Modification de 从大棒政策到睦邻政策

''根据 Aline Helg 的演讲改编''<ref>[https://www.unige.ch/lettres/istge/unites/hco/anciens-collaborateurs/helg/ Aline Helg] - [https://www.unige.ch/ UNIGE]</ref><ref>[https://unige.academia.edu/AlineHelg Aline Helg] - [https://www.academia.edu/ Academia.edu]</ref><ref>[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aline_Helg Aline Helg] - Wikipedia</ref><ref>[http://www.afrocubaweb.com/helg.htm Aline Helg] - [http://www.afrocubaweb.com/ Afrocubaweb.com]</ref><ref>[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aline_Helg Aline Helg] - [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aline_Helg Researchgate.net]</ref><ref>[https://www.cairn.info/publications-de-Aline-Helg--670782.htm Aline Helg] - [https://www.cairn.info Cairn.info]</ref><ref>[https://scholar.google.fr/citations?user=h3hUuPgAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Aline Helg] - [https://scholar.google.fr/schhp?hl=en Google Scholar]</ref>


{{Translations
| en = From Big Stick Policy to Good Neighbor Policy
| es = De la política del Big Stick a la política del Good Neighbor
| it = Dalla politica del bastone alla politica del buon vicinato
| pt = Da Política do Big Stick à Política da Boa Vizinhança
| de = Von der Politik des großen Knüppels zur Politik der guten Nachbarschaft
| fr = De la politique du Big Stick à celle du Good Neighbor
}}

{{hidden
|[[美国和拉丁美洲：18 世纪末和 20 世纪]]
|[[美洲独立前夕]] ● [[美国的独立]] ● [[美国宪法和 19 世纪早期社会]] ● [[海地革命及其对美洲的影响]] ● [[拉丁美洲国家的独立]] ● [[1850年前后的拉丁美洲：社会、经济、政策]] ● [[1850年前后的美国南北部：移民与奴隶制]] ● [[美国内战和重建：1861-1877 年]] ● [[美国（重建）：1877 - 1900年]] ● [[拉丁美洲的秩序与进步：1875 - 1910年]] ● [[墨西哥革命：1910 - 1940年]] ● [[20世纪20年代的美国社会]] ● [[大萧条与新政：1929 - 1940年]] ● [[从大棒政策到睦邻政策]] ● [[政变与拉丁美洲的民粹主义]] ● [[美国与第二次世界大战]] ● [[第二次世界大战期间的拉丁美洲]] ● [[美国战后社会：冷战与富裕社会]] ● [[拉丁美洲冷战与古巴革命]] ● [[美国的民权运动]]
|headerstyle=background:#ffffff
|style=text-align:center;
}}

1898 年美西战争爆发后，美国夺取了古巴、波多黎各、关岛和菲律宾等领土，开创了美帝国主义强权的新时代。这场历史性冲突的特点是领土的大幅扩张，标志着美国在世界舞台上的崛起。

20 世纪初，西半球强烈感受到了美国的存在。随着财富和军事实力的增长，美国采取了干涉主义政策，其理由往往是需要保护美国的经济利益和维护地区稳定。墨西哥、洪都拉斯和尼加拉瓜等国都曾是美国干预的战场，形成了反映西奥多-罗斯福总统 "大棒 "理论的权力动态。

然而，美国的政治和社会格局在 20 世纪 20 年代开始发生变化。面对国内经济和社会挑战，孤立主义浪潮席卷全国。早先的干涉主义在整个拉丁美洲引起了广泛的敌意和不满，美国公众的呼声要求撤退并重新评估国际承诺。

正是在这种背景下，"睦邻 "政策在赫伯特-胡佛总统时期诞生，并在富兰克林-罗斯福时期得到了长足发展。这项新指令放弃了干涉主义做法，强调尊重邻国主权和领土完整的重要性。美国开启了一个外交与合作的时代，标志着与前几十年的侵略和干涉主义截然不同。

= 棍棒和睦邻政策的历史 = 

[[Image:U.S._territorial_acquisitions-fr.png|thumb|200px|美利坚合众国获取领土的地图。]]

十九世纪上半叶，美国的领土扩张受到各种因素的推动，形成了一个快速转型和显著增长的时期。这种向西和向南的扩张不仅反映了经济增长，也是 "天命 "思想的具体实现。对肥沃农田、新贸易路线和未开发自然资源的无限经济需求是扩张的主要驱动力。在工业革命的鼎盛时期，获得新的资源和市场是维持国家经济飞速增长和繁荣的必要条件。勘探和吞并新领土不仅是经济上的需要，也证明了这个年轻国家的活力和胆识。与此同时，美国领导人的政治野心以及获得更高的国家和国际地位的愿望也在扩张中发挥了核心作用。每获得一块新的领土，都有助于加强美国在世界舞台上的存在，证明其日益增长的实力和影响力。在意识形态上，美国例外论的理念和 "显而易见的命运 "的信念对这一扩张时代产生了强烈的影响。美国被天意选中，将其影响力、民主和文明扩展到整个大陆，这一信念激励着美国。新机遇的承诺、土地所有权的前景以及征服边疆所蕴含的冒险精神也强化了美国公民的开拓精神。然而，这种快速扩张并非没有冲突和争议。对西部的征服和向南的扩张导致大量原住民流离失所，并加剧了围绕奴隶制问题的紧张局势，最终导致美国内战的爆发。泪痕之路 "和土著人遭受的其他不公正待遇是这一历史时期的黑暗篇章。

战争是美国在 19 世纪扩张领土的重要手段，美墨战争就是这一现象的鲜明例证。这场主要出于领土要求和扩张主义愿望的军事对抗重塑了北美的版图。1846 年，美国吞并了得克萨斯州，引发了与墨西哥在边界争端上的紧张关系。这片富饶且具有战略价值的争议地区成为美国和墨西哥野心的焦点。谈判尝试无果而终，不可避免地导致了武装冲突。在这场冲突中，美军有计划地穿过墨西哥领土，进行了一系列战斗。美国的军事优势和有效战略取得了决定性的胜利。1848 年，随着《瓜达卢佩-伊达尔戈条约》的签署，战争宣告结束，这份协议不仅巩固了美国的胜利，还促进了墨西哥领土的大幅扩张。通过该条约，墨西哥割让了大片领土给美国，包括加利福尼亚、内华达、犹他、亚利桑那、新墨西哥等现代州以及科罗拉多、怀俄明、堪萨斯和俄克拉荷马的部分地区。这一收购大大扩展了美国的疆域，为新一轮殖民和探险浪潮铺平了道路。因此，美墨战争反映了美国扩张努力的复杂性和强度。它展示了领土野心如何在 "天命论 "和 "美国例外论 "等意识形态的激化下导致重大的领土冲突和调整。美国历史上的这一篇章继续影响着当代北美的双边关系和地区动态。

1803 年的路易斯安那购并是美国扩张主义轨迹上的一个重要里程碑，凸显了美国不仅通过冲突，还通过外交和贸易获取领土的国家战略。这一历史事件说明了美国扩张疆域的方法的复杂性和多面性。在当时的国际背景下，拿破仑-波拿巴统治下的法国正面临着巨大的财政和军事挑战。在大西洋的另一端，美国作为一个年轻且快速发展的国家，急切地希望扩张并确保密西西比河的通畅，以促进贸易和向西扩张。托马斯-杰斐逊总统谈判达成的路易斯安那购地协议耗资1500万美元，使美国的国土面积一夜之间扩大了一倍。这不仅是一次外交上的胜利，还开辟了大片土地用于勘探、殖民和经济发展。路易斯安那州、阿肯色州、密苏里州、爱荷华州、俄克拉荷马州等州都是从这次收购中划分出来的，从根本上改变了美国的政治和地理格局。美国历史上这一决定性时刻展示了外交谈判和商业交易在实现国家领土野心方面的力量。它还体现了与新领土和不同人口快速融合相关的机遇和挑战。今天，路易斯安那购并案经常被作为美国早期扩张的一个影响深远的例子，它展示了一个机遇和愿望与新获得领土本身一样广阔的时代。

殖民化和人口迁移是美国扩张的重要手段，是对战争和领土获取的补充。俄勒冈小道上的人口迁移就是一个很好的例子，说明公民移民如何直接推动了美国的领土扩张。19 世纪 40 年代和 50 年代，在经济机会的承诺和大片肥沃土地的诱惑下，成千上万的美国定居者沿着俄勒冈小道踏上了艰苦但充满希望的旅程。向西北太平洋地区的大规模移民不仅仅是一种人口现象，它也是 "天命 "信念的具体体现，即美国人注定要占领和统治北美大陆。向俄勒冈州和其他西部地区的移民并非没有挑战。拓荒者们面临着艰难的地形、难以预测的天气条件以及边疆生活固有的危险。然而，对美好生活的向往和经济繁荣的前景激发了移民们向西部扩张的决心和承诺。随着时间的推移，美国定居者在西北太平洋地区的人数不断增加，促进了美国对这些领土的吞并。这不是简单的政治或军事行为，而是通过殖民化和建立社区促进的逐步融合。

门罗主义和天命论是 19 世纪美国外交政策和领土扩张的基石。它们体现了指导美国转变为一个强大而扩张的国家的愿望、信念和战略。门罗主义是由詹姆斯-门罗总统于1823年宣布的，其根本目标是维护拉丁美洲新独立国家的独立，使其免受任何欧洲重新殖民化或干涉企图的影响。它宣布，欧洲列强干涉西半球的任何企图都将被视为侵略行为，需要美国做出回应。尽管其动机是为了保护拉丁美洲国家，但它也象征着美国在西半球的影响力和权威。另一方面，"天命论 "是一种意识形态信念，而非官方政策。它产生于19世纪40年代左右，认为上天注定美国要从海到海进行扩张，传播自由、民主和文明。这种信念激发了美国向西扩张的热情，并为其提供了道德理由，从而导致了领土殖民化、与土著居民的冲突以及为获取新领土而发动的战争。这些理论共同塑造了一个大力扩张的时代。门罗主义为以地区霸权为重点的外交政策奠定了基础，而 "天命论 "则为国内扩张和国家面貌的改变提供了意识形态燃料。这些理论的影响一直持续到今天。它们不仅塑造了美国的领土轮廓，还影响了美国的民族心理，灌输了美国例外论和美国在世界上的特殊作用的信念。它们仍然是了解美国内政外交政策动态和国家历史发展的参考。

门罗主义是制定十九世纪美国外交政策的关键因素。詹姆斯-门罗总统提出这一理论是为了应对当时的国际环境，即拉丁美洲独立运动的蓬勃发展和欧洲列强的野心。这一理论的准确表述恰逢拉丁美洲因摆脱欧洲殖民主义枷锁的运动而动荡不安之时。美国意识到自己的地位和战略利益，提出这一理论，不仅是为了支持新独立的国家，也是为了维护自己在拉美大陆的势力范围。门罗主义的核心是将欧洲列强排除在西半球之外。任何重新殖民或干涉的企图不仅会被解释为对拉丁美洲独立国家的威胁，也会被解释为对美国的直接侵略。这是一个大胆的声明，凸显了美国作为地区大国的地位上升，以及其塑造新世界政治和地缘政治秩序的意图。门罗主义还得益于欧洲与美洲之间的距离，以及英国对欧洲不干涉的承诺，这是英国在该地区商业野心所带来的共同利益。英国皇家海军是当时最强大的海军力量，也是支撑门罗主义的重要资产。随着时间的推移，门罗主义成为美国外交政策的基本原则，并根据不断变化的情况进行演变和调整。它不仅重申了美国作为西半球主导力量的地位，还为未来的干预以及与拉丁美洲和加勒比地区国家的关系奠定了基础。因此，尽管 "天命论 "是在特定背景下提出的，但其影响和共鸣却跨越了时代，对互动和政策的影响远远超出了 19 世纪。

"天命论 "是一种意识形态驱动力，为美国在 19 世纪在北美的急速扩张提供了框架和理由。这种信念植根于这样一种思想，即美国是被选中的，肩负着扩大疆域、传播民主价值观并按照自己的形象塑造整个大陆的神圣使命。这一时期的重要事件说明了 "天命 "如何影响美国的具体政策和行动。例如，吞并得克萨斯州的部分原因就在于这种对特殊使命的信念。1836年从墨西哥获得独立后，得克萨斯成为一个独立的共和国。然而，加入美国是一个争论激烈的问题，"天命 "为1845年的吞并提供了道德和意识形态上的理由。美墨战争（1846-1848 年）是另一个援引 "天命 "的例子。美国坚信其扩张的神圣权利，将这场冲突视为向西扩张领土的机会。结束战争的《瓜达卢佩-伊达尔戈条约》不仅确认了对得克萨斯州的吞并，还将包括加利福尼亚州和新墨西哥州在内的大片领土从墨西哥割让给美国。美国西部的殖民化也是在这种意识形态的激励下进行的。拓荒者们不畏艰苦条件，冒险进入未知领域，他们往往是出于这样的信念：他们是更伟大使命的一部分，要在野蛮的土地上开创文明，实现国家的命运。

门罗主义和 "天命论 "以互补的方式塑造了美国的发展轨迹，不仅塑造了美国的实际边界，还塑造了美国在世界舞台上的身份和角色。门罗主义是抵御欧洲入侵的堡垒和防御性声明，宣示了美国在西半球的主权和影响力。这是对权力和控制的宣示，确立了不干涉原则，虽然最初的有效应用有限，但为更有力地宣示地区霸权奠定了基础。因此，美国不仅将自己定位为其自身安全和主权的守护者，而且还是拉丁美洲国家反对欧洲殖民主义的隐性保护者。另一方面，"天命论 "在本质上更具扩张性和前瞻性。它并不满足于保卫现有的边界，而是在一种对天意的近乎神秘的信念的驱使下，寻求扩大边界。它为扩张努力注入了道德和意识形态的动力，将征服和殖民转化为一种近乎精神上的需要。每征服一块新的领土，每击退一个边疆，都不仅被视为物质上的收获，而且被视为国家神圣命运的实现。这些理论协同作用，形成了一种政治和意识形态格局，定义了 19 世纪的美国，并为其在 20 世纪及以后的权力和影响力播下了种子。它们推动了战争、并购和政策，将美国的边界从大西洋扩展到太平洋，并将美国提升到无可争议的世界强国地位。在它们的影响下，留下了一系列复杂的、有时甚至是有争议的问题，从土著人民的正义和权利到全球范围内权力和影响力的管理，不一而足。门罗主义 "和 "天命论 "以各自的方式说明了保护与扩张之间、捍卫已取得的成就与渴望更多成就之间的动态紧张关系，这种紧张关系一直激励着美国的外交和内政政策。它们体现了实用主义与理想主义、现实主义与浪漫主义的交融，而这正是美国历史和身份的特征。

通过军事、外交和民众手段的结合，美国成功地塑造了一片从海到海的领土，奠定了大陆强国的基础。美墨战争是这一过程中的关键事件。作为一场军事冲突，它使美国在南部和西部获得了大量领土，将丰富多样的地区纳入联邦版图。每一场战役的胜利和每一份条约的签署都不仅仅是军事上的胜利，而是朝着实现一个扩大和统一的美国的愿景迈进了一步。路易斯安那购并虽然是一项和平交易，但也带有地缘政治和军事影响。将领土扩展到密西西比河以外不仅使美国的面积扩大了一倍，还使美国成为一支不可忽视的力量，能够进行大胆的谈判和战略扩张。与战争和外交协议相比，美国西部的开发虽然没有那么正式和有条不紊，但也许是最有机和最不屈不挠的。个人的意愿、家庭和社区寻求更好生活的能量以及他们可以行使自由权和财产权的土地为这一进程推波助澜。西进大潮 "既是一次物质上的迁徙，也是一次精神上的追求，既是一次向未知领域的进军，也是一次对美国可能性的未知探索。1867 年购买阿拉斯加虽然在地理上与美洲大陆脱节，但却象征着同样的扩张主义冲动。它证明了美国有能力将目光投向其直接边界之外，设想出一种不局限于其传统疆域的存在和影响。

每项条约和协定对于划定边界和界定这两个北美国家之间的关系都至关重要。

巴黎条约》（1783 年）是一个重要的里程碑，不仅因为它标志着美国独立战争的结束，还因为它确定了美国的第一批领土边界。它确认了美国的独立，并确立了沿五大湖的北部边界，尽管模棱两可和不确定的因素依然存在，导致紧张局势持续不断。1812 年战争虽然不太为人所知，但同样意义重大。它反映了尚未解决的紧张局势和相互冲突的领土要求。结束这场战争的《根特条约》恢复了战前状态，即 "战争前的状态"。然而，战争本身以及结束战争的条约帮助塑造了未来美加关系的特征和基调。1818 年的协议是另一个重要的发展。以北纬 49 度线为边界的划定是和平解决土地主张冲突的早期范例。它不仅显示了外交上的成熟，也为处理未来的争端开创了先例。这些协议和条约为美国和加拿大之间相对和平的合作关系奠定了基础，并形成了一条现在经常被称为世界上最长的不设防边界之一的边界。通过确定这种关系的地理和政治参数，它们还为随后几年双边互动的经济、文化和政治动态奠定了基础。每项协议都是朝着澄清、稳定和平和美加关系迈出的一步。这些协议共同帮助建立了合作与相互尊重的关系，虽然屡经考验，但在很大程度上经受住了国际政治风暴的考验，并将双边关系延续至今。

到十九世纪中叶，美国的领土扩张，尤其是向北方的扩张，已基本稳定下来。1818 年与英国（而非 1812 年）达成的以北纬 49 度为界的协议是巩固美国北部边界的决定性时刻。1846 年的《俄勒冈条约》也发挥了重要作用。该条约将边界从北纬49度线延伸至太平洋沿岸，解决了英国和美国在俄勒冈地区相互竞争的领土要求。该条约补充了之前的安排，有助于确定美国和加拿大之间边界的现代形式。1867 年对阿拉斯加的收购是美国边界稳定化进程中的一个显著例外。美国从俄国手中购买了这片广袤的领土，不仅在领土方面，而且在自然资源财富和战略地位方面都为美国增添了重要的一环。

美墨战争（1846-1848 年）以《瓜达卢佩-伊达尔戈条约》的签署而结束，该协议不仅平息了两国关系，还导致墨西哥向美国转让了大量领土。这一领土的获得通常被称为 "墨西哥割让"，标志着美国向西扩张迈出了决定性的一步。这些新领土的特点是地理、气候和文化的多样性。干旱的沙漠、雄伟的山脉、肥沃的山谷和风景如画的海岸线为新占领者提供了一系列机遇和挑战。特别是加利福尼亚州，它很快成为人们关注的焦点，尤其是因为 1848 年发现了黄金，引发了著名的淘金热，吸引了成千上万的人前来寻找财富和机遇。美国政府面临着整合这些广袤而多样的领土的挑战。治理、产权、与土著居民和墨西哥裔居民的关系以及基础设施等问题都迫在眉睫。墨西哥裔社区的存在丰富了该地区的文化和语言多样性，为一体化增添了另一层复杂性。扩张和殖民的机会是巨大的。通往太平洋海岸的通道打开了亚洲和太平洋地区的市场和商机。该地区丰富的矿产资源带来了经济繁荣。可耕地为农业和农村发展提供了机会。与此同时，政府还必须应对种族和文化多样性、土著人民权利以及环境问题带来的挑战。这些领土成功并入联邦代表着美国的一次重大转型，巩固了其大陆强国的地位，并开创了一个前所未有的增长和发展时代，这将影响美国未来几代人的生活。管理这种扩张和这些新领土固有的多样性是美国历史的重要篇章，反映了国家形成过程中的紧张、妥协和创新。

奴隶制问题是贯穿十九世纪中叶美国政治、社会和经济生活方方面面的核心问题。每获得一块新领土，每接纳一个州加入联邦，都会使这一敏感问题重新成为全国辩论的中心。美墨战争和由此产生的领土问题加剧了这种紧张关系。蓄奴的南方和废奴的北方对国家的发展方向有着截然相反的看法。南方的经济繁荣深深植根于奴隶制度，而工业化的北方则在道德和经济上持不同观点。1850 年的妥协方案是一次微妙的尝试，旨在解决这些相互冲突的现实问题。它将加利福尼亚州并入自由州，使废奴势力取得了重大胜利。然而，通过允许在新墨西哥州和犹他州领土上行使人民主权，它为在这些地区实行奴隶制的可能性敞开了大门，从而至少暂时缓解了南方对在国家政治权力中被边缘化和被超越的担忧。妥协协议中最具争议的内容之一是《逃亡奴隶法案》，该法案要求将逃亡奴隶归还给他们的主人，即使他们逃到了奴隶制非法的州。这加剧了南北之间的紧张关系，凸显了分裂国家的道德和伦理鸿沟。这一妥协虽然是暂时的，也是不完美的，但它反映了美国内战前那段时期内在的紧张关系和痛苦的妥协。在这一时期，国家努力调和不相容的价值观、经济和世界观，但这一努力最终以失败告终，使国家陷入迄今为止历史上最具破坏性的冲突。

1850 年的妥协方案是对深刻而持久的危机的一个临时而脆弱的解决方案。虽然它暂时缓解了紧张局势，但并没有解决蚕食国家的根本问题。内战的根源在于对奴隶制及其对国家经济、社会和政治影响的深刻而不可调和的分歧。奴隶制州和废奴州之间微妙的平衡不断受到西进扩张的考验。每获得一块新领土，每有一个新州加入联邦，都迫使人们重新谈判这种岌岌可危的平衡。人民主权是《1850 年妥协法案》中提出的一项原则，允许新领土的居民通过投票决定是否允许奴隶制。然而，这往往加剧了紧张局势，使每个新领地都成为美国奴隶制未来的战场。内战爆发前的十年，紧张局势不断升级。堪萨斯州的血腥冲突（通常被称为 "流血的堪萨斯"）等事件凸显了奴隶制问题直接导致的暴力和分裂。1857 年，最高法院对 "德雷德-斯科特案 "做出判决，宣布黑人不是公民，国会不能禁止领土上的奴隶制，这进一步激化了人们的情绪。南北战争是多年来不尽人意的妥协、悬而未决的紧张局势和日益加剧的分裂的必然结果。它是一个国家严重分裂的产物，分裂的原因不仅在于奴隶制问题，还在于州与联邦权力、农业经济与工业经济以及两种根本不可调和的世界观和美国身份观。这场冲突虽然极具破坏性，但也为奴隶制的终结和美国国家的彻底转型铺平了道路，开创了一个重建和重塑的时代，并将在今后几代人的时间里继续塑造美国。

= 私人试图通过反领土吞并和扩张 =

[[Fichier:William Walker by Brady.jpg|thumb|150px|威廉-沃克]]

=== 私人扩张和吞并的尝试 ===
私人扩张和兼并的企图十分普遍，这往往是热衷于利用外国领土提供的经济机会的个人和公司的野心所致。这种态势在中美洲和加勒比地区尤为明显。威廉-沃克等人就是这种现象的典型代表。沃克是一名美国冒险家和雇佣兵，他在 19 世纪 50 年代入侵并短暂控制了尼加拉瓜，意图建立一个讲英语、拥有奴隶的殖民地，这一行为与美国更广泛的奴隶制和领土扩张问题直接相关。同样，许多公司，尤其是铁路、采矿和农业部门的公司，将海外扩张视为增加利润的途径。丰富的原材料、尚未开发的市场以及开辟新贸易路线的机会都是推动扩张的重要因素。还应指出的是，这些努力并非与政府政策无关。私人利益和政府利益往往是紧密结合在一起的。美国政府可能会直接或间接地支持企业的扩张努力，希望它们的成功能够加强美国经济，扩大美国在海外的影响力。反过来，私营公司也可以依靠政府的外交、军事和后勤支持来促进其扩张努力。私人利益与公共利益、经济利益与政治利益之间这种复杂的相互关系是美国扩张的一个显著特点。它凸显了各种因素和行为体的多样性，这些因素和行为体帮助塑造了美国的增长轨迹和在其原有边界之外的影响力。

沃克是一名 "拉布派"（filibuster），这个词用来形容那些在美国正式与之和平相处的外国参与未经授权的军事行动的人。1856 年，沃克成功控制了尼加拉瓜，这个国家位于大西洋和太平洋之间，是贸易和航运的战略要地。他宣布自己为总统，并试图将英语确立为官方语言，还出台了有利于美国人及其企业的法律。他还将奴隶制合法化，希望赢得美国奴隶制各州的支持。然而，他的行为在中美洲激起了地区联合反击。哥斯达黎加、洪都拉斯等国联合起来驱逐沃克及其雇佣军。此外，尽管美国的一些部门，特别是南方的一些部门，最初支持沃克，希望他的成功可能会加强奴隶事业，但由于外交和法律方面的影响，美国政府作为一个整体不愿公开支持他的行动。沃克的失败凸显了私人扩张尝试的复杂性和挑战性。尽管这些努力雄心勃勃、大胆，但往往很脆弱，取决于国内和国际政治环境。沃克的故事还凸显了内战前夕奴隶制和领土扩张问题是如何紧密交织在一起的，以及个人野心、经济利益和政治问题是如何在十九世纪美国扩张的动态且往往动荡的背景下交汇和碰撞的。

野心和意识形态的结合助长了私人吞并的企图，例如由冒险家团体在古巴和威廉-沃克在尼加拉瓜领导的吞并。这些个人和团体的动机往往是为了获得可观的经济利益。中美洲和加勒比地区被视为自然资源丰富的土地，提供了新的市场机会和战略贸易路线。对于企业家和投资者来说，征服和吞并这些地区代表着增加财富和影响力的机会。与此同时，美国的例外论和 "天命 "信念也是这些扩张主义冒险背后的强大推动力。美国出类拔萃、注定要在世界历史上扮演特殊角色的观念在集体意识中根深蒂固。对当时的许多美国人来说，扩大美国的影响力意味着传播价值观、政治制度和被认为是优越的文明，这种扩张往往被视为是道德上的正当行为。在政治上，每一次新的扩张尝试都被视为维护和加强美国在国际舞台上地位的一种手段。新领土的增加或美国政治和经济影响力的扩大被视为美国作为一个崛起的国际大国向前迈出的一步。然而，必须强调的是，这些吞并尝试是有争议的，往往是冲突的根源。在美国国内外，许多人认为这些干预是非法或不道德的。始终存在的奴隶制问题加剧了这种复杂性。每一块潜在的新领土都牵涉到全国对这一问题的激烈争论。作为吞并目标的地区往往被卷入有关奴隶制的激烈争论中，这使得每一次扩张尝试都反映了那个时代的内部矛盾。

蓄奴州和废奴州之间岌岌可危的平衡是 19 世纪美国政治的核心特征。每一个新州或新领地的获得都会引起奴隶制问题的争议，而试图私下吞并古巴和尼加拉瓜等领土的举措也与这一动态密不可分。古巴和尼加拉瓜资源丰富，战略位置重要，是极具吸引力的扩张目标。然而，由于古巴和尼加拉瓜现有的经济和社会制度，以及来自美国奴隶利益集团的压力，吞并这两个国家很可能导致它们成为奴隶制国家。这种前景加剧了人们对有利于奴隶制国家的不平衡日益加剧的担忧，对国家政治权力、社会政策以及更广泛的国家认同问题产生了深远的影响。在这种情况下，威廉-沃克等人遇到了巨大的阻力。尽管美国的一些派别支持扩张主义野心，但反对的声音也很强烈。废奴主义者、担心力量平衡的政治领袖以及担心未经批准的吞并会造成国际影响的人联合起来，共同阻挠这些努力。他们通过外交、立法，有时甚至动用军事力量，来抵制有可能加剧民族分裂的扩张企图。

反对私人兼并企图的国际层面是一个关键因素。这些扩张企图所针对的国家的当地居民和政府强烈抵制，理所当然地认为这些行动是对其主权、自治和领土完整的直接攻击。美国冒险家和企业家的愿望往往与目标国家维护独立的决心对立起来。所涉及的势力错综复杂，不仅包括美国利益集团和当地政府，还往往包括其他殖民地和地区势力，这使得局势极不稳定。当地的抵抗往往是狂热而坚决的，其基础是深刻的民族主义意识以及保护领土和资源的愿望。威廉-沃克在尼加拉瓜的事例尤其能说明这一点。沃克和他的部下不仅遭到了尼加拉瓜人的激烈抵抗，还遭到了邻国的抵抗。中美洲清楚地意识到外国统治的影响，联合起来击退了入侵。捍卫国家主权、意识形态反对以及保护地区经济和政治利益等因素共同助长了抵抗。因此，私人的吞并企图绝非单方面的行为。它们是复杂、多层面冲突的现场，涉及利益各异的各种参与者。它们凸显了个人野心、国家和国际利益以及意识形态和经济问题之间的纠葛，而这正是 19 世纪美国扩张时代的特征。

威廉-沃克的行为体现了 19 世纪美国扩张的复杂性和模糊性。尽管美国社会的某些部分赞成扩张，包括通过非常规或非官方的手段进行扩张，但大多数公民和政府官员都不赞成像沃克这样的行为。沃克成为一种不受管制和未经批准的冒险主义的象征。他在尼加拉瓜的行动被许多人解读为胡乱和未经授权的扩张主义的体现。这不仅在美国国内，而且在国际关系中都造成了严重的紧张局势，使人们对美国在该地区所做承诺的一致性和合法性产生了怀疑。沃克的行动与门罗主义之间的对比尤为明显。门罗主义是反对欧洲进一步殖民或干涉美洲的单方面宣言，而沃克的行动似乎违反了这一政策的精神。虽然他的目的是扩大美国的影响力，但在许多人看来，他的方法和动机与门罗主义所秉持的尊重主权和领土完整的原则格格不入。沃克因此成为一个备受争议的人物，说明了当时美国外交政策的局限性和矛盾。他的职业生涯凸显了往往是崇高的理想与扩张的实际和道德现实之间的冲突，并提出了有关 19 世纪美国扩张的道德、合法性和后果的持久问题。其历史仍然提醒着人们国家野心与道德原则之间的矛盾，这一问题在随后的几十年中一直引起共鸣。

美国例外论的概念在为美国扩张主义辩护方面发挥了核心作用，但也引发了重大的伦理和现实问题。这种信念植根于美国独一无二并肩负着传播其政治、经济和文化体系的神圣使命的思想，是领土扩张和帝国主义背后的驱动力。然而，这种信念也常常导致美国对其他国家和文化采取居高临下、甚至是帝国主义的态度。对美国方法和价值观优越性的信念有时会导致对美国试图获取或影响的领土上的文化、政治制度和人民的蔑视。这种态度不仅在伦理道德上受到批评，而且还对美国的扩张和影响产生了相当大的阻力。在许多美国扩张或影响的目标领土和国家，当地民众激烈抵制他们所认为的外国强加和无视其主权和文化的行为。对帝国主义态度的疏离感和反对态度助长了反抗情绪。因此，美国的例外主义既是扩张的动力，也是紧张和冲突的根源。

威廉-沃克在中美洲的经历体现了美国扩张主义历史上动荡的一章。尽管他的野心没有得逞，但他的行动所产生的影响却远远超出了他所处的时代，在该地区的历史和政治记忆中留下了不可磨灭的印记。沃克胆大妄为，对美国的显赫命运抱有不可动摇的信心，是美国扩张主义的极端表现。他试图建立傀儡政权，并通过非官方且往往是暴力的手段扩大美国的影响力，这凸显了野心、道德和国际政治交织在一起所固有的紧张关系。在中美洲，沃克的入侵不仅仅是一个孤立的事件，而是帝国主义入侵的象征，是美国和其他大国更广泛扩张主义愿望的代名词。他留下的争议性遗产在于他的竞选活动所留下的伤疤，这些伤疤加深了人们对外国干涉该地区的不信任和抵触情绪。沃克的行动也引发了美国国内关于扩张的限度和影响的争论。一派人赞颂他的大胆行为是 "显赫命运 "的生动例证，另一派人则诋毁他是雇佣军，是无节制帝国主义的过度行为和道德风险的象征。归根结底，威廉-沃克的冒险经历是一个关于野心、权力和反抗的丰富而复杂的故事。它是美国扩张主义大背景的一部分，揭示了对国家强大的渴望与这种渴望所带来的道德和现实挑战之间的紧张关系。这是一个关于理想与现实之间经常发生冲突的故事，是美国和中美洲历史的一个篇章，在当代关于国家权力、原则和在世界舞台上的地位的对话中继续引起共鸣。

威廉-沃克被处死标志着这一传奇故事以沉痛而有争议的方式画上了句号，凸显了美国扩张主义在道德、法律和政治上的困境。他的行为所造成的后果不仅限于他本人，他的支持者也因他大胆但未经批准的吞并企图而受到影响。许多人与他一样命运悲惨，或被迫流亡，成为失败和争议的贱民。在美国，人们对沃克的下台反应不一，但大多持批评态度。沃克的行为一度得到社会各界的支持，他们认为沃克的雄心壮志是对 "显赫命运 "的呼应，但后来人们从政治和道德现实主义的角度对沃克的行为进行了重新评价。面对他的扩张企图所带来的国际影响和道德问题，整个国家都疏远了沃克。他成了被误导的冒险主义的代名词，是无节制扩张的过度和危险的化身。门罗主义是美国外交政策的支柱，它重申了新大陆国家的主权和完整，但却与沃克的行为截然相反。他作为一个美国人，试图篡夺一个独立国家的主权，似乎背叛了门罗主义所要维护的原则。因此，沃克不仅成为许多同时代人眼中的弃儿，也成为美国扩张主义局限性和矛盾的研究案例。这段以大胆、失败和争议为标志的历史仍然提醒人们 19 世纪美国扩张主义野心的复杂性。威廉-沃克的行动虽然边缘化且未经许可，但却提出了关于美国扩张的本质、帝国主义的伦理以及国家理想与国际现实之间固有的紧张关系的关键问题--这些问题在当代关于美国外交政策的辩论中仍会引起共鸣。

威廉-沃克在中美洲留下的复杂而矛盾的遗产引起了热烈的讨论和批判性思考。他在该地区的行动具有志愿主义、冒险主义和帝国主义野心的混合特征，所有这些都充满了美国例外论的细微差别和 19 世纪地缘政治的紧张局势。面对沃克和他的部队的入侵，当地居民不是被动的旁观者，而是积极的反抗者。他们反对沃克统治该地区的企图，这种反抗植根于对主权、尊严和自决权的捍卫。对许多人来说，沃克是外国帝国主义的化身，他的个人和国家野心威胁到了中美洲国家的完整和独立。然而，沃克的遗产是有细微差别和争议的。一些人事后重新评估了沃克的影响，强调了沃克的现代化雄心以及为推行改革和结构所做的努力，尽管这些改革和结构是强加的，但却有可能为这个饱受政治、社会和经济挑战困扰的地区带来积极的变化。这种观点虽然不那么普遍，但却强调了通过当代规范的棱镜来判断历史行为的复杂性。威廉-沃克的人物形象充满矛盾和冲突，是 19 世纪中美洲和美国紧张局势的一扇窗。他的形象体现了帝国主义与主权之间的冲突，美国例外主义与外国统治的残酷现实之间的冲突，理想化的进步愿景与受扩张主义影响的人民复杂且往往痛苦的经历之间的冲突。其历史继续引发人们对过去的教训和对美洲未来国际关系的影响进行批判性思考。

=== 吞并夏威夷 ===
吞并夏威夷是美国扩张主义时代经济、政治和社会利益复杂相互作用的一个鲜明例子。资源丰富的夏威夷群岛位于太平洋的战略要地，是美国利益的吸引目标。蔗糖种植者尤其被不受关税和贸易限制、畅通无阻地进入美国市场的前景所吸引。然而，吞并夏威夷并不是一个单方面或无争议的过程。它涉及到一系列参与者，每个人都有自己的愿望、担忧和抵制。美国种植园主和商人面临着来自夏威夷王室的阻力，他们为维护王国的主权和完整而斗争。与此同时，当地人则陷入了变革的旋风中，他们的生活方式、文化和自治都受到了威胁。美国政治家们在经济和战略需要与道德和法律考虑之间寻求平衡，他们发现自己正在利益冲突的海洋中遨游。关于吞并夏威夷的辩论揭示了美国政治的裂痕，暴露了帝国主义愿望与共和党原则、经济利益与道德考量之间的紧张关系。1898 年对夏威夷的最终吞并是多种因素共同作用的结果，其中包括经济利益的压力、美国在太平洋地区存在的战略需要以及美国内部的政治动态。它标志着夏威夷主权的终结，也标志着夏威夷群岛被纳入美国版图，这一行为在当代关于正义、补偿和承认原住民权利的辩论中继续引起共鸣。

十九世纪末吞并夏威夷的进程是由经济和战略利益共同促成的，这些利益使夏威夷群岛成为美国在太平洋地区投射权力和影响力的一个关键问题。美国商人和种植园主在夏威夷的经济主导地位已经确立。蔗糖是夏威夷群岛的白色黄金，它将夏威夷变成了农业财富的堡垒，吸引了大量投资，使夏威夷经济深深地融入了美国市场的活力之中。吞并夏威夷提供了一个诱人的承诺--废除关税壁垒，不受限制地进入大陆市场，促进种植园主的繁荣，保护他们的经济霸权不受外国入侵。从战略上讲，夏威夷被视为一颗璀璨的明珠，其重要性不可估量。格罗弗-克利夫兰总统和那些与他有共同理想的人都认识到夏威夷群岛在地缘战略上的重要性。夏威夷位于太平洋的中心，为美国提供了一个先进的海军力量投射平台，这个堡垒将确保关键的海上通道安全，并加强美国在这个竞争日益激烈的地区的存在。然而，经济和战略利益的交汇并非毫无争议。夏威夷王室、当地人甚至美国社会的某些阶层都对吞并的影响表示担忧。主权、国际法以及对夏威夷文化和社会的影响等问题是围绕吞并进程展开激烈辩论的核心。因此，夏威夷并入联邦并不是简单的单方面领土获取行为，而是一个复杂和多因素的过程。它是由经济实力动态、帝国主义愿望、战略考虑以及对吞并的道德和法律影响提出挑战和质疑的抵抗力量所决定的。美国和夏威夷历史上的这一篇章仍然是对美国扩张主义和帝国主义时代各种力量的精彩研究。

1898 年对夏威夷的吞并标志着美国与太平洋岛屿关系史上一个重要而又充满争议的转折点。在夏威夷岛上的美国利益集团的暗中支持下策划和实施的这次政变推翻了夏威夷君主制，为夏威夷岛并入美国国家铺平了道路。利用国会联合决议吞并夏威夷是史无前例的，不仅引发了关于该行为合法性的激烈辩论，也引发了关于其伦理道德影响的激烈辩论。麦金利总统签署了该决议，为这一扩大美国地理和战略影响力的决定提供了支持，但也提出了关于扩张主义与基本民主原则之间平衡的深刻问题。对许多夏威夷民族主义者来说，吞并代表着对其主权的野蛮篡夺，对其土地、文化和身份的剥夺。他们被迫加入了一个未经同意的联盟，他们顽强的反对精神在当代要求承认和恢复夏威夷原住民权利的运动中依然可见一斑。在美国人中，吞并夏威夷也没有得到普遍赞同。相当一部分公众和政治舆论认为这一行动是对共和和民主理想的侮辱。人们担心，帝国主义通过征服其他民族并将治理扩展到大陆边界之外，会腐蚀界定美国民族身份的基本价值观。

美国内战标志着美国扩张进程的突然中断，将国民的注意力重新转移到一场根深蒂固的内部冲突上。这不仅仅是一场军事战争，而是一场争夺国家灵魂的斗争，一场为定义新美国的价值观、原则和身份而进行的激烈斗争。工业化的北方和农业化的南方在这场冲突中发生了冲突，其影响一直持续到今天。冲突的核心是奴隶制和州权利。一方面，废奴运动及其同情者体现了结束可憎的奴隶制的道德和伦理冲动。另一方面，一些人认为奴隶制是南方经济和生活方式不可或缺的一部分，并极力捍卫州权这一基本宪法原则，他们对此进行了激烈的抵制。1865 年，以罗伯特-李将军在阿波马托克斯投降为标志，南北战争宣告结束。它为深刻的社会和政治变革铺平了道路。宪法第十三修正案的通过废除了奴隶制，是自由和平等理想的重大胜利。它证明，为了充分实现其基本承诺，美国必须根除剥夺人类尊严和平等的制度和做法。国家虽然在法律上实现了统一，但必须开展漫长而艰难的重建进程，不仅要修复战争造成的物质破坏，还要重建分裂国家的深刻的社会、政治和道德裂痕。这是一个深刻反思、重大改革和持续奋斗的时期，以确定内战后美国的性质和方向。内战期间扩张的暂停是一个被迫的停顿，在这一时期，国家被迫照镜子，正视自建国以来就交织在社会和政治结构中的矛盾和不公正。在战后的岁月里，当美国寻求治愈创伤、重建家园时，从这场毁灭性冲突中提出的问题和汲取的教训将深刻影响美国的演变、政治和国家认同。

=== 南北战争后美国的扩张主义驱动力 ===
内战后的美国恢复了扩张主义政策，体现了一个寻求复兴和重建的国家。美国因战争的破坏和分裂而伤痕累累，它将西部视为充满希望的地平线，在这片土地上可以实现繁荣、进步和民族和解的梦想。向西扩张不仅仅是一个地理过程，它还具有象征意义和实际意义。它是一个正在重建的国家积蓄能量的出口，是一个统一、繁荣和强大的美国的愿望得以表达和实现的舞台。政府在策划和支持这一扩张的过程中进行了复杂的平衡。它与土著民族谈判条约，这些协议虽然经常带有不公平和不公正的色彩，但却是扩张战略的工具。在墨西哥和其他国家购买土地巩固了南部边疆，1867 年吞并阿拉斯加虽然在地理上与西进运动隔绝，但却证明了美国的全球影响力和野心。然而，向西迈出的每一步也是人类互动复杂性的一步。原住民、新移民、拓荒者和企业家在美国梦具有多种形式的领土上相遇、混合和冲突。每一份条约、每一次并购、每一个新的定居点都为日益丰富但也日益复杂的国家挂毯增添了一层色彩。内战后扩张的新阶段并不只是以往政策的延续。战争的教训、创伤和变革为其增添了色彩。一个一直在努力确定自己的道德和身份的国家，正以一种对自身潜力和矛盾的全新认识来看待西方。在对进步和繁荣充满信心的同时，人们也日益认识到扩张所带来的人类和道德代价。在此背景下，美国向西迈出的每一步也都是在不断寻求自我定义、自我重塑和实现其最基本承诺的过程中迈出的一步。

南北战争后，美国的扩张主义冲动并不局限于广袤的美国西部。它超越了大陆的界限，深入加勒比海的动荡海域，穿越中美洲的动荡土地，并延伸至亚洲和太平洋广袤而复杂的地缘政治版图。这一时期标志着美国成为一股全球力量，一个野心和利益不分国界的国家，一个寻求全球影响力的大国。大棒政策 "和 "睦邻政策 "反映了美国对外扩张的二元论。在西奥多-罗斯福总统的领导下，大棒政策象征着一个自信的美国，随时准备挥舞其军事和经济力量来保护和促进自己的利益。这是一种实力战略，将权力作为说服和主张的工具。与大棒的威力相比，富兰克林-罗斯福时期的睦邻政策体现了一种更加细致入微的方法，即以外交、相互尊重和合作作为国际交往的工具。这一政策反映了对武力局限性的认识，意识到安全、繁荣和影响力的形成，既取决于友谊和尊重，也取决于统治和胁迫。除了西半球，美国的目光还投向了亚洲和太平洋地区。在这些文化多样、政治动态复杂的地区，美国的扩张呈现出不同的层面。它受到世界大国、殖民主义、民族愿望和地区冲突相互作用的影响。内战后的美国是一个不断前进的国家，一个正在崛起的强国，不断定义和重新定义自己在世界舞台上的角色。每一项政策、每一次行动、每一次影响力的扩大，都是一个国家在一个复杂、相互关联的世界中寻找自己的身份和位置的故事的一个篇章。这是一个充满活力和决心的时代，国内扩张的活力与对全球影响力的渴望交织在一起，过去的教训和现在的挑战在对未来的不懈追求中交织在一起。

= 通过收购贸易区进行扩张 =

[[Image:10kMiles.JPG|thumb|left|1898 年的政治漫画："万里从头到尾"，寓意美国的统治（以秃鹰为象征）从波多黎各扩展到菲律宾。这幅漫画与 100 年前，即 1798 年一幅较小的美国地图形成鲜明对比。]]

1867 年对阿拉斯加的收购体现了美国扩张最重要的阶段之一，它将地缘政治和经济机会主义与前瞻性战略眼光相结合。用 720 万美元换取一块幅员辽阔、自然财富丰富的领土是一个大胆的举动，证明了美国希望扩大其在北美大陆的足迹并巩固其存在的愿望。这笔交易的核心是与俄国签订的割让条约。当时，沙皇亚历山大二世统治下的俄罗斯正在考虑自身的经济和战略需求。出售阿拉斯加不仅被视为清算一块遥远和欠发达领土的机会，也被视为向俄罗斯国库注入资金和加强与美国关系的手段。然而，美国国内对这一收购的反应却远非一致。美国的这一新属地拥有广袤的荒野、极端的气候，而且远离美国的权力中心，因此引起的反应褒贬不一。对一些人来说，这是 "浪费金钱"，对于一块似乎没有什么直接潜力的领土来说，这是一笔奢侈的开支。然而，另一些人却对阿拉斯加另眼相看。他们的目光超越了眼前的挑战，憧憬着一个自然资源丰富的领土，一个拥有珍贵矿产、茂密森林以及后来的丰富石油的天堂。对于这些有远见的人来说，阿拉斯加不是一笔开支，而是一项投资，一项可以丰富国家和提高其全球地位的宝贵财富。围绕收购阿拉斯加的争论揭示了一个不断发展壮大的国家所固有的紧张和矛盾。它是关于美国扩张的性质和方向的更广泛辩论的缩影，是关于如何平衡谨慎、机会主义和战略眼光的激烈对话的回声。在这种背景下，阿拉斯加从一块偏远的领土变成了一面镜子，反映了一个处于变革阵痛中的国家的愿望、不确定性和雄心壮志。

1867 年，美国获得了中途岛，这从另一个侧面反映了美国扩张主义的需要，说明了海上扩张和获取全球资源的重要性与日俱增。这些岛屿位于浩瀚的太平洋上，虽然面积不大，却代表了美国宝贵的战略资产，这一资产增强了美国在这一关键地区的影响力。中途岛的获取是在 1856 年《瓜诺群岛法案》的支持下进行的，该法案是一项独特的立法，让我们得以一窥当时美国政策的实用主义和机会主义。在全球资源日益重要的时代，鸟粪这种珍贵的肥料具有重要的战略意义。盛产鸟粪的岛屿不仅被视为财富宝库，也是美国有能力将其影响力扩展到大陆以外的象征。中途岛凭借其战略位置和鸟粪资源，成为美国扩张的战利品，是政治、经济和地缘战略如何交融的例证。从这些岛屿上开采出的每一粒鸟粪既是经济财富，也是美国影响力的象征，肯定了美国在大洋彼岸宣称、占领和开发领土的能力。然而，这种获取的背后隐藏着更为微妙的复杂性。当前，外交、国际法和国家间关系正变得日益复杂。对未被占领岛屿的主张虽然得到了美国法律的认可，但却是权利、主张和责任大网的一部分，而这些权利、主张和责任将决定新兴的世界秩序。在此背景下，中途岛不仅仅是太平洋上一个孤立的前哨，更是美国和世界历史上的一个里程碑。它们体现了一个扩张和发现的时代，一个各国争先恐后要求未被占领和开发的领土的时代，一个以复杂性、竞争与合作为特征的新世界秩序的基础正在悄然奠定。

1878 年，美国的扩张主义视野延伸到了遥远的太平洋岛屿。萨摩亚群岛是一片新兴的土地，优雅地散布在大洋彼岸，成为美国寻求全球存在的下一个里程碑。在这块与世隔绝的领土上收购煤炭站，虽然规模可能不大，但却具有相当重要的地缘战略意义。萨摩亚煤炭站的建立是出于实用的需要。当时，美国海军作为国家实力和影响力的重要工具，正在世界水域航行。为这些船只提供动力的燃料--煤炭，就像黄金一样珍贵；它是扩张的燃料，是力量投射的引擎。在太平洋中心地带拥有可靠的煤炭来源意味着美国船只可以航行得更远、更久，从而巩固美国在这一重要地区的影响力。然而，这次收购不仅仅是一次商业或军事交易。它是与太平洋地区人民和文化的接触，是与殖民主义、自治和文化交流的复杂性产生共鸣的互动。通过与萨摩亚当地领导人签订条约，美国将其存在纳入了当地规范和期望的框架内，甚至在这一扩张行动中也承认了与土著居民进行尊重性接触的必要性。对萨摩亚而言，条约引入了权力和影响力的新动态。这些岛屿曾经与全球政治的动荡潮流隔绝，如今却与一个崛起的大国联系在一起。这种关系将带来机遇与挑战、利益与代价。对美国来说，这个煤炭站是在太平洋沙滩上留下的一个虽小但意义重大的足迹--标志着美国希望成为世界海洋中的一支力量，成为世界舞台上的一个角色。它象征着美国将目光投向国境之外，将遥远的岛屿和浩瀚的海洋视为通向未来全球力量和影响力的桥梁，而不是障碍。1878 年，在萨摩亚宁静的水域，美国和太平洋的历史交汇在一起，揭开了合作、冲突和接触的篇章，这将影响该地区今后几代人的命运。

购买阿拉斯加、占领中途岛以及与萨摩亚群岛签订条约标志着 19 世纪美国扩张主义版图上的重要里程碑。这些收购不仅仅是简单的领土扩张，更象征着一个国家正在崛起，一个北美共和国正在蜕变为一个世界强国。阿拉斯加拥有丰富的自然资源储备，雄辩地说明了经济与地缘政治之间的交集。这片冰天雪地里的每一英亩土地和每一滴石油都证明了美国的战略眼光，证明了美国在北极地区持久存在的承诺，在未来的几个世纪里，这一地区的重要性只会与日俱增。中途岛虽小且与世隔绝，却为美国提供了通往太平洋的门户，而太平洋将成为二十世纪冲突、贸易和外交的战场。正是在这里，在这些风吹日晒的岛屿上，美国开始塑造其和平存在，这一承诺将在现代的冲突和联盟中得到充分实现。萨摩亚是一个青翠肥沃的群岛，美国在南太平洋找到了一个前哨站，一个贸易、文化和地缘政治交汇的地区。这一收购凸显了美国全球足迹的日益复杂性，美国的存在现在从寒冷的北极延伸到南太平洋的热带热土。这些收购共同讲述了美国的成长和雄心。十九世纪的美国是一个不断前进的国家，一个将目光投向原边界之外的国家，它将太平洋上的每一个岛屿和阿拉斯加的每一座山峰都视为国家身份和雄心不可分割的领土，而不是遥远的界限。这也是一种面向未来的扩张，预示着在二十世纪，美国将不仅仅是众多国家中的一个，而是新兴世界秩序中的核心力量。每一份条约、每一次采购、每一座煤站都是编织美国作为世界强国的一根线，美国的影响力和利益遍及大洋和各大洲。

随着十九世纪进入最后几十年，美国的扩张故事也发生了不同的变化。阿拉斯加、中途岛、萨摩亚--每一次收购所讲述的故事都超越了征服新殖民地的范畴。这是一个战略与商业融合的时代，每一块新领土都是世界贸易大棋盘上的一枚棋子。购买阿拉斯加不仅仅是获得一大片冰天雪地的荒野，而是开辟了一条通往北极地区的财富之路，一个自然资源和战略海上通道的世界。美国寻求的不仅仅是发展，而是连接，编织一个环绕全球的贸易和通讯线路网络。中途岛和萨摩亚体现了这一扩张的新时代，每个岛屿、每个环礁都是一个港口、一个站点、一个交汇点。美国在其崛起的这一阶段，不再仅仅以大陆为中心。它将目光投向地平线之外，投向太平洋及其他遥远海域的市场和机遇。这是从殖民到联系的转变。新领土不仅仅是可供耕种或居住的土地，更是通往新经济视野的跳板。每一次收购都是一扇敞开的大门，通向异国市场、繁荣的贸易路线和商业世界，在这里，影响力不是以平方公里来衡量，而是以网络和联系来衡量。美国开始意识到自己的角色不再是一个孤立的大国，而是一个融入相互依存的全球经济生态系统的国家。当务之急不再仅仅是领土问题，而是经济问题，是对市场、机遇和联盟的追求，其范围远远超出了美国的边界。南太平洋碧波万顷，岛屿星罗棋布，正在成为美国新一轮扩张的舞台。这种扩张并非止步于遥远的太平洋海岸，而是继续跨越大洋，进入世界各地的市场和港口。在这一叙事中，阿拉斯加、中途岛和萨摩亚不是终点，而是起点--是美国作为全球大国重塑自我的第一步。

在十九世纪和二十世纪的交汇点上，出现了一个变革的世界，其特点是世界大国之间的激烈竞争。欧洲、俄罗斯和日本凭借其不断扩张的帝国，正在重新绘制世界地图。这是一个帝国主义重新抬头的时代，每个国家都在寻求扩大自己的版图，确保自己的利益，并将自己的力量投射到国界之外。在这种动荡的背景下，美国发现自己正处于十字路口。美国是一个年轻的国家，虽然强大，但仍处于发展阶段，它面临的现实是，在这个世界上，影响力的得失取决于帝国的边缘。美国的反应是微妙的，但也是果断的。传统的领土扩张追求正在转变为一种更加复杂和全球化的战略，其根基在于保护商业利益和投射力量。获取阿拉斯加、中途岛和萨摩亚等领土不仅反映了对地理扩张的渴望，也是对其他世界大国日益增长的帝国主义的一种精心策划的回应。每一次获取，每一块新领土，都是全球地缘政治这盘复杂棋局中的一颗棋子，都是为了在瞬息万变的世界棋盘上占据一席之地而采取的一种策略。美国现在正与同时代的帝国主义国家跳着微妙的舞蹈。欧洲帝国主义的重生、俄罗斯的崛起以及日本作为全球大国的崛起正在重新定义游戏规则。竞争十分激烈，美国必须小心翼翼地保护自己的利益，扩大自己的影响力，并在世界帝国主义国家中占据一席之地。现在是美国转型的时刻。这个曾经专注于大陆扩张的国家如今正将目光投向更远的地方。在帝国主义、贸易和外交密不可分的世界中，海洋、市场和国际联盟正成为美国塑造自身身份和角色的战场。方向的转变是深刻的。美国凭借其年轻的活力和蓬勃发展的经济，不再只是全球帝国主义大舞台上的旁观者。它现在是一个积极的参与者、竞争者和设计者，这个故事远远超越了其原有的边界，深入到全球权力、影响力和野心的复杂性之中。

在 19 世纪末的繁荣背景下，另一种催化剂改变了美国扩张的动力：工业化。工厂的浓烟、机器的轰鸣声以及创新和生产的嗡嗡声构成了一个空前繁荣和经济增长的时代。在这股活动旋风中，美国见证了其经济的转型、多样化，并将自己推向了世界舞台。美国企业家和企业以特有的胆识，将目光投向熟悉的海岸之外，寻找未知的机遇之地。地平线不仅仅是地理边界，它还象征着新市场、未开发资源和无限繁荣的希望。对增长的渴求超越了美洲大陆的限制，每获得一块新领土，都是向满足这种永不满足的野心迈出的又一步。南太平洋正在成为这一追求的关键地区。阿拉斯加、中途岛、萨摩亚和其他战略领土落入美国控制之下绝非偶然。每项收购都是通往亚洲和大洋洲的桥梁，这些地区经济正在发酵，是美国产品、创新和资本能够找到肥沃发展土壤的新兴市场。工业化和领土扩张相互促进。经济机器需要以原材料、市场和贸易路线为形式的燃料。获取领土就是对这种迫切需要的回应。它们不仅是全球地缘政治博弈中的战略前哨，也是为美国经济心脏提供血液的重要动脉。以技术、资本和无限雄心为武器的美国公司，正在将自己定位为这场复杂的扩张与增长之舞中的主要参与者。它们成为美国扩张的先驱，靠的不是枪炮和马车，而是创新、投资和商业伙伴关系。十九世纪末不仅仅是美国地理扩张的时期。这是一个经济、技术和政治相互交织的时代，它创造了一个不仅向西看，而且向东、向北和向南看的国家。一个寻求增长的国家，准备好成为复杂、相互关联的全球经济结构的一部分。美国正在重塑自己，不仅作为一个领土大国，而且作为一支全球经济力量。

20 世纪初，美国面临着复杂的地缘政治挑战和机遇。资源丰富、潜力巨大的亚洲是西方列强的乐园，它们怀揣帝国主义野心，试图在这里建立统治和影响力的纽带。然而，美国却以一种与众不同的务实眼光，在国际舞台上引入了一种新的理论：门户开放政策。门户开放政策是一种大胆的做法。它基于一个基本原则： 中国的领土完整和政治独立。对美国来说，中国不仅仅是另一块需要征服的领土，而是一个可以与之建立互利经济关系的国家。这一政策旨在创造一个环境，让美国的经济利益在不损害中国主权的前提下蓬勃发展。这是经济愿望与尊重民族尊严之间的微妙平衡。与此同时，在西半球，大棒政策正以无与伦比的活力兴起。这反映了一个自信的美国，随时准备在加勒比和中美洲施加影响。这一理论由西奥多-罗斯福总统推广，其基础是自信的军事力量战略。美国不再甘当旁观者，而是准备使用武力保护自身利益，确保地区稳定。这两项政策虽然方法不同，但却是那个时代美国的互补代表。开放政策反映了美国在尊重既定世界秩序的同时寻求伙伴关系和经济机会。另一方面，大棒政策则描绘了一个大胆而自信的美国，随时准备开创自己的命运，维护自己的影响力。这是一个美国外交政策充满双重性和活力的时期。在这一时期，经济与外交、实力与尊重相互交织，共同塑造了一个不再受大陆边界限制的国家。在20世纪蓬勃发展的动荡和机遇中，美国正在重塑自我、重新定义自我，并将自己的存在投射到世界舞台上，其影响力远远超出了其领土范围。

19 世纪的蓬勃活力在美国大地留下了不可磨灭的印记。烟雾缭绕的工厂烟囱和绿油油的农田平原，描绘出一个处于变革阵痛中的国家。美国曾经是一个正在寻找自身定位的年轻共和国，如今正崛起为一个无可争议的工农业强国。这种转变并不是无声无息的，它在新兴城市的活力和乡村的生机中产生共鸣。随着每一个锻造炉的点燃和每一粒种子的生根发芽，美国人口也在同步增长。美国是一个多元民族，由本地人和移民共同组成，每个人都带着梦想、技能和活力，推动着国家的扩张。城市成为创新和商业中心，成为充满活力的文化、思想和愿望的大熔炉。然而，伴随着繁荣而来的是一个不可避免的现实--对市场的需求日益增长，以吸收丰富的产品。工业和农业是美国经济的两大孪生兄弟，它们生产商品和提供服务的速度远远超过了国内消费的速度。企业家和企业将目光投向境外，这并非心血来潮，而是迫不得已。对这些公司来说，地平线不仅是地理上的前沿，也象征着尚未开发的机遇。欧洲、亚洲和拉丁美洲不仅是大陆，也是市场、合作伙伴和复杂的国际贸易芭蕾舞剧中的角色。每个港口、每个城市、每个国家都是美国商品和服务与世界商品和服务相遇、混合和交流的舞台。这种商业扩张的需求正在重新定义美国的外交。外交政策不再仅仅是权力和结盟的游戏，也是促进贸易、投资和经济交流的工具。大使不仅是外交官，也是商业代理人，他们编织关系网络，将美国经济与世界市场联系在一起。因此，19 世纪末是美国的关键时期。这是一个国内增长与对外扩张交汇融合的时期，也是经济与外交在国家建设的微妙舞蹈中成为合作伙伴的时期。美国拥有热闹的工厂和郁郁葱葱的田野，它不仅着眼于现在，也着眼于未来，在未来，美国的产品、创新和企业精神将跨越大洋，触及遥远大陆的海岸。

在美国崛起成为全球经济大国的同时，其政治和经济影响力也大大增强，远远超出了其国界。新兴国家林立、自然资源丰富的南方成为华盛顿关注的焦点。墨西哥毗邻美国，拥有丰富的经济机会，因此特别具有吸引力。随着美国工业化进入加速发展阶段，对新的商业市场和自然资源的渴求油然而生。这种扩张欲望并不是一个孤立的现象，它是全球帝国主义时代的一部分，在这个时代中，大国为在尚未征服的地区建立统治地位而展开了激烈的竞赛。加勒比和中美洲拥有战略性的地理位置和丰富的资源，是列强竞相争夺的乐园。在这种复杂的国际背景下，美国以务实的决心走出了自己的道路。门罗主义声称反对欧洲干涉美洲事务，受此影响，美国试图扩大并确保其在近邻的影响力。南部地区不仅是安全的边界，也是经济机遇的地平线。拥有广袤肥沃土地和珍贵资源的墨西哥进入了美国扩张的视野。两国关系的复杂历史充满了冲突、谈判和贸易。美国的工业实力不断增强，不仅将墨西哥视为贸易伙伴，还将其视为需要确保的重要势力范围。美国在加勒比海和中美洲的利益同样具有战略意义。作为连接南北、东西的十字路口，该地区是海军、商业和政治控制的关键。每一个岛屿、每一个港口都是主宰世界的大棋盘上的一颗棋子。在那里，在碧蓝的海水和热带土地中，美国与欧洲国家、俄罗斯和日本展开了一场微妙的权力之舞。

十九世纪下半叶，美国的扩张和增长动力源于充满活力和竞争的国际环境。蓬勃发展的国内经济以及对新市场和新机遇的无限渴望催生了一系列外交政策，这些政策的重点是在全球范围内维护美国的影响力。门户开放政策（Open Door Policy）和大棒政策（Big Stick Policy）是这一推动力的核心，这两种截然不同但又相互关联的战略塑造了美国的国际足迹。门户开放政策主要围绕亚洲事务，尤其是中国，体现了美国对自由和公平国际贸易的承诺。该政策旨在确保所有国家，无论其实力或影响力如何，都能平等地进入中国市场。这体现了美国外交重视开放贸易，力图抵制相互竞争的殖民国家对中国市场的分割。与此同时，由西奥多-罗斯福总统倡导的大棒政策植根于一种更具强制性的方法。它体现了这样一种理念：军事力量，或者至少是炫耀性的军事力量，是确保和扩大美国国家利益的核心。尽管这一政策适用于全球，但在加勒比海和拉丁美洲却引起了特别的反响，美国试图在这些地区维护自己的霸权并对抗欧洲的影响。这两项政策虽然方法不同，但都是出于维护和扩大美国经济和政治影响力的共同愿望。门户开放象征着一种寻求平衡所有参与国际贸易的国家利益的外交，而大棒政策则表明美国愿意在必要时通过武力来确保这些利益。这些理论不仅塑造了美国与世界交往的方式，也反映了一个不断发展壮大的国家所固有的紧张关系。在国际合作的必要性与国家安全和地区影响力的要求之间取得平衡的任务决定了美国在这个时代的外交政策，为美国在随后一个世纪中复杂的国际互动奠定了基础。

在波菲里奥-迪亚斯（Porfirio Díaz）的独裁统治下，墨西哥经历了重大的经济和工业发展，尽管这往往是以牺牲当地人民和国家资源为代价的。迪亚斯力图实现墨西哥经济的现代化，鼓励外国投资采矿、石油和农业等关键领域。这一政策为美国定居者和其他外国企业家的涌入打开了大门。美国人被有利可图的机会和迪亚斯的宽容政策所吸引，主要在墨西哥北部定居。他们带来了先进的技术、创新的耕作方式和大量的投资资本。移民刺激了采掘业和农业的发展，改变了墨西哥的大部分经济。然而，在 "波菲里亚托 "时期，社会和经济不平等也日益加剧。尽管外国投资将墨西哥推上了原材料生产国的国际舞台，但这一增长所带来的利益却分配不均。外国企业家和投资者，尤其是美国人，从经济繁荣中获益匪浅，而当地居民却往往被边缘化，处于不利地位。迪亚斯的政策不仅加剧了国内的社会矛盾，也为墨西哥与美国之间复杂的关系奠定了基础。美国利益在墨西哥经济中扎根，造成了经济相互依存和政治紧张关系的复杂组合。美国定居者和企业不成比例的影响力经常被视为对墨西哥内政的干涉，这种情绪在迪亚斯下台后依然存在。迪亚斯统治时期美国对墨西哥经济的参与是了解这一时期墨西哥内部动态以及随后几年美国与墨西哥关系的复杂性和争议性的重要一章。它强调了外国投资创造的经济机会与国家主权和社会不平等带来的挑战之间固有的紧张关系。

十九世纪末，迪亚斯对外国投资者的欢迎政策促进了美国资本对墨西哥经济的深入渗透。拥有资金和先进技术的美国企业家和投资者纷纷涌入这一开放市场，在墨西哥经济的许多关键领域占据了重要地位。随着美国投资者开发墨西哥丰富的矿产资源，采矿业尤其实现了爆炸式增长。金矿、银矿和铜矿已成为激烈经济活动的中心，并因此成为美国的势力范围。与此同时，石油业也成为美国公司特别感兴趣的领域，因为他们认识到墨西哥石油储量的巨大潜力。铁路行业是美国影响明显的另一个领域。美国公司在墨西哥铁路网的扩张中发挥了核心作用，将资源开采中心与国内外市场连接起来。这一运输网络不仅促进了原材料的开采和出口，还加强了美国对墨西哥的经济控制。尽管这些发展促进了墨西哥的快速现代化和经济增长，但也引发了紧张局势。美国定居者和投资者的繁荣与大多数墨西哥人的生活条件形成了鲜明对比，从而引发了社会不满，并随着时间的推移而愈演愈烈。墨西哥民众和某些政治阶层对美国在经济上扼杀墨西哥的做法越来越不信任。对迪亚斯无限制开放外国投资政策的不满，以及由此产生的美国人和其他外国人对国家事务的影响，将为 1910 年的墨西哥革命火上浇油。

美国定居者和企业家在墨西哥的愿望主要是经济方面的。他们的利益在于开发墨西哥丰富的资源和进入当地市场，以实现利润最大化。这并不是对领土的追求，而是为了扩大他们的经济影响力，加强美国企业的繁荣。墨西哥的金银矿、石油储备和肥沃的农田是美国人的宝贵财富。工业巨头和投资者将这些资源视为丰富美国经济并使之多样化的机会。交通基础设施，特别是铁路网络，为这些资源的开采、运输和出口到美国和其他国际市场提供了便利。在墨西哥设立的美国公司往往拥有相当大的经营自主权，其主要目标只有一个：利润最大化。对社会福利、主权和墨西哥工人权利的关注往往是次要的。这种态势造成了收益分配不均的经济格局，加剧了社会和经济不平等。美国和墨西哥之间的外交和国际关系也受到了这些经济动态的影响。虽然美国政府并没有明确寻求吞并墨西哥领土，但不可否认的是，它对确保和保护美国投资很感兴趣。这有时会导致政治和军事干预，以保护这些经济利益。

在美国作为全球大国崛起的历史背景下，其外交政策策略的变化反映了美国在国际舞台上的成熟和演变。西奥多-罗斯福总统推行的 "大棒 "政策使美国的存在更具侵略性，尤其是在西半球。这是一种自信的表达，是一个年轻而快速发展的国家宣布其在世界大国中地位的一种方式，也是确保其新兴经济和政治利益得到保护的一种方式。大棒 "意识形态象征着罗斯福愿意使用军事力量来保障稳定、和平，更具体地说是美国的利益。然而，这种行为在国内和国际上都引起了批评和担忧。积极的干涉主义虽然有时能有效实现直接目标，但也埋下了不信任和怨恨的种子。富兰克林-D-罗斯福担任总统期间开始推行睦邻政策，就是默认了严格的强制手段所固有的局限性。在相互尊重、合作和不干涉的基础上建立关系的愿望反映了一种更加细致入微和平衡的观点，其目的是架设桥梁而不是强加意志。这一范式的转变标志着美国外交政策的成熟，以及对国际关系中复杂和相互依存的细微差别的认识。在这一框架内，美国寻求与其邻国建立更具协作性和相互尊重的伙伴关系。这不仅是道义和伦理的需要，也是促进地区稳定与繁荣的务实战略。这一事态发展说明了强权政治的动态变化，在这种动态变化中，主张与合作始终处于紧张和平衡的状态，各自以其必要的方式在复杂的全球事务迷宫中穿行。

19 世纪末，美国关于扩张主义和帝国主义的观点和政策发生了重大转变。在现阶段，美国显然已走向更加全球化的帝国主义，这是由多重复杂因素形成和推动的。不可否认，对进入新贸易市场日益增长的需求是这种扩张的主要驱动力。随着美国经济在工业革命的推动下迅速增长，对制成品销售市场的需求也随之增加。这种经济扩张的愿望与社会达尔文主义等主流意识形态以及其他植根于种族和文化优越性的信仰以复杂的方式结合在一起。一滴血规则 "以及类似的观念促成了白人至上和欧洲人统治往往被视为规范和合理的环境。这不可避免地影响了美国与其他国家和民族的互动，也影响了人们对扩张和帝国主义的看法和理由。当时的美帝国主义不仅努力扩大领土统治，而且还被许多人视为一种文明使命。这反映了一种家长式的态度，即美国治理和影响力的扩大被视为有利于 "欠发达 "国家的人民。当然，这些态度往往被用来为那些实际上主要出于经济和政治利益的行动辩护。然而，这些行动和态度在美国国内并未得到普遍接受。不同的声音质疑帝国主义的道德和智慧，指出其潜在的危险和与美国建国时所依据的民主原则不符之处。

= 命运远征的新概念： 美帝国主义的意识形态基础 =

[[Image:Alfred-Thayer-Mahan.jpg|thumb|left|150px|1904 年，阿尔弗雷德-马汉]]

19 世纪和 20 世纪之交，"天命论 "经历了重大转变，从注重领土扩张的意识形态演变为更加注重经济和政治扩张。国际环境的变化、美国工业化的快速发展以及美国作为世界大国的崛起在这一转变中发挥了关键作用。西奥多-罗斯福总统推广的 "大棒 "理论体现了这一演变。它强调通过军事和经济力量的投射来保护和扩大美国的海外利益。这一政策的象征思想是 "轻声细语，手持大棒"，这将使美国能够有效地施加影响，在可能的情况下使用外交手段，但在必要时准备使用武力。另一方面，富兰克林-罗斯福担任总统期间推出的 "睦邻政策 "虽然与众不同，但也反映了这一演变。该政策旨在加强美国与拉丁美洲的关系，放弃军事干预，转而建立更加平等和相互尊重的关系，鼓励合作与相互交流。这些发展反映了美国外交政策的转变，即从以殖民化和吞并领土为特征的国内领土扩张转向更加成熟和细致入微的外交政策。外交政策的重点是最大限度地扩大美国在日益相互联系的世界中的影响力，其特点是帝国竞争和全球经济机遇。作为一种意识形态，"天命论 "适应了这种不断变化的形势，将美国 "天命 "的使命重新定位为反映新时代地缘政治、经济和军事现实的目标。

在不同的历史时期，美国的优越性和特殊性一直是美国外交政策的主要驱动力。在 19 世纪末和 20 世纪初，这种信念体现在各种行动中，包括领土扩张和帝国主义。1898 年吞并夏威夷就是这一趋势的典型例子。它发生在美国干预推翻夏威夷现存君主制的背景下，反映了美国有权利和义务扩大其经济和政治影响力的信念。1898 年的美西战争是另一个突出的例子。美国获胜后，《巴黎条约》使美国获得了菲律宾、波多黎各和关岛。这种海外扩张体现了帝国主义的一种形式，清楚地表明美国对其在世界上所扮演角色的看法已经发生了变化，采用了当时欧洲大国常见的帝国主义属性。在拉丁美洲，美国的干预也很常见，其理由往往是门罗主义，后来则是大棒政策。美国干预尼加拉瓜、海地、多米尼加共和国和古巴等国的内政，以保护其经济和政治利益，并经常将这些行动辩解为维护西半球稳定和 "文明 "的需要。这种例外意识继续影响着美国的外交政策，尽管它经常会受到其他因素的影响，包括人权、多边外交和国际准则。追求国家利益与尊重普遍原则和其他国家主权权利之间的平衡仍然是当代美国外交政策的核心挑战和辩论主题。

社会达尔文主义在 19 世纪末和 20 世纪初对美国的外交和国内政策产生了重大影响。这一概念虽然是对查尔斯-达尔文自然选择思想的曲解和误用，但却被用来为各种扩张主义和帝国主义政策辩护。在美国，社会达尔文主义常常被用来使领土扩张、经济统治、征服土著人民和其他被认为 "劣等 "的群体合法化。它是这样一种思想的意识形态基础：一些民族和种族天生优于其他民族和种族，因此有权利甚至有义务统治 "能力较弱 "的民族和种族。这种意识形态框架被用来为美国的西进扩张等行动辩护，在这些行动中，原住民流离失所，并常常受到残暴对待。它在美帝国主义的海外扩张中也发挥了作用。美西战争、吞并菲律宾和其他领土，以及对拉丁美洲的干预，往往都是以美国将 "文明 "和 "优越 "政府带给 "劣等 "民族的信念为借口。在经济领域，社会达尔文主义与不受约束的资本主义意识形态相联系。企业家和商人被视为经济生存斗争中的 "适者"，他们的成功被视为其优越性的证明。这导致对商业活动的限制很少，并对企业的海外扩张给予慷慨支持。然而，重要的是要注意到，即使在当时，这些观点也是有争议的，有许多个人和团体反对帝国主义和将社会达尔文主义应用于政治。随着 20 世纪的发展，这些观点受到越来越多的挑战，更细致入微、更符合道德规范的人权和国际正义观念开始影响美国的外交政策。

19 世纪末 20 世纪初，美国政府在支持海外私人利益方面的作用对于美国的经济和领土扩张至关重要。企业与政府之间的联盟促进了美国在大陆边界以外的扩张。企业被国外的市场机会和资源所吸引，受益于政府准备采取一切必要手段保护和促进美国经济利益的环境。反过来，美国经济的增长和多元化也加强了美国在国际舞台上的地位。航道和通信等关键基础设施得到了政府的资助和保护。这不仅促进了国际贸易，还加强了美国在具有重要战略意义地区的军事和经济存在。例如，美国海军经常被派去保护航道，确保贸易活动的安全。美国外交的重点还在于创造有利的商业环境。通过谈判达成的条约和贸易协定保证了美国公司进入外国市场、保护美国投资并确保公平竞争的环境。国际法被塑造并用作支持经济扩张的工具。在当时的美国历史上，政府和私人利益之间存在着相当大的共生关系。国家为企业扩张提供便利和保护，而企业由此带来的繁荣和影响力则增强了美国的整体实力和影响力。这种态势帮助美国在二十世纪之交崛起为全球强国。这种企业与政府之间相互支持的模式留下了持久的遗产，影响了未来多年的国际关系和美国的全球经济政策。

阿尔弗雷德-塞耶-马汉在改变美国海军政策和全球战略方面的作用毋庸置疑。当时，美国正试图将其影响力远远扩展到境外，马汉的理论为大规模海军扩张提供了思想和战略上的理由。马汉的主要论点是，控制海洋对国家繁荣和安全至关重要。他认为，海上贸易是国家财富的主要来源，为了保护这种贸易，国家需要一支强大的海军。通过研究历史，特别是英国的海上力量，马汉得出结论：掌握海洋对全球影响力至关重要。马汉的观点与美国从一个以农业为主的大陆国家转变为一个工业强国和全球大国的过程基本一致。美国认识到，需要一支强大的海军力量来保护贸易路线、确保原材料供应和进入世界市场，这是美国的战略重点。马汉的观点被美国决策者采纳并推广，导致美国海军迅速扩张。他的思想也有助于美国外交政策的制定，特别是在大白舰队理论中，大白舰队是一支强大的海军力量，用于将美国的力量投射到世界各地。这一理论在维护美国在世界舞台上的存在和影响力方面发挥了至关重要的作用。马汉的思想一直影响到 20 世纪的战略思维和美国外交政策。需要一支强大的海军力量，能够保障航行自由和保护美国的海外利益，一直是美国国家安全战略的核心要素。阿尔弗雷德-塞耶-马汉不仅认识到海军力量在国家崛起中的重要性，而且他的思想在塑造美国扩张和军事自信的时代中发挥了重要作用。在全球化和相互依存不断变化的世界中，马汉的理论对于理解全球力量动态以及海军力量、贸易和世界政治之间的关系仍然具有现实意义。

马汉的思想影响了美国海军的转型及其全球角色。马汉的原则无疑有助于塑造美国的海军战略，使海军成为美国国际实力和影响力的核心。在马汉思想的启发下，美国海军的成长和发展体现在其对强大和维护良好的战列舰舰队的重视上，这支舰队能够在世界各地投射力量并捍卫美国的利益。在美西战争中，美国海军不仅为战争的胜利发挥了决定性作用，还证明了美国需要一支强大的海军力量来维护其在世界舞台上的存在。全球补给站和海军基地的概念也变得越来越重要，这体现在海外领土的获取和支持海军行动的战略基地的建立上。这些设施使海军能够在偏远地区保持持续存在、保护贸易路线和捍卫国家利益。海军军官和水兵的教育和培训得到了加强，强调了准备工作和专业知识在开展海军行动中的重要性。对教育和培训的重视促使美国海军发展成为一支专业化、纪律严明、技术先进的部队。马汉的思想塑造了一个海军力量与国际地位密切相关的时代。凭借完善的理论、现代化的舰艇和广泛的训练，美国海军成为美国国防和安全战略的支柱，这一传统延续至今，成为全球海上安全和航行自由的保障。

美国对夏威夷兴趣的增加有其战略、政治和经济原因。在战略上，夏威夷位于太平洋的关键位置，是连接北美和亚洲的桥梁。在海上贸易和海军力量不断增长的时代，控制夏威夷群岛被视为投射美国海上力量的关键。美国在夏威夷的存在在一定程度上也是对国际竞争的回应。欧洲列强、日本和其他国家在太平洋日益活跃。美国热衷于保护和扩大其在该地区的利益，将夏威夷视为国防和贸易的重要堡垒。在政治和经济上，美国在夏威夷的利益也与居住在岛上的美国人有关，特别是蔗糖种植园主。他们在与美国保持密切联系和推动吞并以保证进入美国市场方面有着直接的经济利益。1887 年，在美国和欧洲居民的压力下，卡拉卡瓦国王被迫签署了 "刺刀宪法"，该宪法大大削弱了君主政体的权力，增加了外国人的影响力。美国海军的存在在向夏威夷君主政体施加压力方面发挥了重要作用。1893 年，利留卡拉尼女王（Liliuokalani）继其兄卡拉卡瓦（Kalākaua）之后，试图恢复王权，将政治阴谋推向了高潮。作为回应，一群美国和欧洲居民在美国水手和海军陆战队的支持下推翻了女王。尽管美国总统格罗弗-克利夫兰（Grover Cleveland）恳求恢复王后的职位，但在美国扩张主义和对海军力量的渴望的背景下，吞并夏威夷变得不可避免，并最终于 1898 年正式完成。因此，美国海军不仅在保护美国在夏威夷的利益方面发挥了作用，而且在导致美国吞并夏威夷群岛的政治事件中扮演了关键角色。在随后的几十年里，夏威夷作为美国主要海军基地的地位不断巩固，最终建成了珍珠港海军基地，该基地在二十世纪的事件中，尤其是在第二次世界大战期间发挥了核心作用。

由于卡拉卡瓦国王被迫签署该协议，1887 年的协议经常被称为 "刺刀宪法"，它标志着夏威夷与美国关系的一个决定性转折点。除了允许美国在珍珠港建立海军基地外，这部宪法还大大削弱了王室的权力，增加了美国和欧洲居民对夏威夷群岛的影响力。珍珠港基地对美国在太平洋的军事存在至关重要。其战略地位使美国能够在亚太地区投射军事力量并保护其商业利益。它还是保卫美国西海岸的前哨基地。刺刀宪法 "的条款也加剧了夏威夷的内部矛盾。外国居民权力的增加和君主权威的相应削弱加剧了社会和政治冲突。1893 年，试图恢复王权的莉莉乌卡拉尼女王被推翻，将这些紧张局势推向了高潮。推翻君主制加速了夏威夷并入美国的进程。尽管这个问题在美国引起争议，格罗弗-克利夫兰总统试图恢复莉莉乌卡拉尼女王的王位，但没有成功，夏威夷于 1898 年正式并入美国。这一地位的改变使夏威夷成为美国的重要领土，加强了美国在太平洋的战略地位。位于珍珠港的海军基地得到了发展和扩建，在美国在该地区的军事行动中发挥着越来越重要的作用。1941 年，日本偷袭珍珠港，促使美国加入第二次世界大战，从而极大地凸显了这一重要性。

美国海军对推翻莉莉乌卡拉尼女王的干预是美帝国主义在太平洋地区的早期例子。美国军舰波士顿号停泊在檀香山外海，其部队部署在该市，在政治危机中投射出令人生畏的军事力量阴影。虽然美军没有直接参与战斗，但他们的存在极大地推动了反对女王的当地商人和市民发动政变。政变的主要动机是经济和政治利益。美国蔗糖种植园主尤其希望吞并美国，以避免蔗糖关税。莉莉乌卡拉尼女王意识到这对夏威夷主权构成的威胁，曾试图加强君主制，减少外国居民的影响。这次推翻使她的努力前功尽弃。临时政府迅速成立，并得到了美国驻夏威夷公使的承认，在美国明显的军事支持下，临时政府巩固了自己的权力。临时政府寻求立即并入美国，但格罗弗-克利夫兰总统从参议院撤回了并吞条约，表明他不赞成推翻夏威夷政权。直到威廉-麦金利（William McKinley）担任总统期间，吞并问题才得到解决。扩张主义更加盛行，1898 年的美西战争凸显了夏威夷的战略重要性。国会通过一项联合决议将夏威夷群岛并入美国，从而绕过了需要参议院三分之二多数通过的条约。夏威夷历史上的这一篇章留下了复杂的遗产。一方面，吞并为夏威夷州成为美国经济和国家安全的重要贡献者铺平了道路。另一方面，它仍然是争议的根源，因为它代表着夏威夷主权的丧失和美国强权的强加，其影响在有关夏威夷身份和自决的讨论中继续引起共鸣。

19 世纪 80 年代及以后，美国海军在夏威夷发挥的作用越来越大，这与美国的扩张主义战略密切相关。美国力图维护其在太平洋地区的影响力，而夏威夷的战略位置为实现这一目标提供了便利。夏威夷不仅是实现美国在亚太地区野心的桥梁，也是保护美国西海岸的重要前哨。1887 年签订的《互惠条约》标志着一个转折点。该条约允许美国在珍珠港建立海军基地，这一资产多年后将成为美国在太平洋地区军事存在的核心。作为交换，美国免除了夏威夷蔗糖的关税，这加强了夏威夷岛的经济，巩固了美国蔗糖种植者在夏威夷的影响力。1891 年继位的莉莉欧卡拉尼女王反对美国日益增长的影响力，并寻求重建夏威夷主权。然而，在美国海军的默许支持下，一群非夏威夷居民和商人于 1893 年推翻了女王的统治。美国军队虽然没有直接参与政变，但提供了后勤支持和威慑力量，为推翻夏威夷政府提供了便利。1893 年事件发生在夏威夷于 1898 年被正式吞并之前。在此期间，麦金利总统领导下的美国日益受到扩张主义思想的影响。夏威夷对国家安全、商业航运的重要性及其战略地理位置是吞并夏威夷的决定性因素。这样，美国海军就不仅仅是一个实施军事统治的工具，而是被纳入了一个复杂、多维的战略，旨在扩大美国在太平洋的影响力。这种影响力既是经济和政治的，也是军事的，夏威夷成为美国日益增长的全球利益网络中的一个关键因素。

= 美西战争与波多黎各、关岛和菲律宾的获得 =

[[Fichier:McKinley Prosperity.jpg|thumb|1900 年的选举海报，显示麦金利在士兵、水手、商人和工人的支持下站在金本位上。]]

美西战争不仅是美国外交政策演变的重要里程碑，也是美国在世界舞台上地位的重要里程碑。美西战争主要由美国海军缅因号神秘沉没事件引发，当时的报纸慷慨激昂的呼吁--一种被称为 "黄色新闻 "的现象--为将这些领土从西班牙殖民统治下解放出来，美国与古巴人、菲律宾人和波多黎各人并肩作战。美军在古巴和菲律宾迅速取得决定性胜利，彰显了美国军事力量的崛起。在古巴，未来总统西奥多-罗斯福（Theodore Roosevelt）和他的 "粗骑兵"（Rough Riders）参加了著名的 "轻骑兵 "在圣胡安山（San Juan Hill）的冲锋，这已成为美国军事英勇的标志。在菲律宾，马尼拉湾海战迅速摧毁了西班牙舰队，证明了美国海军的实力。战争结束后签订的《巴黎条约》将美国变成了一个殖民国家。美国获得了关岛、波多黎各，并为菲律宾支付了 2000 万美元，巩固了其在加勒比海和太平洋地区的存在。古巴虽然摆脱了西班牙的殖民统治，但却受到美国的影响，成为美国事实上的保护国，标志着两国之间复杂而动荡关系的开始。美西战争影响深远。它不仅提高了美国的国际地位，将其推向世界强国的行列，而且还引发了关于美国在世界上的角色的内部辩论。海外扩张和帝国主义成为争论的焦点，凸显了美国的全球抱负与其自由和自决的立国原则之间的紧张关系。

美西战争发生在威廉-麦金利担任总统期间，这代表了美国政治的转型时代，标志着美国从关注国内事务到重新参与全球事务的显著转变。冲突源于内部和外部的压力，包括欧洲列强的崛起、美国工业和经济的迅速扩张以及美国日益渴望保护和扩大其海外利益。缅因号 "沉没事件催生了战争的动力，而黄色新闻则加剧了战争，助长了支持冲突的舆论。尽管麦金利不愿让国家卷入战争，但迫于国会和公众舆论的压力，他不得不这样做。他指挥了一场有效的军事战役，利用美国的海军力量和地面部队取得了对西班牙的决定性胜利。美西战争的胜利影响深远。美国获得了波多黎各、关岛和菲律宾，为美国殖民帝国奠定了基础。古巴也获得了独立，但却是在美国的监护下，这标志着一个美国加强干预国际事务的时代的到来。战争将美国推上了世界舞台，巩固了其全球大国的地位，并开创了一个更加自信的外交政策时代。这场冲突也凸显了一支强大的现代化海军的重要性。由于认识到需要保护美国的海外利益，军事现代化成为当务之急。在政治上，这场战争促使麦金利在 1900 年再次当选，尽管他的第二个任期在 1901 年不幸被暗杀。美西战争和麦金莱总统任期留下的影响至今仍清晰可见。这场冲突所引发的问题，尤其是与人权、帝国主义统治和美国的全球角色有关的问题，继续在美国外交政策中引起共鸣。关于帝国主义伦理和影响的辩论因战争而加剧，标志着一个世纪以来关于美国世界地位的对抗和对话的开始。

美西战争之前，古巴的经济与美国的经济紧密相连，因为古巴在制糖业中扮演着至关重要的角色。美国种植园主和投资者收购了大片土地种植甘蔗，并大量使用非洲裔古巴劳动力。这些劳动力最初由奴隶组成，废除奴隶制后则由契约劳工组成，条件往往比奴隶制好不了多少。蔗糖贸易不仅让这些投资者赚得盆满钵满，也在两国之间形成了经济上的相互依赖。对美国来说，古巴是一个可靠且有利可图的蔗糖产地，而蔗糖是当时美国经济必不可少的产品。这种经济依赖性决定了美古关系，并产生了重大的政治影响。美西战争爆发时，美国在古巴根深蒂固的经济利益是支撑美国军事承诺的主要因素。虽然战争的动机是多方面的，包括人道主义关切和在全球范围内维护美国权力的愿望，但保护美国的经济利益无疑是一个重要的考虑因素。美国的胜利以及随后西班牙结束对古巴的统治标志着古巴进入了一个新时代。虽然古巴赢得了独立，但美国继续施加着相当大的影响，这体现在《普拉特修正案》等文件中，该修正案赋予美国干预古巴事务的权利，并建立了关塔那摩海军基地，美国至今仍保留着该基地。制糖业和美国投资所带来的财富一直影响着古巴的政治、经济和社会，直至 20 世纪。从美西战争的影响到美国对古巴的封锁及其他影响，美国这种主导性的、有时是有争议的影响帮助塑造了两国关系复杂而动荡的历史。

美西战争爆发于 1898 年，是一场简短但意义重大的军事冲突，发生地远至古巴、波多黎各、关岛和菲律宾。战争的起因是美国海军缅因号上的美国水兵神秘死亡所造成的紧张局势，缅因号在哈瓦那港的沉没被认为是西班牙所为，尽管当时还没有确凿的证据。美国的主要问题是古巴。美国军队凭借战术和后勤优势，很快战胜了西班牙在岛上的抵抗。战争的特点是激烈但短暂的战斗，西班牙面对即将到来的失败，同意停火。战争的影响不仅限于迅速的军事胜利。随后达成的和平协议极大地改变了地缘政治版图。曾经是殖民大国的西班牙将主要领土的控制权让给了美国。古巴虽然在技术上是独立的，但受到美国的影响，关岛和波多黎各成为美国的领土。菲律宾这个战略群岛以 2000 万美元的价格卖给了美国。这场冲突标志着美国外交政策的深刻转变。战前，美国被普遍认为是一个正在形成中的大国，主要关注国内和大陆事务。然而，对西班牙的惊人胜利将美国推向了世界舞台。美国成为殖民主义和帝国主义强国，其利益和影响力远远超出其传统边界。美西战争的影响持续了几十年。它为美国在全球范围内的军事和政治参与奠定了基础，并开创了美国权力和影响力成为世界事务决定性因素的时代。这场战争的胜利不仅重新定义了国际社会对美国的看法，还引发了一场关于美国在世界上的角色的激烈辩论，这场辩论在当代美国外交政策中继续引起共鸣。

海地革命不仅在加勒比地区，而且在整个大西洋世界都产生了深远的影响，它给蓄奴大国带来了恐惧，激发了争取独立和废除奴隶制的运动。海地奴隶起义的成功使法国最富有的殖民地变成了一个由前奴隶统治的独立共和国，这让依赖奴隶制的殖民国家感到震惊。古巴和波多黎各是西班牙在美洲最后的殖民据点，克里奥尔精英们对海地的局势相当担忧。他们的财富和权力大多植根于农业种植园，严重依赖奴隶劳动。类似海地叛乱的可能性不仅威胁到他们的经济地位，也威胁到他们的人身和社会安全。因此，古巴和波多黎各的精英们在意识到自由和独立之风吹遍拉丁美洲的同时，也面临着进退两难的境地。是控制和引导一场争取独立的战争，以维护他们的社会和经济地位，还是发动一场社会革命，推翻他们和西班牙的殖民枷锁？正是在这样的背景下，失去了大部分美洲殖民地的西班牙受到了削弱和削弱，它试图维持对古巴和波多黎各的控制。对独立和改革运动的严厉镇压，对公民权利和政治权利的限制，以及奴隶制的持续存在（直到姗姗来迟的废除），都是西班牙和殖民地精英在面对社会和政治变革的汹涌浪潮时极度缺乏安全感的表现。

由奴隶劳动推动的蔗糖生产是古巴经济的支柱，古巴是世界蔗糖市场的主要参与者。克里奥尔精英阶层从这种经济中获益匪浅，他们不愿接受任何可能危及其地位和财富的破坏。美西战争标志着古巴发生了翻天覆地的变化。美国的干预是出于对争取独立的古巴人的同情、战略和经济考虑，以及黄色新闻的影响，这些因素在美国民众中煽起了干预主义的火焰。美国的胜利促成了 1898 年《巴黎条约》的签订，结束了西班牙对古巴的主权。然而，古巴的独立实际上是有限的。尽管古巴岛在技术上是独立的，但被纳入古巴宪法的《普拉特修正案》赋予了美国干预古巴事务的权利，以 "维护古巴独立 "和维持 "适当的政府"。此外，关塔那摩湾被割让给美国作为海军基地，这一存在延续至今。美西战争对古巴的影响深远而持久。它确立了美国对古巴的影响和干预模式，这种模式一直持续到 1959 年古巴革命之后。美国的经济利益，特别是在制糖业的利益，在 20 世纪继续在古巴经济中发挥着重要作用，两国关系的特点是政治、经济和军事紧张，在许多方面延续至今。

这场战争是对西班牙统治的大规模反抗，战斗激烈，破坏严重。非洲裔古巴人（其中许多人曾是奴隶或奴隶的后代）在这场斗争中发挥了核心作用，他们不仅是战士，也是领导者。结束战争的《赞戎条约》让许多渴望完全独立的古巴人感到失望。虽然它结束了奴隶制并赋予了某些政治权利，但西班牙仍保持着对古巴的控制。非洲裔古巴人尤其感到失望，因为虽然奴隶制被废除了，但平等和完全融入古巴社会仍然遥遥无期。然而，十年战争开创了反抗西班牙统治的先例，有助于形成古巴的民族认同。由此产生的紧张局势和未能实现的独立愿望引发了 1895 年的古巴独立战争，最终导致美国的干预和 1898 年的美西战争。这些冲突以及尚未解决的种族、公民身份和平等问题，一直影响着古巴的政治和社会，直到 1959 年古巴革命及其后。种族关系的复杂性、争取平等和独立的斗争以及外国势力的影响是当代古巴历史和政治中持续存在的主题。

始于 1895 年的古巴独立战争是古巴历史上的关键时刻。诗人、散文家和记者何塞-马蒂以及黑人高级将领安东尼奥-马塞奥等革命领袖是这场斗争的代表人物。何塞-马蒂是古巴人寻求独立的思想和道德源泉。他对自由事业的献身精神、他关于民主和正义的大量著作以及他反对美国对古巴岛的干涉，都已成为古巴民族意识的基本要素。古巴独立战争的特点是游击战术、激烈战斗以及利用古巴山区和农村抵抗西班牙的统治。然而，美国的干预打断了这场战争，这场战争后来被称为美西战争。1898 年，美国海军缅因号战舰在哈瓦那港失事，成为美国干预的催化剂。美国取得胜利后，1898 年《巴黎条约》结束了战争，并给予古巴独立，但几十年来古巴仍受到美国的影响和控制，《普拉特修正案》就是证明，该修正案赋予美国干预古巴事务和在关塔那摩湾建立海军基地的权利。

古巴局势引起了国际社会的关注，在美国，公众、媒体和政治家都在密切关注事态的发展。西班牙人残暴对待古巴人的故事被小报放大，激怒了美国公众舆论，给政府施加了干预的压力。威廉-麦金利总统起初不愿让美国卷入一场对外冲突，但在公众舆论和一些顾问的压力下，他被迫改变了方针。直接导火索是 1898 年 2 月 15 日美国海军缅因号驱逐舰在哈瓦那港神秘沉没。尽管对沉没的实际原因仍有争议，但美国媒体很快将责任归咎于西班牙，进一步加剧了紧张局势。1898 年 4 月 25 日，美国向西班牙宣战，标志着美西战争的开始。美军很快显示出优势，在古巴、波多黎各和菲律宾取得胜利。战争以 1898 年 12 月 10 日签署的《巴黎条约》而结束。西班牙将关岛、波多黎各和菲律宾割让给美国，并放弃了对古巴的主权。古巴成为事实上的美国保护国，其名义上的独立受到《普拉特修正案》的限制，该修正案赋予美国干预古巴事务的权利，并建立了关塔那摩湾海军基地。因此，尽管古巴已经从西班牙的统治下解放出来，但其完全独立却受到美国强大影响力的阻碍。这种局面一直持续到 1959 年古巴革命，革命建立了菲德尔-卡斯特罗领导的社会主义政权，大大削弱了美国在古巴的影响。

正是在这种背景下，由威廉-伦道夫-赫斯特和约瑟夫-普利策等人领导的黄色报刊发挥了主导作用。战争十分激烈，报纸为了增加读者数量展开了激烈的竞争。他们刊登夸张的、有时是捏造的西班牙人残害古巴人的报道，以吸引和抓住公众的注意力。赫斯特曾说过一句名言："你提供图片，我提供战争。"这句话虽然可能是天方夜谭，但却体现了报业在营造战争氛围方面的作用。公众对麦金利总统的压力不断加大，而美国海军缅因号战舰在哈瓦那港神秘被毁更加剧了这种压力。虽然没有确凿证据证明西班牙与这起悲剧有关，但新闻界和公众舆论已经做好了指控西班牙的准备。面对强大的民众和政治压力，麦金莱妥协了，他请求国会授权对古巴进行军事干预。美西战争有时被美国人称为 "辉煌的小战争"，但时间短暂。美国的胜利标志着美国成为一个正在崛起的世界大国，并将其影响力扩展到海外。古巴摆脱了西班牙的统治，开始受到美国的影响。1901 年《普拉特修正案》被纳入古巴宪法，允许美国干预古巴事务，并允许美国租赁或购买土地建造海军基地和煤矿，关塔那摩湾海军基地由此诞生。这场战争以及战争之前的气氛证明了媒体和公众舆论在制定外交政策方面的力量。它还说明了推动军事干预的经济和战略利益，这一现实将继续为当代冲突的研究提供参考。<gallery mode="packed" widths="200" heights="200">
Fichier:Wreck of the U.S.S. Maine, ca. 1898 - NARA - 512929.jpg|缅因号沉船在哈瓦那港。
Fichier:World98.jpg|1898 年 2 月 17 日《纽约世界报》封面。
Fichier:Platt amendment page 1.jpg|普拉特修正案第一页。
Fichier:Platt amendment page 2.jpg|第二页。
Fichier:School Begins (Puck Magazine 1-25-1899, cropped).jpg|漫画显示山姆大叔在四个手持标有美国各州的书籍的孩子面前，对标有菲律宾、夏威夷、波多黎各和古巴的四个孩子进行训话。标题写道 "开学了。山姆大叔（对他的新文明班学生）： 现在，孩子们，不管你们愿不愿意，都必须学习这些课程！但只要看看你们前面的同学，记住，过不了多久，你们就会和他们一样，为来到这里而感到高兴！"。
</gallery>
 
美西战争和随后的《巴黎条约》是美国外交政策和帝国主义历史的一个决定性转折点。美国曾经是一个主要专注于本国大陆发展的国家，后来成为一个帝国主义强国，将其影响力扩展到境外，特别是加勒比海和太平洋地区。这场冲突通常被描述为 "精彩的小战争"，是一场迅速而决定性的战争。美国利用西班牙的军事弱点，在日益高涨的民族主义情绪的推动下，夺取了主要领土。古巴虽然获得了某种独立，但在很大程度上仍受美国的影响，《普拉特修正案》正式确定了这一现实。关岛、波多黎各和菲律宾成为美国的直接属地。就菲律宾而言，美国对该领土的获取导致了美菲战争，这场残酷的冲突是菲律宾从西班牙统治转为美国统治后为争取自身独立而爆发的。这暴露了美国外交政策中的一个矛盾：从英国殖民主义下解放出来的国家现在却成了殖民者。巴黎条约》及其后果凸显了美帝国主义的复杂性和矛盾性。这些事态发展在美国国内引发了一场关于美国国际角色的激烈辩论，这场辩论以各种形式持续至今。它们还凸显了帝国主义列强经常根据自身利益重新制定地图和国家命运的方式，给国际关系留下了持久的争议和复杂性。

美西战争结束时的割让领土使美国作为一个殖民国家登上了世界舞台。对波多黎各、关岛和菲律宾等新领土的征服标志着美国外交政策的彻底改变。尽管 "文明使命 "的说辞被用来为帝国主义扩张进行辩护，但当地的现实情况往往与美国声称倡导的民主和平等主义原则相悖。这种矛盾最明显的例子可以在美菲战争中找到，这场冲突常常被遗忘在美国历史的长河中。菲律宾渴望独立，并且已经反抗过西班牙的统治，却发现自己又被套上了新的帝国枷锁。美国人对菲律宾人的反抗做出了残酷的回应，美国文明的 "好处 "是通过武力强加于人的，这暴露了帝国主义言论中固有的虚伪性。美帝国主义是时代的产物，当时欧洲列强在全球争夺领土，每个国家都在寻求扩大自己的影响力和实力。在这种情况下，美国作为一个正在崛起的国家，紧随其后。然而，这种扩张的后果不仅体现在被征服的领土上，也体现在美国本土。关于帝国主义的道德性、合法性和有效性的激烈争论分裂了整个国家。

1901 年，《普拉特修正案》被纳入古巴宪法，这说明了当时美国外交政策的两面性。一方面，以结束西班牙在古巴的殖民统治为象征，美国大谈解放和独立。另一方面是霸权和控制的现实，《普拉特修正案》对古巴主权的限制凸显了这一点。该修正案是美国结束在古巴的军事统治的先决条件，被广泛视为对古巴主权的侵犯。虽然古巴在形式上是独立的，但美国的持续存在和影响却以主要有利于美国利益的方式定义了古巴的独立。对古巴进行军事干预的权利不仅确保了美国在古巴的利益，也是美国在加勒比海内外投射力量的一种手段。这种动态为 20 世纪的美古关系开创了先例。虽然《普拉特修正案》于 1934 年被废除，但它所带来的控制和影响却一直存在。从冷战时期到当代关于封锁和关系正常化的争论，对主权的渴望与依赖现实之间的紧张关系塑造了美国与古巴关系的动荡历史。

与帝国主义和经济利益相关的种族主义在美国 19 世纪末和 20 世纪初管理其新获得的领土和土著居民的方式中表现得淋漓尽致，这是不可否认的。一些美国政治和经济精英采用了一种 "白人负担 "的形式，将统治和剥削合理化为提升 "劣等种族 "的使命。从这个角度看，美帝国主义不仅是扩大美国经济和政治影响力的战略，也是一项 "文明使命"。这意味着一种施舍和种族主义的家长作风，以所谓的种族和文化优越性为由为政治和经济统治辩护。这反映在政府政策和商业实践中，往往忽视或排斥土著人民的权利、文化和愿望。这些观念植根于一种广为接受的白人至上意识形态，这种意识形态在当时盛行，并深刻影响着外交政策、国际关系和经济战略。例如，菲律宾被美国从西班牙 "解放 "出来后，就受到了新形式的殖民统治，美国的经济利益占据了优先地位，菲律宾人往往被视为 "低人一等"。在帝国主义和种族主义的辩证关系中，存在着一个异化和非人化的过程，使经济剥削和政治统治成为可能。文明 "和 "进步 "的言辞往往掩盖了不平等的权力动态和压迫行为。这些历史动态的影响继续在当代国际关系中产生共鸣，并成为后殖民主义、人权和全球正义讨论的核心。

1901 年强加给古巴宪法的《普拉特修正案》是一份允许美国对古巴事务施加重大影响的法律文书。实际上，它赋予了美国对古巴进行军事干预以维护其稳定和利益的权利。这清楚地反映了美国当时的帝国主义政策，也是美国在加勒比地区主导影响力的早期例证。该修正案所产生的关塔那摩湾海军基地仍然是该协议最具争议和最持久的遗产之一。尽管该基地的租约已作修改，提高了租金，但古巴政府认为美国的存在是非法的，并一再要求美国归还该基地。1959 年古巴革命后，菲德尔-卡斯特罗上台执政，美古关系进入紧张时期，但该基地仍由美国控制。古巴政府拒绝兑现美国的租金支票，以抗议美国非法占领古巴领土。关塔那摩湾问题仍然是两国之间历史性紧张关系的象征。2001 年 "9-11 "事件后，关塔那摩湾基地被用来关押恐怖分子嫌疑犯，在国际上臭名昭著。美国和古巴之间的关系依然复杂，涉及历史、政治和经济问题。关塔那摩湾海军基地一案仍然是两国关系中的一个主要争议点，是 20 世纪初美帝国主义时代的遗留问题。两国之间的全面和解将不可避免地涉及到关塔那摩问题的解决，该问题仍然是外部干预和影响古巴事务的具体象征。

对外开放政策是西方介入中国事务的关键时刻，也说明了当时国际关系的复杂性。中国因内部冲突和对外战争而衰弱，被帝国主义列强划分为不同的势力范围，在此背景下制定的开放政策旨在维护中国市场商业准入的公平性。美国国务卿约翰-海是这一倡议的核心人物，他主张所有国家平等、开放地进入中国市场，以对抗日本和欧洲国家等大国的霸权愿望。海氏强调维护中国领土完整的重要性，同时确保所有国家，无论其实力或影响力如何，都能自由贸易。虽然这一政策从未正式写入国际条约，但却得到了当时主要列强的广泛认可。然而，由于英国、法国、德国、日本和俄罗斯等国继续在各自的势力范围内对中国施加主导性影响，这一政策的效果有限。尽管如此，门户开放政策证明了美国扩大其在亚洲的经济和政治影响力的愿望。这也标志着美国开始更多地关注和参与亚洲事务，这种关注一直持续到今天。在当时的背景下，这是美国作为全球大国崛起的早期表现，它渴望按照自己的利益和原则塑造国际经济和政治秩序。

门户开放政策深刻影响了整个 20 世纪的国际关系和全球经济动态。它表明了美国将自己定位为世界贸易核心参与者的明确意图。这一政策植根于这样一种信念，即自由公平地进入世界市场对美国的经济增长和繁荣至关重要。这也反映了资本主义意识形态以及自由和无管制贸易有利于所有相关方的信念。然而，这一政策的实施也揭示了美国海外影响力的争议之处。为了保证市场准入，美国毫不犹豫地使用其权力和影响力，有时甚至以牺牲其他国家的主权和经济利益为代价。在政府的支持下，美国公司寻求在外国市场站稳脚跟，有时甚至建立垄断，取代当地产业。门户开放政策可视为当代自由贸易政策的前身。它开创了美国积极参与国际经济事务的先例，标志着一个经济实力与全球政治紧密相连的时代的开始。政府对企业的支持、对国际政治格局的巧妙驾驭，以及必要时对军事力量的战略性使用，都是追求开放的外国市场过程中反复出现的主题。尽管时代和背景已经发生了变化，但开放政策提出的问题--涉及国家主权、经济影响力和全球权力动态--仍然与当代国际上关于贸易、经济和全球政治的辩论息息相关。

= 巴拿马运河与美国对加勒比海和中美洲的控制 =

[[Fichier:Panama Canal under construction, 1907.jpg|thumb|1907 年，盖拉德（Gaillard）切割施工。]]

The construction of the Panama Canal was born of these motivations. It was a project that demonstrated not only the technical prowess and engineering of the United States, but also its growing influence as a world power. President Theodore Roosevelt played a crucial role in the project, taking a determined approach to ensuring that the canal was built. This included supporting Panama in gaining independence from Colombia in 1903, thereby securing the necessary rights for the construction of the canal for the United States. The construction itself, which began in 1904 and was completed in 1914, was an arduous task. It was marked by significant challenges, including tropical diseases that decimated workers, complex engineering problems and difficult working conditions. However, with the implementation of medical and technical innovations, the United States succeeded in completing the project, demonstrating its ability to carry out global projects. The Panama Canal had a profound impact on world trade, dramatically reducing transit times for ships travelling between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It also solidified the United States' position as a world power, demonstrating its ability to carry out massive engineering projects and exert its influence on the international stage.

The construction of the Panama Canal symbolises an era of intense technical innovation and American imperialist expansion. Initiated under the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, this colossal engineering project reflected Roosevelt's "big stick" doctrine, emphasising the use of American force and influence on an expanding world stage. This period, marked by rapid economic growth and increased political influence, saw the United States become increasingly involved in international affairs, in sharp contrast to its previous policy of isolationism. The canal, as an engineering achievement, involved monumental challenges. Engineers and workers had to overcome natural obstacles, disease and an oppressive tropical climate. The scale of the excavation, the complexity of the lock systems and the need to manage environmental problems all contributed to making the canal an emblematic project of the modern engineering era. Socially and politically, the construction of the Panama Canal also raised complex issues. The impact on the local population, the implications of American control of the canal and issues relating to workers' rights have all been subjects of debate. The Canal Zone has become a crossroads for cultural and economic exchanges, but also a point of political tension. Beyond its role in world trade and navigation, the Panama Canal is a testament to humanity's ability to overcome formidable technical challenges. However, it also serves as a reminder of the complex social and political implications that often accompany such major international projects. It embodies the duality of technical progress, bringing both substantial benefits and significant challenges.

The completion of the Panama Canal is closely associated with the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. He saw in this project not only a means of boosting the economic prosperity of the United States, but also an opportunity to demonstrate the country's emerging power on the international stage. Roosevelt was convinced that a canal across the Isthmus of Panama would greatly increase the efficiency of maritime trade and the ability of the US Navy to move rapidly between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. This was of strategic importance, particularly in the context of Roosevelt's "Big Stick" doctrine, which advocated a robust approach to foreign policy. The Roosevelt administration took decisive steps to ensure that the Panama Canal would be under American control. The facilitation of Panama's independence from Colombia, followed by the swift negotiation of a treaty allowing the United States to build and control the canal, are testament to Roosevelt's determination to see the project through. The Panama Canal has become a key part of Roosevelt's legacy. His commitment to the project underscored his vision of a powerful and influential America, capable of achieving ambitious goals and exerting influence on a global scale. The "Big Stick" doctrine and the construction of the Panama Canal are inseparable from the growing international identity of the United States in the early 20th century and from Theodore Roosevelt's dynamic and bold presidency.

Theodore Roosevelt's influence in the process of building the Panama Canal was undeniable and is often highlighted as an example of his vigorous and proactive approach to the presidency. Colombia originally controlled the territory where the canal was planned, but Roosevelt was determined to see it through. When negotiations with Colombia failed, he tacitly supported the secession of Panama, which quickly led to the creation of the Republic of Panama. Following this secession, a treaty was signed granting the United States perpetual control of a zone of the canal, and the green light to begin construction. Roosevelt personally monitored the project, insisting on the strategic and commercial importance of the canal for the United States. His visit to the construction site in 1906 marked the first time a sitting US president had travelled abroad, demonstrating his personal commitment to the success of the project. Although Roosevelt was no longer President by the time the canal was officially opened in 1914, his direct involvement and unstinting support for the project cemented his role in its completion. Today, the Panama Canal remains a testament to Roosevelt's international vision and determination to extend the influence and power of the United States worldwide.

The United States had a strong interest in building the Panama Canal to facilitate the movement of ships between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, which would be extremely beneficial for trade and military strategy. However, Colombia, which had sovereignty over Panama at the time, was reluctant to cede control of the territory needed to build the canal. The situation was complicated by political instability and civil war in Colombia. Seeing an opportunity, the United States, under the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, supported Panama's independence movement. In 1903, with the support of the United States, Panama declared its independence from Colombia. The United States was one of the first countries to recognise the new republic. In return for its support, the new Panamanian government granted the United States exclusive rights to build and control the Panama Canal. The Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, signed shortly afterwards, granted the United States control of the Canal Zone in exchange for financial compensation. This agreement paved the way for the construction of the Panama Canal, which began in 1904 and was completed in 1914. This affair demonstrates the United States' determination to achieve its geostrategic and economic objectives, even if this meant intervening in the affairs of other nations. The role of the United States in Panama's independence and the construction of the canal has left a complex legacy in relations between the United States, Panama and Latin America in general.

Obtaining the Panama Canal Zone was a direct result of US intervention in Panama's independence from Colombia. The Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty, although signed by the new Panamanian government, was widely criticised because Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla, who signed it on behalf of Panama, was not a Panamanian citizen but a French engineer with financial interests in the construction of the canal. Furthermore, no Panamanian government representative was present in the United States when the treaty was finalised and signed. The Panama Canal Zone, a 10-mile-wide strip of land stretching on either side of the canal, was under total US sovereignty. This allowed the United States to build and operate the canal without outside interference, ensuring rapid access between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans that was vital to American trade and military strategy. The US role in securing Panama's independence and control over the Canal Zone had a lasting impact on US relations with Latin America. It has been cited as a classic example of US imperialism in the region. US control over the canal and surrounding area continued until 1999, when full sovereignty was transferred to Panama under the terms of the 1977 Torrijos-Carter treaties.

The way in which the United States facilitated Panama's independence from Colombia and gained control of the Canal Zone is often cited as an example of American imperialism and has generated considerable controversy. The direct intervention of the United States, not only in supporting the Panamanian revolt, but also in preventing Colombia from suppressing the rebellion, is seen as a blatant intrusion into the sovereign affairs of another country. The Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty was signed under conditions that left Panama little choice and largely favoured American interests. The terms of the treaty, including the perpetual cession of the Canal Zone to the United States and the US right to intervene in Panama's internal affairs to ensure law and order, were imposed on Panama without proper negotiation. This action left a legacy of mistrust and resentment towards the United States in the region. It has been cited as an example of Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick Diplomacy", where military and economic force is used to promote US interests abroad. The controversy surrounding the construction of the canal and the US treatment of Panama and Colombia also contributed to tension and conflict in US-Latin American relations throughout the twentieth century.

Building the Panama Canal was a colossal and complicated undertaking, which not only involved engineering challenges, but was also marked by human and social difficulties. The project required the labour force of tens of thousands of workers. Most of them were immigrants from Jamaica, Barbados, India, China and other countries, attracted by the promise of jobs and better wages. However, working conditions were extremely difficult. Workers had to contend with a hot, humid tropical climate, dangerous diseases such as malaria and yellow fever, and arduous working conditions. Disease was one of the main challenges; thousands of workers died from mosquito-borne illnesses before effective mosquito control measures were put in place. Racial discrimination was also rife. Coloured workers were often paid less than their white counterparts and subjected to inferior living and working conditions. They lived in overcrowded accommodation, had little access to health services and were subject to strict discipline. Despite these challenges, construction of the canal progressed, and it was finally opened in 1914. The completion of the canal marked a turning point in world trade and naval strategy, allowing much faster passage between the Atlantic and the Pacific. However, the human and social cost of construction, as well as the political and territorial tensions it generated, continued to resonate for decades. In particular, relations between the United States and Latin American countries were marked by resentment and mistrust. The canal remained under US control until the end of the twentieth century, and it was not until 1999 that full sovereignty over the canal was transferred to Panama, marking the end of an era of US control and influence in the region.

The Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty signed in 1903 between the United States and Panama has become a major source of controversy and criticism. Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla, a French engineer who had previously worked on the Panama Canal during the unsuccessful French effort to build the canal, represented Panama, even though he was not a Panamanian citizen. This situation led many to question the legitimacy of the treaty. The treaty gave the United States total and exclusive control of the Panama Canal Zone, a ten-mile-wide territory that ran through the Republic of Panama. The United States obtained the right to build, manage and control the canal indefinitely, an agreement that was widely perceived as asymmetrical and extremely favourable to American interests. The fact that the treaty was signed so soon after Panama's independence has also caused controversy. Critics argue that Panama's independence from Colombia was facilitated by the US primarily to secure favourable control over the Canal Zone. The manner in which Panama's independence was achieved and the role of the United States in the process have led to accusations of imperialism and interference. In addition to political and territorial controversies, the treatment of the workers who built the canal has also come in for severe criticism. The workers, the majority of whom were West Indian, faced difficult working conditions, fatal diseases such as malaria and yellow fever, systematic racial discrimination, and precarious living conditions. These workers played a crucial role in the realisation of this immense engineering project, but they have often been overlooked in historical accounts of the canal's construction. The legacy of the treaty and the construction of the Panama Canal thus remains a sensitive subject, marked by questions of equity, sovereignty and human rights. It was not until decades later, with the Torrijos-Carter treaties of 1977, that control of the canal was gradually transferred to Panama, a process that was completed in 1999.

The Torrijos-Carter Treaties of 1977, named after Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos and US President Jimmy Carter, marked a crucial stage in the history of the Panama Canal and relations between the United States and Panama. They rectified a perceived injustice associated with American control and administration of the canal since its completion in the early 20th century. The treaties were the result of protracted and, at times, tense negotiations, and have been hailed for restoring Panamanian sovereignty over the Canal and the Panama Canal Zone. The treaties set out a gradual transition process to transfer control of the Canal to Panama. They declared that the Canal would be under the joint jurisdiction of the United States and Panama until 31 December 1999, when full control would be transferred to Panama. This transition has been complex, involving a gradual transfer of operational and administrative responsibilities, as well as challenges in training and preparing Panamanian staff to manage one of the world's most strategic and complex waterways. Since the transfer of control, the canal has continued to prosper and remains a vital artery for world trade. Panama has undertaken an ambitious expansion and modernisation programme to increase the capacity of the canal and allow the passage of much larger, post-Panamax vessels. This included the construction of new locks and the widening of existing canals, a project that was completed in 2016. The Panama Canal, under Panamanian management, continues to play a crucial role in world trade, facilitating the rapid passage of ships between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It is a testament to the impressive achievement of the engineers and workers who built it, and continues to symbolise international cooperation and technical innovation.

= From 1903, the United States took over the Caribbean and Central America =

== The Big Stick policy in action: US control of the Caribbean and Central America ==

[[Image:SpeakSoftly.jpg|thumb|350px|The letter in which Roosevelt first used his now-famous phrase.]]

The doctrine of "speak softly and carry a big stick" symbolised President Theodore Roosevelt's robust foreign policy. This maxim summed up his pragmatic and sometimes muscular style, which favoured diplomacy and negotiation while maintaining a strong military posture to ward off possible hostilities. Roosevelt firmly believed that the world power and influence of the United States rested on a considerable military force, which could be used to protect and advance national interests if necessary. In the Caribbean region, this doctrine was put into practice several times. Latin America and the Caribbean were seen by many in the US, including Roosevelt, as regions where the US had vital interests and should play a leading role. The "Big Stick" policy was complemented by the Monroe Doctrine, a foreign policy enunciated in 1823 that warned European powers against intervening in the affairs of nations in the Western Hemisphere. Under Roosevelt's administration, the US Navy became a key instrument for projecting American power in the Caribbean and beyond. The construction of the Panama Canal, completed in 1914, strengthened American influence in the region and required a substantial naval presence to protect this vital waterway. Later, the "Big Stick" policy evolved into what became known as gunboat diplomacy. This involved the use of military, and more specifically naval, force to protect American economic and political interests abroad, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. Interventions in Haiti, the Dominican Republic and elsewhere were often justified in the name of political and economic stabilisation, but they also reflected a desire to exert control and influence over the region, and to deter competing European interests. This interventionist foreign policy has left a complex legacy. On the one hand, it strengthened the position of the United States as the dominant hemispheric power. On the other, it created resentments and tensions in relations between the United States and its Latin American and Caribbean neighbours, effects that are still felt today.

US activism in the Caribbean and Latin America during this period was clearly focused on protecting and promoting its geopolitical and economic interests. Each of these interventions and occupations was justified by a combination of factors, but often linked to issues of political stability, protection of US citizens and investments, and prevention of foreign influence, particularly European. In Cuba, successive interventions were aimed at establishing and maintaining stable American influence on the island, a strategically important location at the entrance to the Gulf of Mexico. The Spanish-American War of 1898 was a key moment, transferring sovereignty from Spain to the United States and leading to military occupation. The intervention of 1906-1909 was a continuation of efforts to stabilise the Cuban government and protect American interests. In Mexico, US intervention during the Mexican Revolution was motivated by concerns about stability along the US-Mexican border and the protection of US citizens and investments in Mexico. The intensification of intervention in the Caribbean after the outbreak of the First World War was in part linked to US concern about the possibility of belligerent European powers, particularly Germany, exploiting regional chaos to establish or extend their influence in the Western Hemisphere. Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua were all places where the US exercised its power to establish stability, often by direct military means. The purchase of the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917 was also strategically motivated, providing the US with an additional foothold in the Caribbean region. These actions, largely justified by the "Big Stick" doctrine and the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, strengthened the United States' position as the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere. They also had a lasting impact on US relations with the nations of the region, shaping a legacy of interventionism and paternalism that continues to resonate in contemporary inter-American relations.

== US military occupations in Latin America ==

The Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary are fundamental elements of American foreign policy and have greatly influenced relations between the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean. The Monroe Doctrine (1823), formulated under the presidency of James Monroe, was a direct response to attempts by European powers to reassert their influence in the Americas, following the wars of independence that shook Latin America in the early 19th century. The doctrine established a kind of "buffer zone", indicating that any European effort to colonise or interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere would be seen as an act of aggression requiring a response from the United States. The Roosevelt Corollary (1904), enunciated by President Theodore Roosevelt, was an extension of the Monroe Doctrine. Roosevelt recognised that, although the Monroe Doctrine sought to prevent European intervention, the United States itself had a role to play in ensuring political and economic stability in the region. This was the justification for the United States feeling obliged to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin American and Caribbean countries in the event of instability, to prevent any "invitation" for European intervention. This marked a more interventionist turn in US policy towards its southern neighbours. In other words, whereas the Monroe Doctrine was designed to keep Europeans out of the Western Hemisphere, the Roosevelt Corollary added a proactive, even interventionist dimension, authorising the United States to intervene in the affairs of nations in the hemisphere to preserve their independence and maintain order and stability. This laid the foundations for US involvement in Latin American and Caribbean affairs throughout the 20th century.

This period of American history, often associated with Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick Diplomacy", was characterised by an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy. The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine was explicitly designed to justify such interventions. The underlying idea was that if the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean failed to "behave", the United States would consider itself entitled to intervene to restore order and stability, to prevent the European powers from doing so. Roosevelt's speech reflects this position: "The chronic injustice or impotence which results from a general relaxation of the rules of civilized society may ultimately require, in America or elsewhere, the intervention of a civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, reluctantly, however, in flagrant cases of injustice and impotence, to exercise international police power." He suggests that in situations of "chronic injustice" or "impotence" in the nations of the Western Hemisphere, the United States might feel compelled to intervene. Although formulated as a reluctant and defensive policy, in practice this has led to numerous occupations and military interventions. The Roosevelt Corollary has been used to justify actions such as the occupation of the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Nicaragua, among others. The United States often became involved in the internal affairs of these countries, sometimes establishing de facto administrations and exercising direct or indirect control over their governments and economies. This interventionist approach has been criticised both at the time and in retrospect for prioritising US interests - particularly economic and strategic - to the detriment of the sovereignty and well-being of the nations in the region. It helped shape the tumultuous and often difficult relations between the United States and Latin America throughout the 20th century.

This corollary has been widely interpreted as a justification for US intervention in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. Under the guise of protecting against European intervention and maintaining stability, the United States extended its influence in the region, often by military means. Roosevelt believed that by ensuring stability in neighbouring countries, the US was promoting its own security and economic interests. The corollary was designed to dissuade the European powers from becoming involved in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, asserting that the United States would take on this responsibility itself. It was a significant extension of the original Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which was mainly limited to warning European powers not to establish new colonies or intervene in the affairs of independent republics in the Western Hemisphere. The Roosevelt Corollary had long-lasting implications. It instituted a policy of interventionism that lasted for many decades and led to a series of US military interventions and occupations in the Caribbean and Central America. It also fuelled resentment and mistrust of the United States in the region, sentiments that continue to shape inter-American relations to this day. The application of this corollary was most evident during the so-called Banana Wars, a series of US military interventions and occupations in Central America and the Caribbean between the early 20th century and the 1930s. These actions were aimed at protecting American commercial interests, maintaining friendly and stable political regimes, and preventing any potential European interference.

The United States used a combination of military intervention, diplomacy and economic instruments to exercise its hegemony, bypassing the traditional colonial structure. The US used mechanisms such as the Platt Amendment to exert indirect influence and maintain control. This enabled them to keep a close eye on regional affairs, ensure the protection of their economic and political interests, and prevent the intervention of other foreign powers, particularly European ones. Dollar diplomacy", introduced under President William Howard Taft, was another important mechanism. Its aim was to encourage and protect American investment in the region, thereby consolidating US economic and political influence. This type of intervention was characterised by economic rather than military involvement, although the threat of military intervention remained a key tool for guaranteeing stability and protecting US interests. In short, US strategy in the region was based on a form of "informal imperialism", where control and influence were maintained not through direct colonisation, but through economic, political and military means. This enabled the United States to become a dominant power in the Western Hemisphere, a position it sought to maintain throughout the twentieth century. The ramifications of this widespread influence are still visible today in the complex relationship between the United States and its neighbours in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The combination of economic ambitions, geopolitical strategies and the rhetoric of democratisation has shaped a complex interventionist policy. The United States, in balancing its desire for expansion and control with the democratic ideals it advocated, has had to navigate a delicate political terrain. Although public rhetoric often emphasised democratic principles, actions on the ground were largely driven by economic and strategic motivations. US corporate interests were often at the heart of these interventions, and the US government acted to protect and promote these interests. The notion of the 'burden-bearing white man', borrowed from British imperialism, also crept into the American psyche. This idea postulated that it was the responsibility of "civilised" nations to bring democracy and progress to "less developed" regions. In practice, however, this often resulted in the imposition of regimes that were pragmatically favourable to American economic and political interests, even to the detriment of local democratic aspirations. Moreover, US involvement in these countries has been marked by a persistent tension between imperialist ambitions and democratic ideals. Although territorial expansion and economic control were clear motivations, they were often cloaked in language that spoke of promoting democracy and freedom. This double discourse led to often contradictory policies and to complex and tense relations with the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean, echoes of which persist in contemporary relations.

The US Navy was a key instrument in the expansion of American influence in the early 20th century, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean. This period, often referred to as the golden age of American imperialism, saw the United States expand its presence beyond its own borders. At the heart of these expeditions was the protection of American economic interests. US companies had invested heavily in the region, and the US government saw the protection of these investments as a priority. This included defending commercial assets such as plantations and mines, as well as crucial trade routes such as the Panama Canal. The United States was also concerned about regional stability. It sought to prevent any instability that might jeopardise its interests or allow other powers, particularly European ones, to intervene. Direct intervention, including military occupation, was a means by which the United States imposed order and protected its interests. The US Navy was a key tool for projecting American power. It provided a visible and intimidating presence that underlined America's commitment to the region. It also served as a rapid and effective means of intervening when needed, ensuring that the US could respond quickly to any emerging threats. This was in line with Theodore Roosevelt's 'Big Stick' policy, where the projection of military, and particularly naval, force was central. Maximising naval power strengthened the United States' position as a world power and underpinned its interventionist foreign policy. Naval expansion was closely linked to American imperialism. It has not only provided a means of protecting and extending economic interests, but has also facilitated the projection of US power and the assertion of its influence in the region and beyond. This dynamic has shaped relations between the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean, and continues to influence international interactions to this day.

== Intervention scenarios and their impact on Latin America during this period ==

[[File:Tr-bigstick-cartoon.JPG|thumb|Cartoon from 1904 showing Roosevelt with his "big stick" on patrol in the Caribbean Sea. It symbolises the United States' use of military force to assert its power and control in the region. The expression "speak softly and carry a big stick" is attributed to Roosevelt and reflects his belief that the United States must use a combination of diplomacy and military force to achieve its foreign policy objectives.]]

The phrase "I will teach the nations of America how to elect good men", attributed to President Woodrow Wilson, reflects his belief that the United States had a duty to promote democracy in the region and that it could use military force to intervene in the affairs of other nations in order to promote political stability and good governance. This belief was used to justify numerous US interventions and occupations in the Caribbean and Latin America in the early 20th century. Woodrow Wilson's quote captures the essence of the idealism that often characterised American foreign policy in the early 20th century. Under his administration, a new vision of America as a champion of democracy and justice in the world emerged. Latin America and the Caribbean became a particular arena where this vision was put into practice. Wilson firmly believed in the supremacy of democracy. He saw America as the ideal model of governance and believed in his mission to spread these ideals throughout the world. This ideology was not just theoretical; it was applied in practice through a series of interventions in neighbouring nations. These interventions were often justified in the name of promoting democracy and stability. For example, the occupation of Haiti in 1915 was triggered by political instability on the island and justified by the need to restore order and promote just government. In practice, however, they often resulted in increased American domination and control, rather than genuine democratic independence for the nations concerned. Wilson's phrase illuminates the tension between idealism and imperialism in American foreign policy at the time. On the one hand, there was a sincere belief in democracy and justice. On the other, there was a desire to extend American influence and control foreign resources and markets.

The attribution of this quote to Woodrow Wilson, whether he said it or not, underlines a crucial reality about American foreign policy in the early 20th century. It reveals the complexity and sometimes contradiction inherent in the American approach to international intervention. In particular, it highlights the duality between the declared intention to promote democracy and justice, and the perceived unilateral imposition of American will and interests. It reminds us that history, and especially the history of international relations, is never one-dimensional. The intentions and actions of the United States in Latin America and the Caribbean were imbued with a complexity in which noble ideals were often mixed with pragmatic and even imperialistic motivations. Interventions were seen by some as efforts to establish stability and democracy, while others saw them as acts of aggression and domination. The quote, whether authentic or apocryphal, is a poignant reminder of the need to view foreign policy not only through the prism of stated intentions, but also through that of the actual impacts and perceptions of the nations affected. It is in this gap between intention and perception that the true complexity of international relations often lies. The effects of these interventions continue to resonate in contemporary relations between the United States and Latin America. Debates about the motivations, ethics and consequences of these actions continue to fuel discussions about the role of the United States on the world stage and its approach to international diplomacy. So as we delve into history, we discover persistent echoes that inform and, to some extent, shape the present.

The legacy of US interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean is complex and nuanced, littered with unintended consequences and lasting repercussions. While the US was often driven by a stated desire to promote stability and democracy, the practical execution of this ambition has proved to be a minefield, tainted by economic and strategic interests. Economic interests, in particular the protection of American investments and assets, have often been a determining factor in interventions. Governments have been supported or overthrown, not on the basis of their adherence to democracy or human rights, but rather on their ability to protect American commercial and economic interests. These actions, while sometimes successful in achieving their immediate objectives, have had the unintended side-effect of sowing mistrust and resentment in the region. The strategic factor, in particular the projection of American military and political power, has also been a key driver of US actions. Interventions, although often presented under the aegis of promoting democracy, were also calculated manoeuvres to extend American influence. This duality of intent often made it difficult to distinguish between the noble aspiration to promote democracy and the pragmatic motivations of power and influence. On the ground, the results of these interventions have been varied. In some cases, they have engendered prolonged political and social instability, exacerbated human rights violations and installed authoritarian regimes. In others, they have helped to establish a degree of stability, albeit sometimes tinged with authoritarianism.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the United States was an imperfect democracy, where the right to vote and political participation were severely restricted for many citizens. The labour movement, for example, fought for basic rights and better working conditions in an environment of exploitation and repression. This highlights a central conflict in American history, where the desire for economic expansion and the accumulation of wealth clashed with principles of social justice and human rights. The exclusion of women from the political sphere, which only came to an end with the adoption of the 19th Amendment in 1920, is another telling example. This demonstrates an evolving democracy, a nation struggling to reconcile its founding principles of freedom and equality with social and political practices that did not reflect these ideals. Racial discrimination and the suppression of the Black American vote, particularly in the South, are other dark spots in the history of American democracy. It was only with the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the enactment of laws such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that these injustices began to be seriously addressed. These internal contradictions do not necessarily delegitimise US efforts to promote democracy abroad, but they do highlight the need for deep reflection and critical evaluation of these efforts. They also show that democracy is a constantly evolving ideal, a work in progress that requires a constant commitment to improvement and reform. The history of the successive limitations and expansions of democracy in the United States can serve as a reminder that the promotion of democracy abroad must be accompanied by an ongoing commitment to strengthening and expanding democracy at home.

The legacy of US interventions in Latin America is a delicate and complex subject. On the one hand, these interventions have been presented as efforts to establish democracy and protect human rights. On the other hand, in practice they often led to the support of authoritarian regimes which, although pro-American, were criticised for their violations of civil and political rights. The economic and strategic interests of the United States have often been a powerful driving force behind these actions. The resource-rich Latin American region was seen as crucial to US prosperity and security. From this perspective, political stability, even under an authoritarian regime, was sometimes prioritised over the active promotion of democracy and human rights, especially when US economic and geopolitical interests were at stake. US actions, such as supporting coups d'état, overthrowing democratically elected leaders and supporting military and authoritarian governments, were often seen as a violation of national sovereignty in Latin America. These actions, guided by the desire to establish pro-American regimes and counter the influence of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, have left deep scars and contributed to a climate of mistrust and resentment. The complexity and moral ambiguity of these interventions have become defining features of the relationship between the United States and Latin America. They have given rise to debates about the delicate balance between the imperatives of national security, economic interests and the principles of human rights and democracy. The lessons learned from this tumultuous history continue to inform and shape policies and relations in the region, highlighting the need for diplomacy that is respectful, balanced and focused on mutual cooperation and respect for national sovereignty.

American interventions, while sometimes motivated by idealistic goals, were often at odds with the democratic principles they purported to promote. Support for ruling elites, who were often more favourable to American interests, marginalised large sections of the population, particularly the working classes and indigenous groups. This approach not only fuelled inequality, but also sowed the seeds of resentment and instability, effects that have reverberated throughout the region's recent history. This elitist conception of democracy has often been exacerbated by US economic and geopolitical priorities. By focusing on stability for US interests, rather than inclusive and equitable political representation, US actions have sometimes undermined its credibility and long-term influence in the region. This illustrates the complexity of international relations and the inherent tensions between domestic political imperatives, economic interests and democratic ideals. As the world continues to evolve, the lessons of this historic period serve as a critical reminder of the need for diplomacy that respects and values the sovereignty, dignity and democratic aspirations of all peoples and nations.

The racialisation of US foreign policy in Latin America in the early 20th century is an important aspect to consider. The way the US government viewed and interacted with Latin American nations and peoples was often based on racist and paternalistic attitudes. Latin American countries were considered "barbaric" and "uncivilised" and needed to be "trained" and "tamed" by the American government. This attitude was not limited to American foreign policy, but also reflected the wider racial dynamics within American society. The Ku Klux Klan, which had been revived in 1915, was a white supremacist organisation that aimed to maintain the dominance of white Americans over other racial groups, particularly African Americans. The film "The Birth of a Nation", released in 1915, celebrated the Klan and perpetuated racist stereotypes of black people. The fact that President Wilson, who was in office at the time, praised the film underlines the deep-rooted racist attitudes in American society, which also influenced US foreign policy in Latin America.

The policy of dollar diplomacy implemented in the early 20th century is a notable example of how the United States sought to extend its influence in Latin America through economic rather than military means. Although this approach differed from explicit military doctrine, it nevertheless reflected a form of economic imperialism. It was centred on the idea that economic power could be used to secure US political and strategic interests in the region. The international economic context of the time was dominated by competition between European nations and the United States for access to markets, resources and areas of influence. The nations of Latin America, with their abundant resources and potential markets, were at the heart of this struggle for international influence. However, dollar diplomacy was not just about extending US economic influence, but also about acting as a buffer against the intervention of European powers in the region. By encouraging American banks to take on the debts of Latin American nations, the United States not only strengthened its economic position but also reduced the risk of European military intervention linked to payment defaults. This astute economic policy allowed the US to expand its sphere of influence without resorting to military force, even if, underneath, it still reflected a form of control and domination. Taft's presidency is often characterised by this approach, a strategy that was a reaction both to the direct military interventionism of his predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, and to the isolating tendencies that preceded that era. This marks a period when US foreign policy in Latin America was dominated by economic and financial mechanisms, reflecting the increasing complexity and nuance of international relations at the dawn of the 20th century.

This convergence of economic, political and strategic interests fuelled the United States' interventionist doctrine in Latin America and the Caribbean in the early twentieth century. Intervention was commonly justified in the name of regional stability and security, but it also reflected a broader desire to protect and promote US economic interests. The region was seen not only as a crucial zone of influence but also as a space where the United States could assert its power and authority as an emerging nation on the world stage. The First World War had demonstrated the importance of economic and military power, and the United States was determined to consolidate its position in the region to counter any potential influence from the European powers. American economic interests in the region were varied and extensive. Companies like the United Fruit Company were deeply rooted in the local economy, exploiting resources and controlling key markets. Protecting these interests required active political and military involvement to ensure a stable, business-friendly environment. Strategically, the Panama Canal was of crucial importance. As a shipping route linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Canal was essential for world trade and the projection of naval power. Its security and control were therefore paramount for the United States, justifying a considerable military and political presence in the region. The idea of the Caribbean as the "American Mediterranean" symbolised the United States' desire to exercise unchallenged dominance over the region. It embodied the aspiration for unchallenged control and influence, similar to the way in which the European powers exerted their influence over the Mediterranean Sea. The post-First World War period saw the United States adopt a more assertive stance in Latin America and the Caribbean. Motivated by a combination of economic, political and strategic interests, this approach marked an era of interventionism that continues to influence US relations with the region.

This interventionist approach by the United States in Latin American countries reflects an exercise of power and influence characterised by a mix of economic, political and military interests. A provisional government set up after a US intervention often had an undeclared mandate to prioritise and protect US interests. This often manifested itself in the adaptation of economic and political policies to favour American companies and investors. Reducing tariffs to make it easier to import American goods, opening up key economic sectors to American investment, and ensuring that debts owed to American financial institutions were honoured were typical measures. These actions were not only designed to strengthen economic ties, but also served to anchor US political influence in these countries. The US military presence played an essential role in this process. It ensured the stability needed to implement reforms favourable to the United States and acted as a deterrent against internal resistance. Demonstrations and resistance movements were often treated with significant force, underlining the determination of the United States to impose and maintain changes that supported its interests. The longevity of the military presence was often linked to the degree of success in establishing governments that were sympathetic to or aligned with US interests. This pattern of intervention, occupation and transformation was a recurring feature of US policy in Latin America during this period, underlining a period of US imperialism that shaped US-Latin American relations for years to come. This era of interventionism opens up a debate about the long-term consequences, not only in terms of inter-state relations but also about the legacy of these interventions on the political, economic and social development of the Latin American countries themselves. This raises persistent questions about sovereignty, self-determination and power dynamics in international relations.

The establishment of authoritarian provisional governments, often supported and imposed by US military forces, was a common feature of US interventionism in Latin America. With a mandate to impose specific reforms, these administrations were often out of step with the aspirations and needs of the local populations. Their authoritarian nature, and sometimes the coercive and unilateral nature of the reforms, provoked significant opposition. Popular protests were often met with harsh repression, exacerbating mistrust and resentment towards the occupying forces and the governments they supported. The prolonged and omnipresent US military presence was only withdrawn when stability, as defined by US criteria and interests, was restored. This imposition of order, sometimes to the detriment of popular will, left lasting scars in the region, with a legacy of mistrust and persistent tension. Another aspect of these occupations involved direct control of the financial systems of the targeted countries. Taking control of customs and appropriating tax revenues were common practices. These funds, diverted to American banks, were used to repay the debts that these nations had contracted, thereby consolidating the economic hold of the United States. This financial strategy, juxtaposed with military occupation, formed a powerful combination to establish American domination. These manoeuvres were not isolated, but were part of a wider scheme to project power and influence in the region. The implications of these interventions have proved enduring, shaping the dynamics of relations between the United States and Latin America. The tensions and challenges arising from this period of military and economic interventionism are reflected in the complexity of contemporary relations, marked by intertwined histories of cooperation, conflict and contestation.

The control of customs and import-export taxes by US officials was an effective strategy for ensuring the repayment of loans and strengthening US economic influence over occupied countries. It created a direct mechanism by which the financial resources of the target countries were channelled to serve American economic interests, thus ensuring that American banks and investors would not suffer losses. Beyond financial control, the effort to shape the political and security systems of the occupied countries was evident. The US Marines not only maintained order during the occupation; they also played a crucial role in preparing for the post-occupation phase. The training of local law enforcement agencies was strategically designed to ensure that US interests continued long after the occupation troops had withdrawn. This process often included forced constitutional reforms and orchestrated elections to ensure that power remained in the hands of those aligned with US interests. These actions, far from being democratic, were calculated to create a political and security environment favourable to the United States. This dynamic also extended to the protection of US commercial interests. Trained security forces were often deployed to secure key installations, such as large plantations and mines, ensuring that US assets and investments were safe from disruption. Military occupation was complemented by profound economic and political interference, which together shaped not only the political landscape of the occupied nations but also the fabric of their societies and economies. The legacy of these interventions was a mixture of resistance, resentment and political and economic structures deeply influenced by American intervention and influence.

The US occupations in Latin America, although presented as efforts to establish democracy and stability, were primarily focused on controlling resources and guaranteeing the repayment of debts to US banks. The narrative of spreading democracy and stability often served as a façade for the underlying motivations, which were primarily economic and political. The approach adopted during these occupations, characterised by the establishment of provisional governments and the suppression of civil liberties, highlights the divergence between rhetoric and practice. The actions on the ground demonstrated less a commitment to democratic principles than a desire to exert control and assert American dominance. In reality, these interventions were a manifestation of pragmatic interests. The countries targeted were often left in a state of dependence, their economies and political systems structured to serve American interests. Democracy, although invoked in the rhetoric, was often subordinated to economic and strategic interests. These dynamics gave rise to tensions and resistance. The contrast between proclaimed ideals and actual practice fuelled a sense of betrayal and mistrust, not only at state level, but also among the populations affected. These occupations have left a complex legacy that continues to influence relations between the United States and the nations of Latin America, a mixture of mistrust and economic and political dependence.

The history of US interventions in Latin America is marked by substantial economic and strategic motivations, often masked by a rhetorical veneer of promoting democracy and stability. US actions were an embodiment of realpolitik, where pragmatism and national interests prevailed over ideals and principles. At the heart of these interventions was a desire to safeguard and promote specific interests. The natural resources, commercial potential and geopolitics of Latin America were of prime importance to the United States. From this perspective, military and political interventions were not so much an altruistic expression of the desire to extend democracy, but rather a precise calculation to strengthen the national and economic security of the United States. Control over customs and import/export taxes was a key strategy, not only to ensure that debts were repaid, but also to exert substantial influence and control over the economies of the nations concerned. Unlike traditional European colonial empires, the United States rarely took direct, total control of the nations it intervened in; instead, it opted for an approach that allowed for indirect, but no less effective, control. In this context, the American army and civil servants were instruments of influence and control. They not only facilitated political and economic change, but also played a decisive role in managing and manipulating the political and economic systems of Latin American countries. The record of these interventions is mixed and contested. On the one hand, they have often succeeded in establishing regimes favourable to the United States and securing crucial economic interests. On the other hand, they have engendered feelings of mistrust, exploitation and interference that persist in relations between the United States and the nations of Latin America. It is a legacy that reminds us that the pursuit of national interests, while often necessary, is rarely without consequence, and that the methods and motives for such pursuit are often as important as the results they produce.

= The Good Neighbour Policy: Roosevelt's foreign policy shift towards Latin America =

The Good Neighbour Policy, introduced by Franklin D. Roosevelt, represents a crucial stage in the evolution of relations between the United States and Latin America. After decades of military and political interventionism, characterised by the often unilateral imposition of American will on Latin American nations, this policy offered a welcome and necessary break. Roosevelt's commitment to renounce military force as a tool of diplomacy in the region was not simply a reaction to the growing unpopularity of previous interventions in the US and Latin America, but also a recognition of the changing realities of global and regional power. In a world beset by economic depression and political instability, and in anticipation of the global tensions that would culminate in the Second World War, the United States needed to consolidate friendly and cooperative relations in its own hemisphere. The Good Neighbour Policy focused on economic and cultural cooperation. It aimed to move beyond the legacy of military intervention and establish more balanced and respectful relations. This implied recognition of national sovereignty and a willingness to work together on an equal footing. Trade and cultural exchanges would become instruments of rapprochement, replacing guns and military occupations. This policy was not without its own complications and challenges. It had to navigate a complex landscape of historical memories, tangled economic interests and shifting political dynamics. However, it marked a significant shift in the way the United States viewed and managed its relations in Latin America. It ushered in an era of more respectful and collaborative diplomacy, even as challenges and tensions persisted. The Good Neighbour Policy demonstrated a recognition that, in an increasingly interconnected world, mutual respect and cooperation were not only noble ideals but practical necessities. It embodied an aspiration to transform hegemony into partnership, intervention into collaboration and dominance into mutual respect. This policy has left a legacy that continues to resonate in inter-American relations, even if it has also exposed the enduring challenges of reconciling divergent national interests in a complex and often conflicting world.

The Great Depression brought chaos to the global economy, and Latin America was no exception. The countries of the region were heavily dependent on exports of raw materials such as sugar, coffee and minerals. International markets for these products collapsed in the wake of the Depression, and Latin America's export revenues fell dramatically. The direct economic impact was rapid and devastating. Reduced exports and falling commodity prices led to a collapse in national incomes. Unemployment rose, purchasing power plummeted, and industry, mainly export-oriented, was hit hard. Governments have struggled to respond to the crisis as tax revenues have fallen and foreign debt has accumulated. Added to this are the problems caused by the protectionist policies of industrialised nations. Tariff barriers erected by developed countries, particularly the United States, have further reduced export markets for Latin American products. These countries, already hit by drastic falls in demand and prices, have found little respite or support internationally. Against this backdrop of economic crisis, existing social and economic inequalities in many Latin American countries were exacerbated. People suffered, and mistrust of economic and political institutions grew. This situation paved the way for significant political change. In many cases, the governments in power, often perceived as inept or corrupt, were unable to manage the crisis effectively. The population, faced with rising levels of poverty and unemployment, often responded with protests and social movements demanding change. Populist and authoritarian leaders saw this as an opportunity to rise, presenting themselves as alternatives to discredited political elites and promising to turn around the economy and restore national dignity. The Great Depression thus had a catalytic effect on political instability in Latin America. The direct economic repercussions, combined with the resulting political and social challenges, altered the region's political landscape for decades to come. They have provoked a profound re-evaluation of economic models and international relations, influencing the emergence of nationalist, populist and revolutionary movements across the continent.

The Good Neighbour Policy marked a significant change in relations between the United States and Latin America. It was an implicit recognition of the mistakes of the past and an attempt to build a more respectful and balanced relationship. Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration were determined to distance themselves from the previous interventionist policies that had caused so much resentment in the region. This new diplomatic approach was characterised by respect for the sovereignty and autonomy of Latin American nations. The United States began to treat its neighbours to the south with greater equality and respect, abandoning the practice of military intervention to settle disputes or protect its economic interests in the region. A key aspect of the Good Neighbour policy was the emphasis on economic cooperation. With the devastating impact of the Great Depression, it was all the more crucial to develop stable and mutually beneficial trade relations. The United States took steps to strengthen economic ties, promoting trade and investment and helping to stimulate economic growth throughout the region. Cultural policy was also central to this approach. Cultural exchanges were encouraged to strengthen ties and foster greater understanding between the peoples of the Americas. This helped to reduce stereotypes and misunderstandings and build a foundation of respect and friendship. The Good Neighbour Policy was not without its critics and challenges, but it represented a positive step towards repairing the damaged relationship between the United States and Latin America. By abandoning the big stick doctrine and promoting mutual cooperation and respect, the United States paved the way for a more collaborative and less confrontational era in inter-American relations.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared in his first inaugural address that "the definite policy of the United States is now opposed to armed intervention". He believed that the previous policy of intervention and domination in the affairs of other nations had created disorder and resentment towards the United States. Instead, he proposed the Good Neighbour Policy as a new approach to relations with Latin America, which emphasised economic and cultural cooperation and renounced the use of military force to interfere in the affairs of other nations. This marked a significant change in US foreign policy and helped to improve relations with Latin America and reduce tensions between the two regions. Roosevelt's declaration was a pivotal moment in the history of relations between the United States and Latin America. After decades of military intervention and "big stick" policies, the official recognition of the need for a new approach was a major breakthrough. The Good Neighbour Policy was not just a diplomatic strategy but represented a profound change in the attitude and perception of the United States towards its southern neighbours. Roosevelt recognised that mutual trust and respect had to be the foundation of any lasting international relationship. He was aware of the damage caused by previous policies and knew that the path to reparation and reconciliation required a radical reassessment of the way in which the United States interacted with Latin America. The Good Neighbour Policy moved away from military coercion and economic domination. It aimed to establish partnerships based on equality and respect, where nations could work together for mutual benefit. It promoted the idea that the development and prosperity of each country contributed to the stability and prosperity of the region as a whole. The reaction in Latin America was largely positive. After years of mistrust and resentment, Roosevelt's commitment to respect the sovereignty and integrity of Latin American nations was a long-awaited sign of respect. Although challenges and tensions remained, the Good Neighbour Policy laid the foundations for an era of enhanced cooperation, where conflicts could be resolved through diplomacy and negotiation rather than military force.

The Great Depression had a global impact, shaking up economies and societies around the world, and the United States was no exception. The country was plunged into a deep economic crisis, and the government's attention was primarily focused on stabilising the national economy and providing aid to the millions of Americans affected. In this context, foreign policy naturally took a back seat, and international ambitions were curtailed. The distressed US economy did not permit an aggressive or ambitious foreign policy. In this context, Roosevelt's policy of good neighbourliness was a natural and necessary adjustment. It was not only a response to the problems of Latin America, but also an adaptation to the domestic economic constraints of the United States. With limited resources and pressing domestic concerns, the days of costly military interventions and occupations in Latin America were over. The need to focus on domestic economic reconstruction opened the door to a more respectful and less interventionist approach in Latin America. Respecting the sovereignty of Latin American nations and refusing to intervene militarily was not only a recognition of the rights and dignity of these countries, but also a reflection of the United States' reduced capacity to project its power abroad. This is not to say that the Good Neighbour policy was simply a policy of convenience; it was also rooted in a more mature understanding of international relations and the sovereign rights of nations. This period of relative withdrawal allowed a refocusing on domestic affairs, an imperative if the US economy was to be stabilised and rebuilt. It also provided a space for the nations of Latin America to explore their own path of political and economic development, free from the omnipresent shadow of US intervention. This change of direction did not mean abandoning Latin America but represented a new form of engagement, less imposing and more respectful.

The Good Neighbour Policy was by no means a renunciation of the projection of American influence in the Latin American region. Rather, it was a strategic adaptation, a recalibration of the way in which the United States envisaged and managed its relations with its southern neighbours. The days of direct military interventionism were over, not because the US had abandoned its interests in the region, but because it had recognised that such tactics could be counterproductive, fuelling resentment and instability rather than security and prosperity. The US was still determined to protect its economic and strategic interests in Latin America, but it began to do so in more subtle and engaging ways. The promotion of economic exchanges, cultural initiatives and diplomacy became the preferred tools of American engagement. This approach had the advantage of being less costly in terms of resources and more politically acceptable, both in the eyes of American citizens and those of Latin American nations. Strengthening economic relations was at the heart of this new approach. The US sought to forge close economic ties with Latin American nations, promoting trade and investment to stimulate economic growth. This was seen as a way of promoting stability in the region and reducing the likelihood of conflict and instability.

The 'big stick' policy came at a high cost, both financially and in terms of the United States' international reputation. The nations of Latin America had developed a deep resentment of US interference, perceived as an imperialist act and a flagrant violation of their sovereignty. Widespread antipathy towards the United States undermined their influence and soft power in the region, making their political and economic objectives more difficult to achieve. Franklin D. Roosevelt's Good Neighbour Policy was a strategic response to these challenges. It aimed to reset US-Latin American relations by recognising and respecting the sovereignty of nations, renouncing military force as the principal means of interference and emphasising cooperation and friendship. Mutual respect and dialogue were to replace coercion and intimidation. The aim was to encourage more harmonious relations and regional stability, and to foster an environment where American interests could prosper without recourse to military force. The shift to the Good Neighbour Policy also signalled a maturing of American foreign policy. It reflected a realisation that stability and prosperity in the Western Hemisphere depended on a more collaborative and respectful approach. It represented a transition to an era in which the United States sought to exert its influence not simply through the hard power of military force, but also through the soft power of cooperation, trade and cultural engagement. In a world still recovering from the ravages of the First World War and facing the economic challenges of the Great Depression, the more nuanced and collaborative approach of the Good Neighbour Policy was an attempt to forge a new path for international relations, one based on mutual cooperation and respect. It also symbolised the United States' adaptation to a more globalised role, with greater recognition of the importance of balanced and respectful inter-state relations in achieving national goals.

Roosevelt's approach represented a long-term strategic vision of how the US could best serve its national interests in Latin America. In the post-First World War context, with European nations struggling with reconstruction and debt, the United States was the principal economic and military power in the Americas. Roosevelt understood that such a position offered a unique opportunity to redefine US-Latin American relations in a way that could be of long-term benefit to all concerned. The Good Neighbour Policy was a deliberate effort to replace coercion with cooperation. Roosevelt believed that strengthening economic and cultural ties, rather than military domination, would create a lasting relationship based on mutual respect and trust. Such a relationship could also serve as a counterweight to the radical or authoritarian ideologies that might emerge in a time of economic crisis. Roosevelt also recognised that the dynamic had changed. With the decline of European influence in Latin America, the United States no longer needed to respond to the threat of European intervention with military interventions of its own. The US could now rely on its economic influence to encourage cooperation and partnership, rather than brute force. This policy of good neighbourliness also reflected Roosevelt's progressive thinking, which sought solutions to social and economic problems through dialogue and cooperation rather than confrontation. It was an optimistic vision of how American leadership could be used positively to shape a better world. Ultimately, Roosevelt's Good Neighbour Policy marked an essential transition in US-Latin American relations, replacing confrontation with cooperation and laying the foundations for a more peaceful and productive period in inter-American relations. It showed that, even for a superpower, diplomacy, mutual understanding and cooperation can often be more powerful tools than a simple show of force.

This stated commitment to non-intervention was a crucial element in building trust with Latin American countries, but it was clear that the United States' flexible interpretation of these principles could potentially undermine its credibility. The distinction that the US made between direct political intervention and the protection of its economic interests was a nuance that was not always well received by Latin American nations. The non-intervention agreements signed were a positive step, demonstrating at least a formal recognition of the sovereignty of Latin American nations. However, the delicate balance between respecting these agreements and protecting US interests has led to actions which, although perhaps less militarily intrusive than in the past, have continued to exert a substantial influence on the politics and economies of Latin American nations. One of the key issues that remains is how the US can reconcile its desire to protect and promote its economic interests abroad with its commitment to respecting the sovereignty and self-determination of nations. The Good Neighbour Policy has been a positive step in recognising and addressing these tensions, but the practical implementation of this policy has revealed the persistent challenges and complex nuances of navigating international relations in a world where issues of power, influence and sovereignty are inextricably linked. The United States, in seeking to maintain its influence in the region while respecting the sovereignty of Latin American nations, has thus navigated a complex terrain. Every action taken to protect US interests was likely to be scrutinised in the light of previous commitments to non-intervention. This underlines the inherent complexity of managing international relations and reconciling national imperatives with international commitments, a challenge that persists in global diplomacy to this day.

The use of economic influence in the Good Neighbour Policy reflected a transition from an approach dominated by military intervention to a strategy more focused on economic and commercial ties. The United States saw Latin America not only as a neighbour but also as an essential trading partner. The creation of the Export-Import Bank was a concrete example of this, illustrating an effort to establish mutually beneficial relations through economic means. Within this framework, the United States sought to balance its own economic interests with those of Latin American countries. It tried to boost its own exports while investing in the region's economic development. The aim of this duality was to increase shared prosperity and strengthen economic ties, in the hope that stronger economic relations would contribute to greater political stability and cooperation. However, the use of economic influence came with its own challenges and criticisms. While some saw these efforts as a constructive way of building more balanced and respectful relations, others criticised US economic influence as another form of imperialism, where power and control were exercised through economic rather than military means. The Good Neighbour Policy marked a period of experimentation and adaptation in American foreign policy. The United States sought to reconcile its desire for influence in the region with a recognised need to respect the sovereignty and autonomy of Latin American nations. The use of economic influence to strengthen ties was a key component of this approach, reflecting a recognition that power and influence could be exercised and maintained in more subtle and mutually beneficial ways than through direct military force.

The strengthening of economic ties between the US and Latin America under the Good Neighbour Policy has generated a dynamic in which US economic and political influence in the region has intensified. Bilateral trade treaties and most-favoured-nation status have facilitated a substantial increase in trade. This has not only opened up new markets for US companies but has also strengthened the economic dependence of Latin American countries on the US. Although this approach was designed to promote mutual and respectful cooperation, it also had the effect of consolidating the economic influence of the United States. The economic dependence of Latin American nations helped to create an imbalance of power that, in some ways, mirrored the dynamics of the era of military intervention, albeit manifested in different ways. US companies benefited from increased access to Latin American markets and resources, helping to stimulate the US economy during and after the Great Depression. Latin American countries have also benefited from investment, financial assistance and access to the US market. However, this strengthened economic relationship also raised questions about the economic sovereignty of Latin American nations and the extent to which they could shape their own economic and political development independently of US influence. So while the Good Neighbour Policy has succeeded in easing direct military and political tensions and establishing a more peaceful and respectful framework for cooperation, it has also introduced new complexities into the relationship. The emphasis on economic influence has led to a transformation of power dynamics, with both positive and negative implications for inter-American relations.

The promotion of culture and the arts was also a component of the Good Neighbour Policy. This cultural initiative under the Good Neighbour Policy ushered in a new era in inter-American relations, where cultural exchange was seen as an essential tool for strengthening ties between nations. Exchange programmes aimed to establish common ground and strengthen mutual appreciation between the American and Latin American peoples, creating a counterweight to historical conflicts and tensions. The focus on culture and the arts was of strategic importance. It was aimed not just at creating cultural harmony, but also at shaping a common regional identity, distinct from that of Europe. This distinction had geopolitical implications, positioning the Western Hemisphere as a unified entity with its own interests and identities. The exchange of artists and intellectuals led to the mutual enrichment of cultures and helped to reduce stereotypes and misunderstandings. Collaboration in the arts has provided opportunities for personal interaction and facilitated the creation of a shared narrative that transcends national boundaries. The promotion of Latin American culture in the United States has also had an impact on public perception. It has helped to deconstruct some of the existing prejudices and stereotypes and to promote a more nuanced and diverse image of Latin America. However, while these cultural initiatives were well-intentioned and generated considerable benefits, they were also intrinsically linked to power dynamics and strategic interests. The celebration of cultural diversity and exchange was also a means of asserting American influence, not through military force, but through soft power.

The implementation of the Good Neighbour Policy marked a distinct turning point in the American diplomatic approach, where the emphasis on cultural partnership and soft diplomacy emerged as a means of solidifying inter-American relations. Under Roosevelt's leadership, the United States worked to reinvent itself not as an imperialist power, but as a partner and ally. The aim was twofold: to assert the United States' position as a leader in the Western hemisphere and to counter the rise of totalitarian ideologies in Europe by presenting the Americas as a model of democracy and cooperation. The State Department's Cultural Division played a central role in reconfiguring the image of the United States. Through cultural exchanges and public diplomacy initiatives, it sought to showcase a friendlier, more collaborative side of the United States. It was an attempt at soft power, aimed at winning hearts and minds to solidify alliances and promote the idea of a united inter-American community. The artists and intellectuals sent to Latin America were ambassadors for this new vision. They helped to create a space for dialogue, enabling an exchange of ideas and values. Art and culture became vectors of communication, facilitating a deeper and more nuanced understanding between diverse nations. However, it should be noted that this initiative was not devoid of strategic calculations. It was intrinsically linked to the United States' ambition to position itself as the undisputed leader of the New World, a unifying force in an era marked by fragmentation and conflict. Beyond the positive image that the US government sought to project, there was an underlying desire to forge a unified bloc of the Americas, a solid coalition capable of resisting external threats and projecting an alternative vision of the world, one rooted in democratic values and principles of freedom. In this context, culture was not just a tool for bringing people together; it was also an instrument of power, a means of defining and shaping the collective identity of the Western hemisphere in a world beset by uncertainty and change.[[File:Vargas e Roosevelt.jpg|200px|thumb|Brazilian President Getúlio Vargas (left) and US President Franklin D. Roosevelt (right) in 1936.]]
 
It is essential to understand the importance of the historical and political context in which the Cultural Division operated. At the time, the international image of the United States was central to the country's diplomatic strategy. The aim was not simply to control the narrative, but to build bridges, reduce historical resentment and forge new alliances in an era of growing global instability. Film and media were powerful tools for shaping public perception. They didn't just convey stories; they transmitted ideas, values and norms. In the context of the Good Neighbour Policy, it was crucial to focus on stories that promoted inter-American unity, cooperation and friendship. So while there was no direct censorship or explicit ban, there was a concerted effort to guide media production in a direction that was in harmony with broader diplomatic objectives. Radio broadcasting and magazine publishing were extensions of this strategy. They were vehicles for reaching wider audiences, for sharing stories that reinforced the image of a harmonious and united 'New World'. Every story told, every image shared, every message conveyed was part of a wider effort to reimagine and rebuild America's relationship with its southern neighbours. However, this process was not without its tensions. The balance between promoting an international image and respecting freedom of expression and artistic creativity was delicate. Artists and creators sometimes found themselves caught between the desire to explore critical issues and the pressure to align their work with diplomatic imperatives. In this complex landscape, the role of the Cultural Division was multidimensional. It was both a facilitator of cultural diplomacy and a guardian of the United States' international image. The nuances and challenges inherent in this role illustrate the complexity of navigating between diplomatic objectives, cultural imperatives and democratic principles.The Good Neighbour Policy was complex and sometimes contradictory in its application. Despite idealistic aspirations to improve relations between the United States and Latin America, political, strategic and economic realities often shaped specific US actions in the region. The Montevideo Convention marked an important step towards respecting state sovereignty and establishing more equal relations between nations. However, the geopolitical context, particularly the rise of radical ideologies and communism, often led the United States to make pragmatic rather than idealistic choices. National security and regional stability were major concerns, and these factors influenced the way in which the Good Neighbour Policy was implemented in practice. Support for authoritarian dictators in Latin America was a notable example of the tension between ideals and actions. Although the Good Neighbour Policy advocated non-intervention and respect for sovereignty, the US sometimes chose to support regimes that were seen to be in alignment with its strategic and security interests. This reflected the complex reality of navigating between idealistic principles and pragmatic imperatives. The legacy of the Good Neighbour Policy is therefore nuanced. It represented an attempt to rebalance and improve relations with Latin America, but it was also marked by inherent contradictions and implementation challenges. The impact of this policy is reflected in the complex and often ambivalent dynamics that continue to characterise relations between the United States and Latin America. The constant challenge for the United States has been to strike a balance between promoting democracy and human rights, protecting its national interests and responding to changing geopolitical realities. This challenge persists and remains central to efforts to shape an effective and ethical foreign policy in the region.

The Good Neighbour Policy, although designed to encourage mutual cooperation and respect between the United States and its Latin American neighbours, has been complicated by geopolitical realities and US national interests. The management of the authoritarian regimes of the time, notably Duvalier in Haiti, Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Somoza in Nicaragua and Batista in Cuba, is a case in point. François Duvalier, also known as 'Papa Doc', ruled Haiti with an iron fist, creating a climate of fear with the help of his secret police, the Tontons Macoutes. The United States, although aware of his atrocities, often saw leaders like Duvalier as defences against communism and instability. Similarly, Rafael Trujillo, who exercised absolute power in the Dominican Republic, was supported by the United States because of his anti-communist and pro-American stance, despite a regime marked by repression and human rights violations. In Nicaragua, the Somoza dynasty was also controversial. The Somoza family, known for its repressive and corrupt regime, was supported by the United States for its strategic and anti-communist stance. In Cuba, Fulgencio Batista ruled during a period when US interests were deeply entrenched in the Cuban economy. Despite his authoritarian tendencies, the United States supported him until his overthrow by Fidel Castro in 1959. These examples from the history of US-Latin American relations demonstrate the complexity and contradictions inherent in US foreign policy. They highlight the constant challenge of balancing national interests with the defence of democratic values and human rights. These historical cases underline the importance of considering the long-term implications of supporting authoritarian regimes and remind us of the need for a foreign policy that values human rights and democracy. The lessons learned from these past interactions highlight the need for a nuanced and multi-dimensional approach to managing international relations, where economic and strategic interests are balanced with respect for democratic principles and human rights.

The contrast between rhetoric and practical reality has often been marked. The Good Neighbour Policy was based on principles of non-interference and mutual respect, but the practical actions of the United States have sometimes deviated from these principles to defend its strategic and geopolitical interests. The Cold War exacerbated this dilemma, where the prism of anti-communism became predominant in the formulation of US foreign policy. This led the US to support authoritarian regimes which, although repressive and often corrupt, were seen as crucial counterweights to Soviet influence in the region. In this context, stability and anti-communism often took precedence over democracy and human rights. This paradox reflects a fundamental tension in American foreign policy that persists to this day - a delicate balance between democratic ideals and national interests, between the defence of human rights and realpolitik. The implications of this tension manifest themselves not only in relations between the United States and Latin America, but also in the wider international context, raising persistent questions about the role of the United States on the world stage, the limits of its power and the application of its democratic principles abroad.<gallery mode="packed" widths="200" heights="200">
Fichier:Duvalier (cropped).jpg|François Duvalier.
Fichier:Perón y Somoza.JPG|Somoza (left), with Argentinean President Juan Perón.
Fichier:Rafael Molina Trujillo.jpg|Rafael Molina Trujillo.
Fichier:BatistaHeadCropped1938.jpg|Fulgencio Batista in Washington, D.C. in 1938.
</gallery>
 
Roosevelt is said to have said of Somoza "he is a son of a bitch but at least he is our son of a bitch". This statement, attributed to Roosevelt, underlines the pragmatic approach of the Good Neighbour Policy towards authoritarian leaders in Latin America. Although recognising their corrupt and oppressive nature, these leaders were always seen as useful allies in promoting American interests in the region. This quote illustrates the US willingness to ignore human rights abuses and support autocratic leaders who were prepared to align themselves with US policies and protect US economic interests. This approach contrasted with the more traditional approach of military intervention and regime change. This quote attributed to Roosevelt, whether he actually said the words or not, encapsulates a troubling but persistent reality of American foreign policy, and more broadly of international diplomacy. It reveals a pragmatism that can, in certain contexts, take precedence over ethical and moral principles. In the case of Somoza and other similar leaders in Latin America, their usefulness to American interests led to an uncomfortable compromise. They were bulwarks against political forces that the US saw as threats, either because of their presumed communist leanings or because of their opposition to US hegemony in the region. Their willingness to cooperate with the US on key issues often led to silence or tacit support from Washington, despite their disturbing domestic records. It also highlights the limits and contradictions inherent not only in good neighbourliness, but also in foreign policies based on political realism. This is a trend in which stability, national interests and security take priority, even at the expense of human rights and democratic principles. Thus, although good-neighbour policy sought to distance itself from the direct and coercive interventions of the past, it was nevertheless entangled in a web of compromises and pragmatic calculations. These reflect the complexity and often moral ambiguity of navigating the stormy waters of international diplomacy and competing national interests.

Personal enrichment and the consolidation of power were notable features of authoritarian regimes in Latin America. For dictators such as Duvalier, Trujillo, Somoza and Batista, power and wealth went hand in hand. National resources, whether financial, natural or human, were often exploited for the personal benefit of these leaders and their relatives, leading to flagrant economic and social inequalities. In the context of American foreign policy, these dictators were often perceived as instruments of stability, despite their oppressive nature. They ensured a favourable environment for American economic interests, guaranteeing the protection of US investments and companies. Stability, while coercive and authoritarian, was seen as a bulwark against political uncertainty, radical nationalism or the rise of communism - elements perceived as threats to US interests. Repression of the working classes and opposition was a mechanism by which these rulers maintained their grip on power. Dissent was often met with brutal force, and censorship and human rights abuses were commonplace. This created a climate of fear that hindered movements for social justice and civil rights. For the United States, these brutal realities were often balanced against its geopolitical and economic interests. Political realism, stability and the protection of economic interests often took precedence over the principles of democracy and human rights. These complexities and contradictions have continued to shape interactions between the United States and Latin America, leaving a mixed legacy that continues to influence inter-American relations today.

= Latin American responses to the Big Stick and Good Neighbor policies =

The reaction of Latin American countries to US policies was complex and varied. Some nations, such as Mexico and Cuba, were particularly vocal in their opposition to US attempts at intervention and influence. Mexico, having gone through its own revolution in 1910, had a strong inclination towards autonomy and resistance to foreign influence. Cuba, too, had a history peppered with struggles for independence and sovereignty. In contrast, countries like Panama and Honduras were more complacent and cooperative with the United States. The significant role played by the United States in Panama's economy and politics, not least because of the canal, is an example of this dynamic. Honduras, too, has often aligned itself with US economic and political interests. Despite the diversity of responses, a re-examination of relations with the United States was a common theme throughout Latin America. These nations sought to assert their autonomy, assess their geopolitical and economic position, and define their international relations in ways that served their own national interests. Diplomacy was essential to navigate these diverse responses. Although the United States has been criticised for its perceived neo-colonialism and interference, it has also been an important trading and political partner for Latin American countries. The complexity of these relationships has required delicate negotiations, political adaptations and sensitivity to regional dynamics. Over time, these relations have continued to evolve. As Latin American countries gained in political and economic confidence, they began to assert themselves more on the international stage, leading to a more balanced dynamic. However, the legacy of past policies continues to influence perceptions and interactions in the region.

In the 1930s, under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the United States inaugurated its "good neighbour policy" with Latin America, signifying a significant change in its relations with the region. This policy was a significant departure from the previously prevailing "big stick" doctrine, characterised by military intervention and support for authoritarian regimes. The Good Neighbour Policy aimed to establish more friendly and cooperative relations, emphasising respect for the sovereignty and independence of Latin American nations.

The Good Neighbour Policy is often seen as a response to growing anti-American sentiment in Latin America, exacerbated by previous US interventions in the region. However, this policy has not put an end to US interference. Despite its declared commitment to respect for sovereignty and non-intervention, the United States has continued to intervene in the internal affairs of countries like Guatemala to protect its economic and strategic interests. The episode of the coup d'état orchestrated by the CIA in 1954 to overthrow President Jacobo Árbenz, a democratically elected leader who had initiated agrarian reforms affecting the interests of the United Fruit Company, is an eloquent example.

Although the Good Neighbour Policy led to an improvement in relations between the United States and some Latin American countries, it had mixed results. In Cuba, for example, continued US support for dictator Fulgencio Batista, despite his oppressive and corrupt regime, exacerbated popular discontent. This paved the way for the communist revolution of 1959, led by Fidel Castro. Castro's seizure of power not only marked the beginning of a prolonged period of hostile relations between the United States and Cuba, but also highlighted the contradictions and limits of the policy of good neighbourliness, particularly when the economic and geopolitical interests of the United States came into conflict with the principles of non-intervention and respect for national sovereignty.

The expropriation of the Mexican oil industry in 1938 by President Lázaro Cárdenas is a significant event in the history of relations between the United States and Mexico, as well as in Mexico's internal economic and political history. This bold act of nationalisation marked a decisive turning point in the assertion of Mexico's national sovereignty. Foreign oil companies, particularly those from the United States and the United Kingdom, were hard hit by this measure, as they had substantial investments in the sector. In response, the United States considered various measures to protect its economic interests, including military intervention. However, given the policy of good neighbourliness that was in force at the time, such intervention would have run counter to the principles of respect for sovereignty and non-intervention that the United States claimed to uphold. The United States therefore opted for non-military means to resolve the crisis, in particular diplomatic and economic pressure. It sought to isolate Mexico economically by imposing boycotts and restrictions on Mexican oil imports. However, Mexico has managed to overcome this situation by diversifying its export markets and strengthening its economic ties with other nations. The oil expropriation of 1938 remains a key example of how a Latin American country successfully defied foreign economic powers and asserted its national sovereignty. For Mexico, it was also a defining moment in the development of its national identity and its quest for economic and political self-determination.

President Lázaro Cárdenas' decision to expropriate foreign oil companies and nationalise the Mexican oil industry was not taken lightly. It was preceded by years of tension between the Mexican government and foreign companies. The dispute centred on working conditions, wages and the rights of Mexican workers. The companies refused to accept labour legislation and presidential decrees that sought to improve workers' conditions. The failure of negotiations and the oil workers' strike finally led to nationalisation. This bold move was received with enormous enthusiasm by the Mexican people. It was a demonstration of sovereignty and independence that strengthened nationalist sentiment throughout the country. Mexicans from all walks of life rallied to support the decision, even contributing from their own pockets to help compensate the foreign oil companies. Internationally, the nationalisation provoked mixed reactions. While the oil companies and their respective governments expressed dissatisfaction and sought redress and reversibility of the nationalisation, other nations and national liberation movements saw it as an inspiring act of defiance against foreign economic hegemony. Despite initial economic and diplomatic challenges, including the boycott of oil companies, Mexico managed to navigate these troubled waters. It has diversified its oil exports, developed its national oil industry and, over time, strengthened its economy and sovereignty. The nationalisation of the oil industry has become a symbolic and fundamental part of Mexico's national identity, and continues to be celebrated as a defining moment in the country's assertion of economic and political independence.

The reaction of the United States to the nationalisation of the Mexican oil industry illustrated the complex and often contradictory dynamics of relations between the two nations. While Mexico sought to assert its sovereignty and control over its natural resources, the US was determined to protect its corporate interests and maintain its economic influence in the region. The tension resulting from nationalisation highlighted the fine line that the US had to walk in terms of foreign policy in the region. On the one hand, there was the need to respect the national sovereignty of Latin American countries, a key principle of the good neighbour policy promoted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. On the other hand, there was constant pressure to protect and promote American economic interests. The diplomatic approach adopted by the United States, although marked by economic sanctions and trade restrictions, indicated a move away from the direct military interventions of previous decades. This can be interpreted as a tacit recognition of changing international norms and expectations of respect for national sovereignty, albeit reluctantly. The negotiated settlement in 1941 demonstrated the ability of both nations to resolve their differences through diplomacy and dialogue, although underlying tensions persisted. For Mexico, nationalisation remained a powerful symbol of the assertion of its sovereignty; for the United States, a reminder of the limits of its influence and the growing need to balance economic interests with respect for the national autonomy of neighbouring countries. This change in dynamic foreshadowed the challenges and complexities of US-Latin American relations in the decades to come.

The US occupation of Haiti is a key example of how US military and foreign policy intervention was met by significant local resistance. The US, justifying its presence as necessary to restore order and stability, faced significant challenges from the Cacos and their charismatic leader, Charlemagne Peralte. The American occupation of Haiti was partly motivated by strategic and economic interest, aimed at securing control of shipping routes and protecting American investment. However, the occupation was also characterised by an authoritarian and often brutal imposition of control, including the reinstallation of forced labour and censorship of the local media. The Cacos resistance was not only a rebellion against the foreign military presence, but also an assertion of Haitian dignity, autonomy and sovereignty. The death of Charlemagne Peralte became a symbol of the struggle for independence and freedom, galvanising a resistance movement that persisted long after his death. The subsequent withdrawal of American troops in 1934 did not mean the end of the challenges for Haiti. The country was left with an army trained to American standards and a new constitution written under American supervision. These elements laid the foundations for the decades of instability and political unrest that followed.

The US intervention in Nicaragua and its support for the Somoza regime are examples that highlight the complexity and contradictions of US foreign policies in Latin America. While claiming to promote stability and democracy, US actions have often supported authoritarian regimes and reinforced stability at the expense of human rights and democracy. Augusto Sandino became an emblematic figure of resistance to foreign occupation and dictatorial oppression. His guerrilla movement was an effort to assert Nicaraguan sovereignty and resist Somoza's rule, which was seen to be facilitated and supported by US intervention. Sandino's murder, orchestrated by Somoza's National Guard, shows the extent of the power and influence that the US had in training and supporting the local armed forces. It also illustrates the dangerous consequences of US involvement in the selection and support of local leaders and security forces. Sandino's death did not put an end to the resistance movement; on the contrary, it sowed the seeds for the Sandinista revolution of the 1970s which overthrew the Somoza dictatorship. This demonstrates the cyclical nature of intervention and resistance, where each action generates a reaction, often with unforeseen and lasting consequences. Overall, the Nicaraguan experience reveals the limits and consequences of foreign intervention. It underlines the importance of an approach that respects national sovereignty and human rights, while taking into account the specific historical and contextual realities of each country. It is a story that invites deep reflection on the human and political costs of intervention, and on the need for policies that are genuinely aligned with the principles of justice, democracy and respect for human rights.

This resistance points to an inherent tension between American influence and the aspirations of the peoples of Latin America for self-determination. The United States, in pursuing its geopolitical and economic interests, has often been in conflict with local movements seeking to free themselves from outside influence and shape their own political and social future. The resistance movements, although varied in their methods and objectives, shared a common opposition to foreign intervention and influence. They reflected a profound desire for autonomy, an aspiration for political systems that reflected the specific values and needs of their respective countries. These movements were also fuelled by deep-rooted grievances, born of decades, if not centuries, of exploitation and oppression. The violent repression of these movements often exacerbated tensions. It has not only engendered deep resentment, but has also strengthened the resolve of resistance movements. Heroes and martyrs such as Sandino and Peralte have continued to inspire future generations, their struggle becoming emblematic of wider efforts for justice, dignity and self-determination. In this context, it is important to recognise the lasting impact of these interventions and conflicts. They have not only shaped the political and social trajectory of many Latin American countries, but have also influenced perceptions of US intervention in the region. The lessons learned from these experiences highlight the complexity of international interactions and the need for approaches that respect the sovereignty, human rights and democratic aspirations of the peoples of all countries. It also reveals the crucial importance of understanding the specific historical, cultural and political context in which these interactions take place in order to forge fairer, more balanced and sustainable international relations.

= The impact of big stick and good neighbour policies on Latin American immigration to the United States =

Mass emigration from Latin America to the United States is a complex phenomenon, shaped by a multitude of economic, social and political factors. Exacerbated economic inequalities, violence, political instability and internal conflicts, which are in part the product of US interventions and policies in the region, have created difficult conditions for many Latin Americans. The economic gap between the US and many Latin American countries, exacerbated by policies that have often favoured US corporate interests at the expense of local economic development, has led many to seek more promising economic opportunities in the north. In addition, authoritarian regimes, often supported by the US for their anti-communist allegiances during the Cold War, have suppressed civil and political liberties, driving many to flee political persecution and violence. In addition, economic dependence and exacerbated inequality have led to high levels of violence and crime, reinforcing the need for security and stability that many had hoped to find in the United States. Drug cartels and gangs, partly the result of the demands of the US market for illegal drugs, have exacerbated this violence. Migration from Latin America has been and continues to be influenced by these complex and interdependent factors. The deep economic, social and political interconnectedness between the United States and Latin America means that the challenges faced in the region have a direct impact on the United States, particularly in terms of migratory movements. Given this dynamic, there is a growing imperative for policies that address the root causes of migration, including economic and political instability and violence. This requires careful reflection on past and present policies and a commitment to approaches that promote economic development, social justice, democracy and human rights across the Western Hemisphere.

The increase in Central American immigrants to the United States can be attributed to a complex combination of economic, political and social factors in their countries of origin. The economic factor is central: Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala are among the poorest countries in the Americas. Poverty, unemployment and underemployment drive many individuals and families to seek better economic opportunities abroad. Exacerbated economic inequalities, lack of access to quality education and health services, and inadequate infrastructure complicate daily life and limit future prospects. The political factor is also crucial. These countries have a history of unstable governance, widespread corruption and weak political institutions. The inability of governments to provide basic services, protect human rights and create a stable and secure political environment contributes to disillusionment and despair among the population. Secondly, the social factor, and in particular violence, is a key driver of migration. Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala are among the most violent countries in the world outside war zones. Powerful gangs and drug cartel violence, exacerbated by weak state institutions and corruption, create a dangerous environment. Many flee to protect their children from forced conscription into gangs or to escape violence and direct threats to their safety. Finally, environmental factors have also played a growing role in migration. Climate change and natural disasters, including hurricanes, floods and drought, have had a devastating impact on agriculture and livelihoods, exacerbating poverty and food insecurity. The United States is often seen as a refuge offering safety, opportunity and hope for a better life, which is why so many people undertake the perilous journey north. To mitigate this migratory flow, it would be necessary to tackle the root causes of migration, by strengthening economic, political and social stability, and improving security and human rights in these countries of origin.

Strict immigration policies and control measures on the US-Mexico border have given rise to much controversy and debate. Strategies such as the construction of a border wall have been criticised both for their effectiveness and for their humanitarian implications. The militarisation of the border and restrictive policies have made crossings more dangerous, leading to tragedies where migrants die trying to cross difficult and dangerous terrain. In addition, these policies have often led to the separation of families. Adults may be detained or deported, leaving their children, sometimes US citizens, behind. The conditions in detention centres where immigrants, including children, are held have also been strongly criticised. The implementation of restrictive policies has led to an increase in the number of undocumented people living in the United States, creating an underclass of people who are often exploited and live in constant fear of deportation. It has also contributed to the informal economy, as these individuals often work in conditions that do not meet labour or safety standards. Despite these restrictive measures, the attraction of economic opportunity, security and quality of life in the United States continues to drive immigration, both legal and illegal. To effectively address the issue of immigration, a more comprehensive approach is needed. This may include reforming immigration laws, improving legal channels for immigration, and working with Latin American countries to improve living conditions, reduce violence and create economic opportunities to reduce migration pressure.

The impact of Latin American immigration on the United States is profound and multifaceted. Demographically, the Hispanic population has become one of the country's largest ethnic minorities. This demographic growth has led to increased cultural diversity, enriching the American social and cultural fabric. Culturally, Latin American cuisine, music, art and other cultural expressions have become integral to American culture. Culinary specialities such as tacos, empanadas and arepas are enjoyed everywhere, and cultural events such as Cinco de Mayo and Dia de los Muertos have become popular celebrations. The influence of Latin American music is also omnipresent, with genres such as salsa, reggaeton and bachata enjoying massive popularity. Linguistically, Spanish has become the second most spoken language in the United States. In many regions, the ability to speak Spanish is a valuable asset, and Spanish is widely taught in schools. Politically, the Latin American population in the United States has become increasingly influential. Issues that directly concern this community, such as immigration, border policies and relations with Latin America, have become key issues in American politics. Politicians and political parties are paying particular attention to the concerns and voices of Latin American voters. When it comes to education and the economy, Latin American immigrants and their descendants make a significant contribution. Although they face challenges such as language barriers and limited access to quality education and economic opportunities, many have made enormous strides, contributing to the workforce and to innovation.

The Hispanic population in the US has grown significantly, from 4% in 1970 to 18% in 2020, and is projected to reach around 29% by 2050, according to the US Census Bureau. This represents rapid growth that is influencing various aspects of American society. In the field of education, the diversification of the student population is notable. Schools and universities are welcoming a growing number of Hispanic students, which increases the demand for quality education and cultural integration programmes. On the linguistic front, Spanish is becoming increasingly important as a second language in the United States. Millions of Americans are now bilingual, which is influencing communication, the media and the business world. Companies are adapting their marketing and customer service strategies to cater for a growing Spanish-speaking clientele. Politically, the Hispanic population is gaining in influence. Issues relating to immigration and bilateral policies with Latin American countries are increasingly dictated by the 62.1 million people of Hispanic origin in the United States, according to 2020 data. However, this rapid growth also presents challenges. Problems of integration, discrimination and inequality are exacerbated, requiring specific policies and investments to ensure fairness and equal opportunities for all.

The Hispanic population in the United States has grown not only in numbers, but also in influence, making a profound mark on national culture and politics. Cultural contributions are evident in the growing popularity of Hispanic music, the ubiquitous presence of Latin American cuisine, and the flourishing of arts and traditions that reflect the diversity and richness of Hispanic cultures. Spanish, in particular, has consolidated its place as an influential language in the United States, with an estimated 42 million native speakers and millions more speaking it as a second language, enriching the country's multilingual fabric and stimulating bilingualism. Politically, the Hispanic community is a key player. According to data from the US Census Bureau for 2020, the Hispanic population stood at 62.1 million, constituting a significant electoral bloc that cannot be ignored by politicians. Their concerns, values and aspirations are now determining factors in the political arena, influencing public policy, elections and national debates. This influence is reflected in the growing number of Hispanic politicians elected to key positions, from local to national level. Their voices and perspectives enrich the political discourse and contribute to a more inclusive and diverse representation. The Hispanic footprint in the United States is undeniable, with population growth and growing cultural and political influence shaping and redefining American identity, culture and politics in the 21st century.

= Annexes =
* Bailey, Thomas A. (1980), A Diplomatic History of the American People 10th ed., Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-214726-2
* Barck, Jr., Oscar Theodore (1974), Since 1900, MacMilliam Publishing Co., Inc., ISBN 0-02-305930-3
* Beale, Howard K. (1957), Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power, Johns Hopkins Press
* Berman, Karl (1986), Under the Big Stick: Nicaragua and the United States Since 1848, South End Press
* Bishop, Joseph Bucklin (1913), Uncle Sam's Panama Canal and World History, Accompanying the Panama Canal Flat-globe: Its Achievement an Honor to the United States and a Blessing to the World, Pub. by J. Wanamaker expressly for the World Syndicate Company
* Conniff, Michael L. (2001), Panama and the United States: The Forced Alliance, University of Georgia Press, ISBN 0-8203-2348-9
* Davis, Kenneth C. (1990), Don't Know Much About History, Avon Books, ISBN 0-380-71252-0
* Gould, Lewis L. (1991), The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, University Press of Kansas, ISBN 978-0-7006-0565-1
* Hershey, A.S. (1903), The Venezuelan Affair in the Light of International Law, University of Michigan Press
* LaFeber, Walter (1993), A Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: The American Search for Opportunity. 1865 - 1913, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-38185-1
* Perkins, Dexter (1937), The Monroe Doctrine, 1867-1907, Baltimore Press
* Roosevelt, Theodore (1913), Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography, The Macmillan Press Company
* Zinn, Howard (1999), A People's History of the United States, Harper Perennial, ISBN 0-06-083865-5
* [http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/ACF18F1.pdf Congress and Woodrow Wilson’s, Military Forays Into Mexico. An Introductory Essay By Don Wolfensberger] - Congress Project Seminar On Congress and U.S. Military Interventions Abroad - Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Monday, May 17, 2004
* Foreign Affairs,. (2015). The Great Depression. Retrieved 29 October 2015, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1932-07-01/great-depression
* Dueñas Van Severen, J. Ricardo (2006). La invasión filibustera de Nicaragua y la Guerra Nacional. Secretaría General del Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana SG-SICA.
* Rosengarten, Jr., Frederic (1976). Freebooters must die!. Haverford House, Publishers. ISBN 0-910702-01-2.
* Scroggs, William O. (1974). Filibusteros y financieros, la historia de William Walker y sus asociados. Colección Cultural Banco de América.
* ''La guerra en Nicaragua'', [[1860]], del propio William Walker, traducida al español en [[1883]] por el [[Italia|italo]]-nicaragüense Fabio Carnevalini y reeditada en [[1974]] y [[1993]]. 
* [http://enriquebolanos.org/coleccion_uno_libro.cfm?UID=1&UIID=11&UIIID=64&serie=08&libro=03&title=Obras%20hist%C3%B3ricas%20completas ''Obras históricas completas'', [[1865<nowiki>]]</nowiki>, de Jerónimo Pérez, reeditada en [[1928<nowiki>]]</nowiki> por Pedro Joaquín Chamorro Zelaya y más adelante en [[1974<nowiki>]]</nowiki> y [[1993<nowiki>]]</nowiki>.] 
* [http://enriquebolanos.org/abg_otros.cfm?obra=06&UID=1&UIID=9&UIIID=42 ''Con Walker en Nicaragua'', ([[1909<nowiki>]]</nowiki>), de James Carson Jamison, quien fue capitán de su ejército y estuvo en sus expediciones.] * ''La Guerra Nacional. Centenario'', [[1956]], de Ildefonso Palma Martínez, reeditada en [[2006]] en el Sesquicentenario de la [[Batalla de San Jacinto (Nicaragua)|Batalla de San Jacinto]]. 
* [http://enriquebolanos.org/abg_tomos_todos.cfm?UID=1&UIID=9&UIIID=40 ''El predestinado de ojos azules'', [[1999<nowiki>]]</nowiki>, de Alejandro Bolaños Geyer]
* '' [http://enriquebolanos.org/abg_tomos_todos.cfm?UID=1&UIID=9&UIIID=40 Investigación más completa sobre William Walker en el mundo]
* Harrison, Brady. William Walker and the Imperial Self in American Literature. University of Georgia Press, August 2, 2004. ISBN 0-8203-2544-9. ISBN 978-0-8203-2544-6. 
*[http://www.afn.org/~dks/race/wright.html "One Drop of Blood" by Lawrence Wright, The New Yorker, July 24, 1994]
*Dworkin, Shari L. The Society Pages. "[https://thesocietypages.org/sexuality/2009/10/18/race-sexuality-and-the-one-drop-rule-more-thoughts-about-interracial-couples-and-marriage/ Race, Sexuality, and the 'One Drop Rule': More Thoughts about Interracial Couples and Marriage]"
*"[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html Mixed Race America – Who Is Black? One Nation's Definition]". www.pbs.org. Frontline. "Not only does the one-drop rule apply to no other group than American blacks, but apparently the rule is unique in that it is found only in the United States and not in any other nation in the world."
*Khanna, Nikki (2010). "If you're half black, you're just black: Reflected Appraisals and the Persistence of the One-Drop Rule". The Sociological Quarterly. 51 (5): 96–121. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.619.9359. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2009.01162.x.
*>Hickman, Christine B. “The Devil and the One Drop Rule: Racial Categories, African Americans, and the U.S. Census.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 95, no. 5, 1997, pp. 1161–1265. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1290008
*Schor, Paul. “From ‘Mulatto’ to the ‘One Drop Rule’ (1870–1900).” Oxford Scholarship Online, 2017, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199917853.003.0011
*Gómez, Laura  E. “Opposite One-Drop Rules: Mexican Americans, African Americans, and the Need to Reconceive Turn-of-the-Twentieth-Century Race Relations.” How the United States Racializes Latinos: White Hegemony and Its Consequences, by Cobas José A. et al., Routledge, 2016, p. 14
*Brown, Kevin D. “The Rise and Fall of the One-Drop Rule: How the Importance of Color Came to Eclipse Race.” Color Matters: Skin Tone Bias and the Myth of a Post-Racial America, by Kimberly Jade Norwood, Routledge/Taylor &amp; Francis Group, 2014, p. 51
*Jordan, W. D. (2014). Historical Origins of the One-Drop Racial Rule in the United States. Journal of Critical Mixed Race Studies, 1(1). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/91g761b3
*Scott Leon, Princeton University, 2011. Hypodescent: A History of the Crystallization of the One-drop Rule in the United States, 1880-1940 url: https://search.proquest.com/openview/333a0ac8590d2b71b0475f3b765d2366/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
*Winthrop, Jordan D. “Historical Origins of the One-Drop Racial Rule in the United States.” Color Matters: Skin Tone Bias and the Myth of a Post-Racial America, by Kimberly Jade Norwood, Routledge/Taylor &amp; Francis Group, 2014 
*Esthus, Raymond A. "The Changing Concept of the Open Door, 1899-1910," Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 46, No. 3 (Dec., 1959), pp. 435–454 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1892268 JSTOR]
*Hu, Shizhang (1995). Stanley K. Hornbeck and the Open Door Policy, 1919-1937. Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-29394-5.
*Lawrence, Mark Atwood/ “Open Door Policy”, Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy, ([https://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Open-Door-Policy.html online]).
*McKee, Delber (1977). Chinese Exclusion Versus the Open Door Policy, 1900-1906: Clashes over China Policy in the Roosevelt Era. Wayne State Univ Press. ISBN 0-8143-1565-8.
*Moore, Lawrence. Defining and Defending the Open Door Policy: Theodore Roosevelt and China, 1901–1909 (2017)
*Otte, Thomas G. (2007). [https://books.google.fr/books?id=tm-s1nd5JnIC&pg=PA199&redir_esc=y The China question: great power rivalry and British isolation, 1894-1905]. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-921109-8.
*Sugita, Yoneyuki, "The Rise of an American Principle in China: A Reinterpretation of the First Open Door Notes toward China" in Richard J. Jensen, Jon Thares Davidann, and Yoneyuki Sugita, eds. Trans-Pacific relations: America, Europe, and Asia in the twentieth century (Greenwood, 2003) pp 3–20 [https://www.questia.com/library/120079391/trans-pacific-relations-america-europe-and-asia online]
*Vevier, Charles. "The Open Door: An Idea in Action, 1906-1913" Pacific Historical Review 24#1 (1955), pp. 49-62 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3635231 online].
*[http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick.html Martin, Gary. "Speak Softly And Carry a Big Stick"]
*[http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick.html Martin, Gary. "Speak softly and carry a big stick"]
*Wikipedia contributors. (2019, September 16). Big Stick ideology. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 08:24, September 19, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology
*National Geographic Society. “Big Stick Diplomacy.” National Geographic Society, 18 July 2014, www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/sep2/big-stick-diplomacy/.
*Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Big Stick Policy.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/event/Big-Stick-policy.
*Statement to British envoy William Tyrrell (November 1913), explaining his policy on Mexico
*Constitution de 1918, présentée le 12 juin 1918. Constitution préparée par les États-Unis qui occupent le pays depuis 1915. Adoptée par plébiscite.
*[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/f/franklin_d_roosevelt.html Brainy Quote, FDR]
*[http://www.southendpress.org/2005/items/7417/Prologue Blood on the Border: Prologue]

= References =
<references/>

[[Category:Aline Helg]]
[[Category:histoire]]
[[Category:relations internationales]]  
[[Category:Histoire des États-Unis]]