Essay On Theodore Roosevelt's Anti-Imperialist Foreign Policy

Theodore Roosevelt used “big stick” diplomacy, a policy of negotiating diplomatically first, with a military force to resort to if necessary. The United States, he claimed, had the right not only to oppose European intervention in the Western Hemisphere, but also to intervene itself in the domestic affairs of its neighbors if they proved unable to maintain order and national sovereignty on their own. It is a way of intimidating countries without actually harming them and was the basis of U.S. imperialistic foreign policy. Roosevelt’s successor, William Howard Taft, did not carry a big stick. He adopted a foreign policy that was mildly expansionist but depended more on investors’ dollars than on the navy’s battleships. His policy of trying to …show more content…
Taft believed that private American financial investment in China and the nations of Central America would lead to greater stability there, while at the same time promoting U.S. business interests. Unlike Roosevelt’s policy, Taft’s policy was thwarted by the growing anti-imperialism both in the United States and overseas. Like Roosevelt, Taft encouraged investment in infrastructure, particularly railroads in China. Taft tried to force U.S. investment and economic activities in China, following the example of other European powers. The aggressive behavior did not work, and only succeeded in irritating and angering the other European powers. Once again, the diminishing good relationships with other powers was not countered by any noteworthy benefits, proving it a failure. Another failure of this policy was the United States’ intervention in Nicaragua’s financial affairs, which ended up with marines being sent when a civil war broke out in 1912. Many of the applications of Roosevelt’s policies were