Stirring language and appeals to collective action were integral to the battles fought to defend empires and to destroy them. These wars of words used rhetoric to make their case. This book explores the arguments fought over empire in a wide variety of geographic, political, social and cultural contexts. Essays range from imperialism in the early 1900s, to the rhetorical battles surrounding European decolonization in the late twentieth century. Rhetoric is one of the weapons of war. Conquest was humiliating for Afrikaners but they regained a degree of sovereignty, with the granting of responsible government to the new colonies in 1907 and independence with the Act of Union of 1910. Liberal rhetoric on the Transvaal Crisis was thus neither an isolated debate nor simply the projection of existing political concerns onto an episode of imperial emergency. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's principles of intervention in response to crimes against civilization, constituted a second corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The rhetorical use of anti-imperial demonology was useful in building support for New Deal legislation. The book argues that rhetoric set out to portray the events at Mers el-Kebir within a culturally motivated framework, drawing on socially accepted 'truths' such as historic greatness and broad themes of hope. Now, over 175 years of monarchical presence in New Zealand the loyalty may be in question, devotion scoffed, the sycophantic language more demure and colloquialized, the medium of expression revolutionized and deformalized, but still the rhetoric of the realm remains in New Zealand.
Theodore Roosevelt’ssecond corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
Russian Jews. It examines how Roosevelt justified this
unprecedented intercession in the internal affairs of another sovereign
state by outlining a comprehensive series of measures for dealing with
gross violations of contemporary civilized norms, wherever they
Roosevelt’s 1904 Message is more commonly remembered
for its announcement of his Corollary to the MonroeDoctrine, which
perpetuated as an Anglo-American maritime dominion of the world on a larger
scale’.24 For the Admiral, the old Continental conception of the ‘Western
hemisphere’ at the heart of the MonroeDoctrine had run its course. The
time had come to move towards the Pacific and submit vast new spaces to
the new ‘open door’ policy of the United States.
The originality of Schmitt’s analysis lies in the metaphysical significance
that he reads into this betrayal of the MonroeDoctrine. In his 1941 book
Völkerrechtliche Großraumordnung (The Regional Order in International
from 1945 to 1950’. Others go so far as to
draw an analogy with the vision of the first settlers, seeing especially
the inherent potential for the exploration of space as a similarity to the
American wish for self-reliance and freedom (Linenthal 1989, 77–78).
There are even apparent parallels between Reagan’s SDI and the MonroeDoctrine of 1823, in the sense of defending the values of Western civilisation. The MonroeDoctrine had originated in an opposition against
the Old World as part of the founding act and was carried out in a US
civilisation that was pitted
Among the handful of humanitarian
interventions of the nineteenth century the intervention in Cuba is the most
controversial, in view of the US reluctance to leave Cuba and the huge advantages it
accrued, including the acquisition of even the faraway Philippines.
Any discussion of the US stance on intervention before 1914 has to
take into consideration the MonroeDoctrine of 1823. 1 The Doctrine contained three principles: (1
the UK, Germany and the US at the end of the nineteenth century, José Maria da Silva Paranhos Junior, the Baron of Rio Branco, presciently forecast a major shift in global power from Europe to North America at the start of the twentieth century. Under Rio Branco’s leadership as foreign minister, the MonroeDoctrine was clearly and openly embraced as Brazil’s official view of international power relationships, positioning it as a shield that could be used to protect Brazil’s long and vulnerable coastline from resourcehungry European capitals. Setting the tone for
planning in earnest in the weeks following Munich. 55 In essence, his plan was a revival of the original purpose of the MonroeDoctrine of 1823, which had intended to keep the newly independent American republics throughout the western hemisphere from being recolonised by the European powers. In the intervening century, the MonroeDoctrine had also become a justification for the imposition of American hegemony in the Americas, particularly in Central America and the Caribbean, but Roosevelt had repudiated that imperial past with his Good Neighbor Policy of 1933. The
said. ‘The free, constant, unthreatened intercourse of nations is an essential part of the process of peace and development.’ ‘I am proposing’, he concluded, ‘that the nations should with one accord adopt the doctrine of President Monroe as the doctrine of the world’ (Smith 1966 , pp. 165, 167).
This reference to the MonroeDoctrine was a huge faux pas. It enraged European statesmen who saw Wilson as provincial and chauvinistic. ‘The man is the quintessence of a prig’; he dares to come after three years of terrible war to ask us to put down our arms and
-called MonroeDoctrine of 1823.
With tacit British support, the US precluded small state death through
re-colonization in South America. To be sure, US policy was expansionist
itself as it reserved an entire continent for its future economic penetration. However, for the region’s small states, the effect was beneficial.
Unfortunately, European colonialism kept a strong grip on Africa,
Asia, and Oceania. In these regions, colonialism was practiced not by
declining empires but by strong and rising great powers. As a direct
result, the political and security environment in these
states, New Delhi has never been shy of intervening in what it considered
its own “sphere of influence.” In justifying the use of force to evict Portugal
from Goa in 1961, India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru underlined
India as a regional security provider
that “any attempt by a foreign power to interfere in any way with India is
a thing which India cannot tolerate, and which, subject to her strength, she
will oppose.”10 It has been suggested that though the Indian version of the
MonroeDoctrine, involving spheres of influence, has not