FDR*s Good Neighbor Policy - George Washington High School

FDR’s Good Neighbor Policy IB History of the Americas

Background: Big Stick Diplomacy, Dollar Diplomacy, Moral Diplomacy

The U.S. Becomes a World Power • At the turn of the 20th century, the U.S. emerged as a world power: – The U.S. asserted its dominance in SpanishAmerican War (1898) – America built the 3rd largest navy in the world – Annexed Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, many Pacific islands – Asserted economic control over almost all of Latin America

The U.S. Becomes a World Power “Big Stick Diplomacy” “Moral Diplomacy” “Dollar Diplomacy”

• The U.S. developed a new, aggressive foreign policy under T. Roosevelt, Taft, & Wilson: • Their policies differed, but all revealed a desire to increase American wealth, military power, & stature in the world, especially Latin America

American Foreign Acquisitions, 1917

Theodore Roosevelt’s “Big Stick Diplomacy”

TR’s “Big Stick Diplomacy” • Roosevelt hoped to expand TR & Sec of State Elihuupon Root America’s after the appliednew, “bigworld stick”stature diplomacy Spanish-American War: most effectively in Latin America

– TR believed in the superiority of American “Speak softly & &carry big stick,these Protestant culture hopeda to spread you will go far” values – To—TR’s increasefavorite AmericanAfrican economic & political proverb stature in the world, the U.S. needed to be militarily strong & ready to fight if needed

TR’s “Big Stick Diplomacy” $10policy million for thewas canal • The TR’sU.S. top paid foreign objective to & leased it for $250,000 perused yearhis “big build the Panama Canal & he stick” to get it: – When the Colombians rejected an offer to lease land in Panama to build a canal, TR supported a revolt for Panama independence – In 1903, Panama (with the U.S. navy) became a nation & signed a lease agreement for a canal

A Panama Canal would facilitate world trade & allow the U.S. to quickly merge its Atlantic & Pacific naval fleets in an emergency

The Panama Canal was an engineering marvel, but one of the most important reasons for its completion was the scientific elimination of malaria-causing mosquitoes “The inevitable effect of our building the When in to 1914, the canal gave the Canalopened must be require us to police the USA a huge economic advantage in surrounding premises” the Western—Sec Hemisphere of State, Elihu Root

The Roosevelt Corollary warned nations to stay •TR One of the European greatest concerns was theout AND warned Latin American nations to be intervention of European nations in Latin more responsible or the U.S. would America: intervene – In 1903, Germany & England threatened to invade Venezuela to recoup unpaid debts – TR issued Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904 claiming special “police powers” in the Western Hemisphere

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, 1904

Additionally, the Lodge Corollary in 1912 refused to allow foreign companies to buy ports or establish military sites in Latin America

The Roosevelt Corollary was used to justify Attempts to maintain order in Latin America American armed intervention in the led Dominican to pro-American regimes that relied on Republic, Cuba, Haiti, dictatorial rule over its citizens Nicaragua, & Mexico

Big Stick Diplomacy • Foreign policy under TR extended to Asia as well as Latin America: – TR negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 from Portsmouth, NH – Gentlemen’s Agreement in 1907 limited Japanese immigration – The Root-Takahira Agreement in 1908 protected America’s Open Door Policy in China

“Constable of the World”

William Howard Taft’s “Dollar Diplomacy”

Taft and Dollar Diplomacy

• President Taft took over after TR & continued an aggressive foreign policy, called “Dollar Diplomacy” – Use U.S. wealth rather than military strength in foreign policy – In Latin America, U.S. banks assumed debts to Europe – Taft’s attempts to build railroads in China alienated Japan & ended the Open Door Policy

Woodrow Wilson’s “Moral Diplomacy”

Wilson apologized Moral Diplomacy Wilson appointed pacifist in domestic policy • Wilson was well-versed

to Colombia for William Jennings Bryan before becoming president, but not foreign U.S. support of the as hispolicy Secretary of State Panamanian revolt “It would be the irony of fate if my • He believed that had Moral administration toDiplomacy deal chieflycould with bring peace &foreign democracy to the world affairs” without militarism & war—Wilson in 1912

• Wilson talked of “human rights” in Latin America, but defended the Monroe Doctrine & intervened more than Roosevelt or Taft

When Huerta Wilson used minor Wilson In 1913, refused Mexican to refused, recognize president Huerta Madero &Mexico demanded was as Moral diplomacy seemed to fail in Moral Diplomacy in Mexico incidents (arrest of some U.S. sailors in Tampico) thatoverthrown he step down by dictator so legitimate Victoriano elections Huerta could war seemed eminent but WW I forced to send the be military to occupy Veracruz force held for a new Americans to change theirpresident focus to & Europe Huerta to flee to Europe

Mexican rebel Pancho Villa tried to provoke war Wilson responded by sending the military to withfind the U.S. by raiding across the border for Villa (who were unable to do so) supporting his rival Carranza

Conclusions • After the Spanish-American War, the USA assumed an aggressive foreign policy:

Washington’s of Neutrality (1793) – In orderProclamation to maintain order, forestall foreign & Farewell Address intervention, & protect U.S.(1796) economic interests – By theof outbreak WW I, the&USA had seen Annexation Alaska,of Hawaii, Philippines; its foreign policy Policy evolve from strict neutrality, Open Door in China to imperialist, to police officer “Big Stick,” “Dollar,” & “Moral” diplomacies

Our “Sphere of Influence”

Moral Diplomacy • • • • •

Involvement in Haiti Mexican Revolution Involvement in Dominican Republic Virgin Islands Reasons US entered WWI – Make world safe for democracy – War to end all wars

• • • •

Jones Act, 1917 in Puerto Rico Jones Act, 1916 conditions for Philippines independence Repeal Panama Canal Tolls Act of 1912 No longer offered support to American investors overseas

FDR’s “Good Neighbor” Policy Important to have all nations in the Western Hemisphere united in lieu of foreign aggressions. FDR  The good neighbor

respects himself and the rights of others.

Policy of non-intervention and cooperation.

The Good Neighbor Policy

U.S.-Latin America Relations During the War Years

The Good Neighbor Policy – "In the field of world policy, I dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor, the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others." ~FDR, Second Inaugural Address – The Good Neighbor Policy began with Pres. Hoover in 1928 in attempt to repair the damaged relations with L.A. during the Coolidge administration – FDR promised to end direct US military intervention in the Western Hemisphere, and promised Latin American states that they would enjoy a high level of autonomy. – What where the goals of the GNP? Did it succeed?

Case Study: Brazil

Case Study: Brazil • Brazil was one of Germany’s major trade partners – a recipient of massive investment in returns for exports of coffee and beef. • From 1939, the USA sought to divert Brazil away from its relationship with Germany. One way in which it could achieve this was through offers of massive investment, aid and loans to support President Vargas in his plans to diversify the Brazilian economy • In March 1939 Roosevelt extended a package of credit and loans totalling $115 million to fund the Volta Redonda steel mill. • In the spring of 1940, Brazilian foreign minister Oswaldo Aranha spent two months in Washington, soon after Brazil received a $19 million loan and $50 million in gold from the U.S.

Case Study: Brazil • One of the main aims of the U.S. economic policy was to turn the Brazilian foreign ministry away from Germany and towards alliance with the USA. • Vargas maintained neutrality until 1941, when an agreement was formed between Brazil and US. The U.S. would finance Brazilian iron and steel extraction, in exchange for military bases in Natal, in the northeast. • Vargas signed the Washington Accords in 1942 to supply natural rubber from the Amazon to the Allies,

Case Study: Brazil • In 1944 the USA gave Brazil $154 million of Lend-Lease funding to modernise its armed forces, especially its navy. • 1944 the Brazilian Expeditionary Force (BEF) was sent to Italy to fight with the US army.

Case Study: Brazil • Summary: The USA used its wealth, and its willingness to invest in the diversification of the Brazilian economy, to turn Getulio Vargas away from the alliance with Germany.

Case Study: Mexico

Case Study: Mexico • Mexico had received substantial US investment in the development of its oil industry, there was increasing resentment at the low wages paid by American oil companies. Generally, US was unpopular and resented in Mexico. • In March 1938 the Mexican government under Lazaro Cárdenas threatened to confiscate (expropriate) the assets and equipment of the US oil companies. • Standard Oil demanded massive compensation, not just for the value of the plant but also for the loss of future profits.

Case Study: Mexico • Roosevelt sent his long-time assistant Josephus Daniels to negotiate with the Mexicans. Daniels went against the wishes of the oil companies by accepting a much lower offer of compensation. • By 1938, FDR was aware of the prospects of war, and he was determined to maintain good relations with the Mexican government, which was a major supplier of oil and silver. (let us not forget an 1,800 mile border) • In 1941 FDR urges Standard Oil to accept $24 million in compensation from the Cárdenas government – only 5% of what Standard Oil had demanded. • FDR conceded to Mexico because he feared that Mexico might declare open support for Germany.

Case Study: Mexico • US envoy, Henry Wallace, visited Mexico in 1940 to persuade Mexico to allow the US to build naval and air bases on its coastline for operations against U-Boats, Mexico refused to surrender its neutrality. • Mexico received $40 million in loans and credits of $300 million, as well as low-cost lend-lease equipment. • The policy of neutrality was very popular in Mexico, and it was only the sinking of two Mexican tankers by u-boats that prompted Mexico to declare war on Germany in May 1942. • The declaration was very unpopular in Mexico, and many Mexicans believed that their government had sold out to the US. The Mexicans sent one squadron of aircraft to fight the Japanese in the Pacific Theater

Case Study: Mexico • Summary: The US managed to maintain “neighbourly” relations with Mexico by not using its clout to pressure the Mexican government to meet the demands of Standard Oil Co. • Mexico was not an enthusiastic ally but it also didn’t side with Germany

Case Study: Argentina

Case Study: Argentina • Argentina was the second most populous state in Latin America and FDR recognised its importance. Also its close ties to Germany. • Relations with Argentina had been difficult because of US restrictions on beef imports due to “sanitary regulations.” (This was really a form of protectionism.) In 1935 Roosevelt introduced a Bill to Congress that would allow beef imports from Argentina, but this was blocked due to opposition from the US Senate.

Case Study: Argentina • In 1941 relations between Argentina and the USA deteriorated. Argentina expressed support for Germany, which resulted in a breakdown of trade with the US. • President Ramirez considered declaring war against Germany, and was overthrown by Gen. Edelmiro Farrell and his defence minister Gen. Juan Peron.

Case Study: Argentina • In 1943, as a punitive measure, the US did not invite Argentina to attend an economic and agricultural conference in the US. • In 1944 the US broke all diplomatic relations with Argentina in an attempt to pressure a declaration of war on Germany. • On 9 April 1945 Argentina finally agreed to declare war on Germany (29 days before the end of the war in Europe) in return for US recognition of the government of Gen. Farrell.

Case Study: Summation •

The USA’s attempt to build up a coalition of Latin American states in support of the war against Germany was mostly a failure. This was due to two main factors 1) 2)

– – –

Latin American distrust of the USA’s economic imperialism The strong cultural links between many Latin American states and Germany.

Vargas used the US to develop the Brazilian economy. Strengthening itself against powerful South America states like Argentina. Cárdenas rallied the Mexican people by standing up to US business and government over its oil resources Farrell maintained a pro-Germany policy until the last days of the war

U.S. Political Criticism of Good Neighbor Policy • “We are not winning the friendly collaboration of the peoples of Latin America. We are trying to buy it … We are hated… for upsetting their economy.” ~Senator Hugh Butler, 1943 (R. Nebraska) • The main criticism of FDR’s strategy was that it cost hundreds of millions of dollars that could have been spent in the US, or on developing the support of neutral states in Europe, such as Sweden and Turkey. • Also, as the US controlled the Western Atlantic (from Autumn 1943), some argued that the support from Latin American states was irrelevant. • Finally, politicians argued that the loans and credits to Latin America supported corrupt and un-democratic governments and that this price was too high for diplomatic support in the war that would not make any real difference. (ex. Raphael Trujillo, Dominican Rep.)

Latin American Reaction to the Good Neighbor Policy • The ruling elites of Latin America were able to prosper from US loans, there is little evidence to show that the Good Neighbor Policy did anything to improve popular opinion of America. • In fact, many politicians and people in Latin America regarded US aid and investment as nothing more than neocolonialism.

Hemispheric Diplomacy • Solving regional disputes – Compared to the New Deal and to the politics of isolationism, leadership of the Western Hemisphere was not a major priority for the Roosevelt administration. Hemispheric conferences 1933-1942 – Most ended with disagreements over whether the League should be involved in hemispheric disputes. The US wanted to use neutrality as a means of solving disputes in Latin America. Most did not trust US motives. – Havana Conference (1940): Discussed resisting imperialism from states outside the Americas. It was agreed (without formal treaty) that the states of the Americas would assist any state that was threatened by an external aggressor – Rio Conference (1942): FDR looked for the American states to break off diplomatic relations with Japan. Argentina and Chile refused.

European Reaction to the Good Neighbor Policy • Many European leaders (ex. French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier) regarded the Good Neighbor Policy as an extension of the Monroe Doctrine that sought to reduce Latin America to an economic colony of the US. • Others criticised his support of dictators such as Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic

Analysis Good Neighbor Policy • Overall, the Good Neighbor Policy was both a continuation of earlier hemispheric policies, but with certain significant additions – – (1) the injection of massive US funds and loans; – (2) attempts to manage trade through not always reciprocal agreements; – (3) attempts to build up Latin American support and assistance for the US war effort – with very mixed results. • One major and unintended consequence of the Good Neighbor Policy was a growth of Anti-Americanism due to the belief that America was trying to dominate and control hemispheric trade, and prop-up dictators who agreed with its policies. Notably the states most eager to work with US were those with totalitarian regimes.