet-backed Communism in Latin America. During the Cold War the United States thus often provided intelligence and military aid to Latin and South American governments that claimed or appeared to be threatened by Communist subversion. This in turn led to some domestic controversy within the United States, especially among some members of the radical left who argued that the Communist threat and Soviet influence in Latin America was greatly exaggerated.
In the early 1970s, the democratically-elected government of Chile was overthrown. See History of Chile#1970-1973 and Chilean coup of 1973.
The debate over this new spirit of the Monroe Doctrine came to a head in 1984, as part of the Iran Contra Scandal. Among other things, it was revealed that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had been covertly training "Contra" guerrilla soldiers in Nicaragua in an attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government and its President Daniel Ortega. During the period of the civil war the Contras killed an estimated 40,000 to 70,000 people and were responsible for the displacement of more than 150,000. CIA director Robert Gates vigourously defended the Contra scheme, arguing that avoiding US intervention in Nicaragua would be "totally to abandon the Monroe doctrine".
Critics of the Reagan administration's support for Britain in the Falklands War charge that the U.S. ignored the Monroe Doctrine in that instance (even though an American nation, Argentina, attacked the possession of an existing European power Britain that predated the Doctrine).
[edit]
Present day
The Monroe Doctrine is still being applied. The United States plays a major role in the internal destinies of Latin American countries by means of economic or political pressure. The United States also continues its embargo against Cuba which has been in place for more than 40 years.
[edit]
Further reading
Dexter Perkins, The Monroe Doctrine, 1823-1826 (1927)
Samuel Flagg Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy (1949)
Ernest R. May, The Making of the Monroe Doctrine (1975).
Joel S. Poetker The Monroe Doctrine Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc, (1967).
Donald Dozer The Monroe Doctrine: Its Modern Significance New York: Knopf (1965).
[edit]
See also
LLEYTON