Essay on Was Manifest Destiny Justified

How, and with what success, has the United States justified political interventions in Latin America? (1500 words)

“Latin America was rich with raw materials, opportunities, land, and trade routes to link certain parts of the world together.” (Livingstone,2013)Thus, making Latin America somewhere the US could greatly benefit from. This essay will discuss and analyze how US political interventions have been successful throughout history and how US ambition and self-interest have negatively influenced Latin American countries. This will be done through the explanation of case studies throughout history. This essay will ultimately conclude that the US has never successfully justified its political interventions throughout Latin America as historical case studies have proven that the US habitually intervenes in Latin America to grow its economic or political power or if a state within Latin America threatens American hegemonic power.

This paragraph will discuss the history of the USA’s acquisition of Latin American land and territory. Before, the USA’s political and economic interest in any Latin American country, Latin American countries had been colonized by Spain. Like many countries throughout time, Latin American countries started to seek independence from Spain. Following the Latin American wars, Latin American governments dealt with several issues of fragile constitutional rule and authoritarianism. As stated before, Latin American countries were rich with raw materials, opportunities, land, and trade routes to link certain parts of the world together. (Livingstone 2013) This means that many Western countries were interested in acquiring land in Latin America as it could benefit them. To stop other countries from benefitting from Latin America, President James Monroe declared The Monroe Doctrine which stated that “The United States has the sovereign right to protect its national interest irrespective of the Monroe Doctrine.” (Brown, 1924) This meant that any attempts from other countries to intervene in Latin America would be viewed as an act of war against the US. The United States of America wanted to protect its self-interest as well as limit any states gaining power through the acquisition of Latin American resources as this would threaten American hegemony. The US implementation of the Monroe Doctrine is an example of Manifest Destiny. The concept of Manifest Destiny is the American belief that they were exceptional and God’s chosen people. Therefore, it was American destiny to expand their territory and spread beliefs such as freedom, equality, liberty, and justice to other nations. (Schoultz, 2011) This can be seen throughout the acquisition of land in Mexico, The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. “ During the Mexican War, US leaders assumed an attitude of moral superiority in their treaty negotiations, viewing the forcible incorporation of almost one-half of Mexico’s national territory as an event foreordained by providence, fulfilling the Manifest Destiny of the United States to spread the benefits of democracy to the lesser peoples of the continent.” (Griswold del Castillo, R. 1992) The land was lost due to the advanced military power America had as well as corruption. The United States was successful in acquiring land but the concept of Manifest Destiny is not a plausible justification for US political intervention in Latin America as it had a catastrophic effect on Mexico-US relations for the future.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

This paragraph will outline the American exploitation of labor, materials, and land through the use of the Platt Amendment and other forms of political intervention. The Platt Amendment was an American quest for the US to maintain influence in Cuba. The rules in the Amendment included; the limitation of Cuba’s right to negotiate treaties with other countries, the amendment prevented Cuba from transferring any of its land to any other country other than the United States. Under this amendment, Cuba gave the US the rights to a naval base, now known as Guantanamo Bay. The treaty granted the US the right to involve itself in Cuban affairs to protect Cuban independence. In exchange for these rules, the US would end its military occupation of Cuba. “These developments had far-reaching consequences...Washington established formal proprietary authority over the Cuban national system, such exercise of hegemony created internal contradictions and national tensions. US hegemony contributed to galvanizing the very focuses it sought to contain; nationalism and revolution” (Perez, L. A. J. 1986) Although Cuba remained an independent state, it did not progress or benefit as much as the United States. Political intervention in Latin America was not limited to Cuba, another example of US intervention was the acquisition of land in Columbia to build the Panama Canal. “When Colombia rejected US plans to build a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, the US supported a revolution that led to the independence of Panama in 1903… The newly formed Panamanian government authorized French businessman Philippe Bunau-Varilla to negotiate a treaty with the US. The Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty allowed the US to build the Panama Canal, which was completed in 1914.” (Smith, Lydia) This is an example of American abuse of power. The US justified its political intervention in Colombia as support for the independence of a state. This led to the separation of Columbia and the Republic of Panama; as a result of the revolution. As seen in Cuba, the US was the only nation to essentially benefit from this treaty. “Over more than three decades, at least 25,000 workers died in the construction of the Panama Canal.” (Christopher Klein, 2021) During the construction of the Panama Canal, diseases such as yellow fever and malaria increased significantly, therefore, during the construction a lot of individuals who worked on the construction died. Many of the workers were also not American. Throughout three decades, the US sacrificed 25,000 worker lives to achieve their goal. Again, the US was successful in its political intervention in Panama but this resulted in many lives being lost, the unethical justification for political intervention makes it an unsuccessful justification.

This paragraph will discuss the United States intervening in Latin America in the modern day. As well as the two main reasons for US political intervention in the modern day; to stop the spread of communism and the war on drugs. “Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for example, tipped the balance of interventionism for a time toward more indirect methods with his Good Neighbour Policy, a response to Latin American criticism of past unilateral operations by the United States. Such indirect tactics included the withholding of diplomatic recognition to new governments, shows of troop and naval force near borders and coastlines, manipulation of local militaries.”(Dietz, J.L, 1984) Therefore, instead of direct intervention, the United States became more subtle in the way that they intervened in political affairs within Latin America. For example, “The first government in the region be overthrown for its alleged communist path and subservience to international communist goals was in Guatemala in 1954. A small, disorganized band of CIA-funded and directed mercenaries succeeded in displacing President Jacobo Arbenz who had been elected with 60 percent of the vote in 1950.” (Immerman, 1982). Allegedly, President Jacobo Arbenz was displaced in a military coup organized by the CIA to protect the profits of the United Fruits Company. After Jacobo Arbenz was democratically elected, he started to implement left-wing policies that would threaten the Fruit company. This coup was a campaign led by the Eisenhower administration, an administration that profited greatly from the United Fruit Company. The United States politically intervened to stop the spread of communism, that is a justifiable reason. On the other hand, there have been many arguments concerning whether the US intervened in Guatemala to stop the spread of communism or to protect US profits in the United Fruits Company. Both of these possible reasons threaten American hegemony, further supporting the statement that America will intervene against any power that may threaten its autonomy. The next main reason for US intervention in the United States is to fight the War On Drugs in Latin America. “The United States adopted an anti-drug campaign when former President Richard Nixon officially declared a “War on Drugs” in 1971. (LoBianco, 2016) Throughout this war on drugs, the US has focused on policies about the eradication of crops, interdiction, and the dismantling of drug organizations. Crop Fumigation is a common tactic used in the eradication of crops but the chemicals that are sprayed on the crops are having disastrous effects on the land, water supply, and population surrounding the crops. “In Colombia, the massive use of aerial fumigation to eradicate coca fields, as part of a strategy called Plan Colombia, has caused pesticide contamination of land and water, and serious health complaints from residents…The fumigations are to a large extent financed by US government aid program.” (Greyl, 2019) This tactic of aerial fumigation to eradicate crops that drugs are made from is an unjustifiable reason for political intervention. This is because aerial fumigation is causing civilians in the area to become severely ill as WHO has linked glyphosates, the chemicals used in the fumigation of Plan Colombia, to cancer. As well as this, due to the fumigation, farmers also lose their crops and therefore cannot eat or sell them. The War on Drugs is still prevalent today and it is clear to see that American tactics to stop drugs from entering their country are not working but rather harming a population. Therefore, their reasoning for intervention in Latin America in the name of stopping the War on Drugs is not a successful justification.

In conclusion, this essay has looked at several different justifications for US interventions in Latin America. Several US interventions have been successful but this essay ultimately argues that they are unjustifiable. It is clear to see that the US habitually intervenes in Latin America to grow its economic or political power or if a state within Latin America threatens American hegemonic power. From the use of Manifest Destiny as a reason to stop the spread of communism. The United States has historically used its power to gain anything that will benefit itself.

Bibliography:

1. Brown, Philip Marshall,1924, “The Monroe Doctrine and Latin-America.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 111): 34–36. http:www.jstor.orgstable3804605Dietz, J.L, 1984, Latin American Perspectives , Vol. 11, No. 3, Destabilization and Intervention in the Caribbean, pp. 3-14, Sage Publications, Inc.
2. Friedman, M, 2018, The Good Neighbour Policy, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Latin American History
3. Griswold del Castillo, R, 1992, The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: A Legacy of Conflict. United Kingdom: University of Oklahoma Press.
4. Greyl, Lucie, 2019, ‘Aerial Fumigation with glyphosate in the Putumayo, Colombia’, https: atlas.orgprintaerial-fumigation-with-glyphosate-in-the-putumayo-colombiaImmerman, Richard H. 1982 The CIA in Guatemala. Austin: University of Texas Press
5. Klein, Christopher, 2021, ‘Why the construction of the Panama Canal Was So Difficult-And Deadly’, history.com
6. Livingstone, Grace, 2013, ‘America’s Backyard: The United States and Latin America From the Monroe Doctrine to the War on Terror’, Zed Books.
7. LoBianco, T, 2016, Report: Aide says Nixon’s war on drugs targeted blacks, and hippies. CNN.
8. Perez, L. A. J. (1986). Cuba Under the Platt Amendment, 1902–1934. United States: University of Pittsburgh Press.
9. Schoultz, Lara, 1998, Beneath the United States: A History of U.S policy towards Latin America, Harvard
10. Smith, Lydia, 2015, 'Panama Canal 100th Anniversary'. International Business Times
11. The Platt Amendment to the Army Appropriation Bill, March 2, 1901, is printed in the Statutes at Large of the United States, Vol. XXXI, Part II, 895–98)