The Shifting Sands of American Power: From Olney’s Fiat to Modern Intervention
In 1895, Secretary of State Richard Olney’s assertion of U.S. Sovereignty over the Western Hemisphere – “The United States is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law” – wasn’t a boast, but a warning. It worked, temporarily. But the long-term implications, as Elihu Root recognized, were far more dangerous than any perceived weakness. Today, that tension between authority and dominance is resurfacing, shaping U.S. Foreign policy and raising questions about the future of the international order.
The Legacy of Intervention: From Monroe to Maduro
The original Monroe Doctrine of 1823 aimed to prevent European intervention in the Americas. However, the Roosevelt Corollary, co-authored by Elihu Root in 1904, transformed it into a justification for U.S. Intervention whenever Washington deemed instability unacceptable. This led to military occupations in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and repeated interventions in Nicaragua and Cuba. Root later attempted to refine this approach, advocating for international arbitration and multilateral institutions to constrain American power.
The recent operation resulting in the transfer of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to the U.S. To face charges echoes this historical pattern. While legally defensible, it normalizes the use of force as a policy tool, a concern Root explicitly warned against. This isn’t about whether the action was right or wrong, but about the precedent it sets.
The Slippery Slope of Precedent
Each intervention, however “measured,” establishes a precedent for the next. The current administration’s pressure on Cuba, through fuel interdiction and sanctions, exemplifies this incrementalism. Root understood that direct military force against a head of state (like the Maduro case) creates a permissive environment for escalating coercion elsewhere. The logic justifying intervention in Cuba is fundamentally the same as that used to justify the Maduro operation.
Did you recognize? The Olney-Pauncefote Treaty of 1897, which proposed arbitration of major disputes between the U.S. And Britain, was rejected by the U.S. Senate, demonstrating an early reluctance to cede control over foreign policy decisions.
The Double Standard and Global Implications
Asserting spheres of influence in the Western Hemisphere complicates the U.S.’s ability to condemn similar actions by other nations. Vladimir Putin’s justifications for intervention in Ukraine and Georgia, while morally distinct, share a structural similarity with U.S. Claims of special prerogatives. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of U.S. Leadership and provides adversaries with ammunition to challenge the international order.
Sovereignty without discipline invites decay. The question isn’t whether the U.S. can act in a certain way, but whether doing so strengthens or erodes the order it claims to lead. Power exercised without restraint rarely remains exceptional.
Beyond Legality: The Importance of Wise Judgment
The debate surrounding interventions often centers on legal justification. However, legality alone is insufficient. A government can act within the law and still act unwisely, weakening the norms it depends on. The focus should shift from simply determining if an action is permissible to evaluating its long-term consequences and its impact on the broader international system.
Pro Tip: When evaluating foreign policy decisions, consider not only the immediate legal and strategic implications but also the precedent it sets for future actions and the message it sends to allies and adversaries.
FAQ: American Power and Interventionism
Q: What was the Olney-Pauncefote Treaty?
A: A proposed treaty between the U.S. And Britain in 1897 that would have required arbitration of major disputes, but it was ultimately rejected by the U.S. Senate.
Q: What is the Monroe Doctrine?
A: Originally, a policy opposing European colonialism in the Americas. It later evolved, with the Roosevelt Corollary, to justify U.S. Intervention in the region.
Q: Why is precedent significant in foreign policy?
A: Each action sets a standard for future behavior. A pattern of interventionism can normalize the use of force and make restraint more difficult.
Q: How does U.S. Interventionism affect its standing in the world?
A: It can undermine U.S. Credibility and provide justification for other nations to pursue similar policies, potentially destabilizing the international order.
What are your thoughts on the future of American foreign policy? Share your perspective in the comments below!
Explore more insights on international relations and national security at The Cipher Brief.
