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 Spanish-
American 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
TR & Sec to expand
of State Elihuupon
Root
America’s
appliednew,
“bigworld
stick”stature after the
diplomacy
Spanish-American War:
most effectively in Latin America
– TR believed in the superiority of American
“Speak
Protestant softly & &carry
culture hopeda tobig stick,these
spread
values you will go far”
– To—TR’s
increasefavorite
AmericanAfrican
economic proverb
& political
stature in the world, the U.S. needed to be
militarily strong & ready to fight if needed
 TR’s “Big Stick Diplomacy”
• The
TR’sU.S.
top paid
foreign $10 million
policy for thewas
objective canal
to
& leased
build it for $250,000
the Panama perused
Canal & he yearhis “big
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
Canalopened in to
must be 1914, the canal
require gave the
us to police
the USA a huge economic
surrounding advantage in
premises”
the Western—SecHemisphere
of State, Elihu Root
•TR
The
One
Roosevelt
warned
of the European
Corollary
nations to
greatest concerns stay
was theout
AND warned Latin
intervention American
of European nations
nations to be
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
American armed order in Latin in
intervention America
the
led Dominican
to pro-American regimes that relied
Republic, Cuba, Haiti, on
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”
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”
 Moral Wilson
Diplomacy apologized
Wilson appointed
• Wilson pacifist in domestic policy
was well-versed to Colombia for
William Jennings
before Bryan
becoming president,
U.S. but not foreign
support of the
as hispolicy
Secretary of State Panamanian revolt
“It would be the irony of fate if my
• He believed that had
administration Moral
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
Wilson
In 1913,
When
Moral refused
Mexican
Huertato refused,
diplomacy recognize
president
seemed Huerta
Wilson
to Madero
fail &Mexico
used
in demanded
was as
minor
incidents Moral
(arrest
thatoverthrown
he step by
down Diplomacy
of some U.S.
dictator
so in
war seemed eminent but WW Iinforced
sailors
Victoriano
legitimate Mexico
Tampico)
Huerta
elections could
toAmericans
send the military
be held for to
a occupy
new Veracruz
president
to change their focus to Europe &
force Huerta to flee to Europe

Mexican
Wilson rebel Pancho
responded byVilla tried
sending to
the provoke
military war
to
withfind
the Villa
U.S. by raiding
(who wereacross
unable the
to border
do so) for
supporting his rival Carranza
 Conclusions
• After the Spanish-American War, the USA
assumed an aggressive foreign policy:
Washington’s
– In orderProclamation of Neutrality
to maintain order, (1793)
forestall foreign
& Farewell
intervention, Address
& protect U.S.(1796)
economic interests
– By theof
Annexation outbreak
Alaska,ofHawaii,
WW I, the &USA had seen
Philippines;
its Open
foreignDoor
policyPolicy
evolve in
from strict neutrality,
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) Latin American distrust of the USA’s economic imperialism
2) 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 neo-
colonialism.
 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.