The Monroe Doctrine: “America for the [norte]Americans” vs. Chinese ocean patrols

To refer to the unfortunate and unacceptable message that the US Embassy sent to the chairman of the Senate Defense Committee, that the purchase of military supplies from China is a bad signalaccording to the note published in The Observer of September 6, we would like to remember Zum Felde in his essay us and the americans: “We have referred to the utilitarianism of the United States (…)”. The key word here is “utilitarianism”, and it is directly related to that “message”.

It is clear who the issuer is: the Biden government, concerned about China’s progress in various areas, not just the military, in the region. Although wars generally pursue economic goals, there are different kinds of them. The economic war declared by the US against China, which applies its “soft power” with traditional patience and long-term vision, means that, as always, and according to its interests, the US intervenes in the internal affairs of any country. We all know the various variants of their intervention: invasions, coups, invariably with a notorious violation of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another State. In the case at hand, it is ours, and its sovereignty. The question is what is meant by bad signal. Could it be that we are independent, but he reminds us that with the restrictions imposed by his interests, his utilitarianism?

The violation of the principle of NON-INTERFERENCE directly attacks our sovereignty. Let us recall two of the various definitions of sovereignty to understand to what extent the diplomat’s “message” puts our State at risk:

  1. “Independence of the State to make its laws and control its resources without that of other States or nations.
  2. Quality of sovereign that is attributed to the State as a supreme and independent body of authority, according to which it is recognized as an institution within the sphere of its competence.

Our relationship with China is known. Uruguay is negotiating the signing of an FTA with China, on the one hand; on the other, in August, Parliament approved the Agreement between the Ministry of National Defense of the ROU and the Ministry of National Defense of the People’s Republic of China on cooperation in defense matters.

The geopolitical and strategic value of our country in the region is known, and that since before its founding as an independent country. It is understandable that China has embarked on expanding its horizons in various areas, the military as well, and its presence of cooperation in several African countries as well as economic cooperation in Latin America is notorious and visible. The US is not only concerned about trade competition, but also about the Chinese presence in the Pacific, in the Atlantic. Wherever.

One of the ways to remain “sovereign” is not to accept that another country, no matter what it is, tells us that something seems wrong or inconvenient because it goes against its own interests. But not only that, but in various documents (Charter of the United Nations and the OAS) the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of any country is specifically and clearly stated.

Thus, resolution 2131 of the United Nations General Assembly refers to the “Declaration on the inadmissibility of intervention in the internal affairs of States and protection of their independence and sovereignty” (approved in December 1965), and the expansion can be read in articles 1 and 2. Resolution 2625 also includes subparagraphs c) and e) in relation to the non-interference of one State in the internal affairs of another.

The OAS addresses the issue in Article 3, subsection e), and Articles 19 and 20. Article 20 is of particular interest: “No State may apply or stimulate measures of an economic and political nature to force the sovereign will of another State and obtain this advantages of any nature”.

The “message” from the US diplomat to the Senate of the Republic means not only meddling in our defense-related matters, but also trying to get the country to spend more money on the acquisition of ocean patrols because buying those tendered by China is a threat to the The US that sees China’s influence grow on the globe.

This issue forces us to take a trip to the not so remote past and remember the Monroe Doctrinewhich although it was devised to avoid the interference of European countries in the life of the US (and Latin America), is summarized in “America for Americans”, and it is understood that “Americans” are not all of us, but North Americans , those of the USA.

It is worth reading the comment of a Chilean merchant, Diego Portales, who wrote, as early as 1822, that although Monroe affirms that “America is for the Americans”, one should not fall into the trap of believing such a statement. “I believe that all this obeys a combined plan in advance; and that would be like this: make the conquest of America, not by arms, but by influence in every sphere. This will happen, maybe not today, but tomorrow, yes.

200 years ago that letter, and Portales was not wrong. Our country, beyond its national interests and objectives, must not accept the interference of any country in any matter. In this case, in one as sensitive as the acquisition of military defense material, something that is clearly closely related to national sovereignty. The US must accept, once and for all, that it is no longer what it used to be and that it lacks the moral authority to tell us what to do or not to do.

We trust that this government and the Minister of Defense will make the appropriate decision, in accordance with the interests of our country and not those of the USA. We must not forget the sayings of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, during the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower, when he paraphrased Sir Palmerston: “America has no friends; only has interests».

The Monroe Doctrine: “America for the [norte]Americans” vs. Chinese ocean patrols – Grupo R Multimedio