Big Stick Diplomacy Case Study

1309 Words6 Pages

1. Analyze the success and failures of the following types of diplomacy: Big Stick, Dollar and Moral Diplomacy.
The end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century was known as the Progressive Era in the United States. Inside the country, social and economic reforms would come to define the period, but outside the country, America’s economic and military powers were being used in diplomatic negotiations to expand the country’s influence. The United States saw it necessary to keep up with European powers in Asia, especially in the Manchurian region of China and at the same time avoid foreign intervention or investment in Latin American markets. Three different foreign policies, Big Stick Diplomacy, Dollar Diplomacy and Moral Diplomacy …show more content…

The United States secured the rights to build the canal in Panama in 1903, but to acquire land to build on, negotiations with Gran Columbia were necessary since they owned the country of Panama. When the Columbian senate rejected the leasing of the land proposed by the US, it angered Theodore Roosevelt and led him to support a Panamanian revolt against Columbia and prevented a Columbian response by displaying the strength of the US navy off the coast of Panama, which quickly led to Panamas independence and their subsequent acceptance of the same deal that Columbians rejected. The canal open in 1914 and the whole affair became successful example of Big Stick Diplomacy’s use of peaceful negotiation at first, simultaneously coupled with a threat of military intervention to be used when it becomes …show more content…

“Substituting dollars for bullets”, this policy wanted to prevent Latin American countries by managing the finances of “backward” countries and further American interest in East Asia through the use of economic might instead of military might. While it did manage to expand America’s sphere of influence through economic means, it was much less successful than Big Stick Diplomacy and Latin American countries saw the diplomacy as imperialist and some them even refused to sign treaties. Additionally it did not successfully counter economic instability and could not suppress the tide of revolution in Latin America.

but failed to suppress or stop the

Evidence. Examples and/or relevance

• US installed a pro-American pro-dollar diplomacy regime in Honduras
• Suppression of Nicaraguan revolution
• Dollar diplomacy not restricted to Latin America – Taft forestalled annexation in Liberia, West Africa, but the diplomacy did not stop financial and political problems in Liberia
• To curtail Japanese and Russian influence, was unable to get French or English support and settled for Chinese support
Concluding remarks
Pros and

Open Document