The resurgence of manifest destiny in modern-day politics, as seen in President Trump’s expansionist rhetoric, has significant implications for international relations and global governance.
The term ‘manifest destiny‘ has been making headlines again, thanks to President Trump‘s invocation of it in his inaugural address. But what does this 19th-century concept mean, and how is it relevant to modern-day politics?
Manifest Destiny was a 19th-century American ideology that believed the United States was destined to expand its territory across North America.
The concept emerged in the 1840s and was fueled by the idea of American exceptionalism.
It led to the annexation of Texas, the Oregon Treaty, and the Mexican-American War, resulting in significant territorial gains for the United States.
Manifest Destiny was often used to justify westward expansion, but its implications on Native American populations and slavery remain a subject of debate among historians.
A Brief History of Manifest Destiny
The idea of manifest destiny was first coined by journalist ‘John O’Sullivan’ in 1845, when James K. Polk won the presidency on an explicitly expansionist platform. The term described a belief in American exceptionalism and a divine right to expand into lands in North America where indigenous people and Mexicans lived.
At its core, manifest destiny was about expanding the country’s territory through the acquisition of new lands. This concept has been revisited by Trump, who has expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, making Canada the 51st state, threatening to take back the Panama Canal, and even suggested taking over Gaza.
The Monroe Doctrine: A Historical Parallel
Trump‘s expansionist rhetoric is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it taps into the same historical parallels that have defined American imperialism since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. The Monroe Doctrine, first espoused by President James Monroe in 1823, was a warning to European powers against interfering in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere.
American imperialism refers to the extension of US influence, power, and control over other countries, territories, and resources.
The concept emerged in the late 19th century with the Spanish-American War (1898), which led to the acquisition of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
Notable examples of American imperialism include the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954).
The US also maintained a military presence in various countries, including Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam during the Cold War era.
However, with the end of the Cold War, many argue that American imperialism has declined.
This doctrine has been invoked by several presidents throughout history, including Polk, Andrew Johnson, and Theodore Roosevelt. It implied that the entire Western Hemisphere was an American preserve, and its meaning has evolved over time.
The Monroe Doctrine was a policy introduced by U.S. President James Monroe in 1823, stating that the United States would not tolerate further European colonization in the Americas.
The doctrine asserted U.S. influence over the region and marked a shift in U.S. foreign policy from isolationism to interventionism.
Key principles included non-colonization, non-intervention, and the promotion of democracy.
The doctrine was initially met with skepticism but eventually became a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.
Gunboat Diplomacy: Trump’s Aggressive Approach
Trump‘s aggressive use of tariffs and threats of them is reminiscent of ‘gunboat diplomacy,’ a tactic used by President Theodore Roosevelt in the 19th century. This approach involves using military force to achieve goals on the international stage, often coupled with the threat of force.
Freeman notes that Trump is reinventing ‘big stick diplomacy’ for the 21st century, but without the ‘speak softly’ part. However, this approach may not be as effective in today’s world, where China has emerged as a major economic power and competitor to the United States.
The Consequences of Expansionism
If Trump follows through on his expansionist rhetoric, the consequences could be severe. O’Hanlon warns that the U.S. would essentially become an international pariah if it uses military force to seize territories like Greenland or the Panama Canal.
Backing off from these threats may also be difficult, as leaders begin to realize that Trump‘s words are not always backed by action. This unpredictability can create its own problems, making it challenging for the U.S. to build trust with other nations and maintain stable relationships.
Conclusion
The resurgence of manifest destiny is a complex phenomenon that reflects both historical parallels and modern-day politics. While Trump‘s expansionist rhetoric may be reminiscent of earlier eras, it must be understood in the context of today’s global landscape. As leaders navigate this complex web of international relations, they must consider the consequences of such actions and work towards building trust and cooperation with other nations.
