The Good Neighbor Policy: A Comparative Analysis

Northeastern University

“The Good Neighbor Policy” – A Comparative Analysis based on Chile and South Vietnam

Thomas T. Thomas
International Relations – POL2051
Professor: Jim J. Jones
1/1/2014

FRAMEWORK
Providing an answer to the question within the context of International Relations requires us to perform a comprehensive policy analysis utilizing a framework, which allows us to examine several factors at the individual, domestic and international level. Additionally we must consider the administration’s frame of mind and approach concerning American Foreign Policy going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt and the events that took place leading up to WWII. Lastly we must deliberate on the detrimental alternatives of the falling “domino theory”, an approach to foreign affairs that dominated the Truman administration leading up to the Cold War era; we’ll evaluate the potential impact of this theory based on Chile and South Vietnam -- two countries which were overthrown with support from the US Government, aided by the newly formed CIA agency.
MONROE DOCTRINE AND THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY
In his address to Congress in 1823 President James Monroe intended to isolate and protect the United States from European colonialism with the introduction of the “Monroe Doctrine”.
This principle served three purposes: Separate the spheres of influence between the realm of autocratic Europe and the New World, non-colonization, and non-intervention. The United States had a history of military interventions when protecting its national interests during the 19th century. In the beginning of the 20th century we start to see a gradual shift towards diplomacy in the approach to foreign policy with FDR’s introduction of the “good neighbor policy”.

FOREIGN POLICY FRAME OF MIND BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIONS
FDR AND TRUMAN FOREIGN
POLICY

The League of Nations contained a total of 26 articles providing a framework in order to promote international co-operation in order to achieve international peace and security. Most of the weight was given to articles, which imposed specific advantages to certain countries. Acceptance to the league was subject to the acceptance of the articles.

Reasons why US hesitated joining the League of Nations
Around that time there was fear among politicians in the US especially republicans that the US would have the obligation and duty to defend a sister nation belonging to the League of Nations should it decide to join in. Such language was included in a provision as stated in Article 11 of the Covenant thereby stating “Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations...”. This fear created an initiative led by two senators to pledge in a fight against ratification, which came up short failing to gain the majority support of the senate barring the US from joining the League of Nations.

Punitive Mandates
At the center of the main argument was the dissolution of the former German colonies located in Africa and the Pacific in addition to several non-Turkish provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Several secret treaties were signed before or during the dividing these territories among the victorious powers except the United States, which was a non-member. Since such decisions were not made on the basis of consultation or League unanimity the actions of the conferees were viewed by some and considered illegitimate. US Secretary of State Robert Lansing at the time indicated that the system of mandates was simply a mechanism created by the Great Powers as a cover up to hide under the color of international law. During the signing of the Treaty in Paris the British and the French were neither in favor nor against of the mandate system. The Japanese and Italians felt they were at a disadvantage and viewed the mandates as a restriction of their control of former German colonies. Wilson envisioned the states that were to emerge from the mandate system as democratic republics. Eventually after the League’s dissolution the UN carried out this responsibility.
Limited Success
This intended League of Nations although in question did experience limited success thus gaining some support and making advances in foreign policy via diplomacy by helping to solve smaller disputes between states. Most notably were Japan’s occupation of Manchuria in 1931, Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935-36, and Germany’s seizure of Austria in 1938. The League was also effective and beneficial when it came to the aid of Austria-Hungary during the economic collapse of 1922-1923 by organizing and providing loans for both countries. Despite all the shortcomings, unification goals were accomplished on a small scale and remarkably above all the initial framework provided a rough draft to what would become the UN post WWII.

Structural Deficiencies
Structural deficiencies start with the “Treaty of Versailles” when the port of Fiume was given to Yugoslavia. The Italian government seeing the inability of League to solve the problem made the decision to bombard the port and force surrender. Subsequent events such those at Teschen, Vilna, and the invasion of Russian by Poland depicted the League’s inability to intervene and effective mediate prompting serious doubts about the organization’s ability to function as planned originally. Furthermore the Treaty instructed Germany to pay reparations for war damages by means of either cash or goods, neither order was fulfilled.

Key Causes for Failure
There were various factors which contributed to the failure of the League however none were as important as the involvement of the great powers especially the US even though Woodrow Wilson was the mastermind behind setting up the organization. The senate took a vote and did not approve the US joining the league. Another important issue was simply the fact that the League had no armed forces further proving it very difficult to impose decisions upon its members. Countries like Japan and Italy simply walked over the League who was incapable of acting presenting major signs of weakness in the eyes of the international community. A third dynamic, which also contributed to its premature conclusion, was decision-making. Directives were very slow in the implementation process if at all, additionally cutting through the red tape proved very difficult if not impossible since it required the approval and cooperation of its members.

Conclusion
While the League of Nations was designed with good intentions with a special purpose in mind of providing security to the world community along with a forum for foreign nations to resolve disputes peacefully, it lacked overall worldwide support especially from the great powers including the US. This initiative required a more assertive clause in order to offer equitable treatment to less favorable states when settling territorial disputes. Fundamental problems such as dealing with aggression involving major powers were a major contributor to its demise and eventually dissolution. Its effective dissolution took place in 1946 after the League revealed to be defenseless, powerless, and incompetent of preventing WWII from taking place. Established in 1945 the “United Nations” emerged as a much larger and stronger IO composed of various agencies capable of dealing with complex foreign affairs related issues and holding sovereign states somewhat accountable for their actions by means of imposing sanctions. Additionally much broader powers were delegated to the UN from its member nations which now included what is known as the big five (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States).

Works Cited
n.d. .
n.d. .
Eloranta, Jari. "Why did the League of Nations fail?" Journal of Historical Economics and Econometric History 5.1 (2010): 26.
Joshua S. Goldstein, Jon C. Pevehouse. International Relations. Pearson., 2012. (Joshua S. Goldstein, Jon C. Pevehouse)