No. of Recommendations: 6
What ever happened to the Monroe Doctrine? Would that even be legal today? If so, we could use that. Even if it wasn't specifically pointed at China when Monroe did it.
The Monroe Doctrine was a set of foreign policy principles, not a law - so it's not a question of "legal" vs. "not legal." But I'm not sure how applicable it is.
The Doctrine basically told the European powers that the U.S. would not tolerate new European interference in the Western Hemisphere. But it was formulated at a time when major European involvement in the affairs of other countries had a very different form than what we see today - establishing colonies, replete with full naval and military installations. The U.S. was setting policy that we would oppose European nations establishing anything like that going forward. That aspect of the Doctrine certainly survived into modern times, as we saw during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
But that's not what China's doing. Their "Belt and Road Initiative" comprises a lot of direct foreign investment and bilateral trade as a way of building up their presence and influence in other countries. We've never really asserted that that kind of activity - ostensibly voluntary economic and trade relations - constitutes the kind of interference in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere that the Doctrine would apply to. Basically, the Chinese strategy is mostly "be nice." Invest a ton of money and accelerate economic development in the target country, which leads to popular sentiment in favor of China, which leads the populace to support politicians that are favorable to China. Actual diplomacy, rather than gunboat diplomacy.
It's a more subtle way of increasing their global hegemony. They gain de facto control over raw materials and other strategically important assets through economic arrangements, rather than de jeure seizing territory or establishing formal colonies or military force.
