Light

Big Stick Diplomacy

Definition

This is a form of diplomacy or foreign policy that emphasizes the use of power, particularly military force, as a means to achieve national objectives. It was popularized by President Theodore Roosevelt.

Analogy

Think of Big Stick Diplomacy like a schoolyard bully. The bully doesn't always have to fight; just showing off his big muscles (or "big stick") can be enough to get what he wants.

Historical Context

Big Stick diplomacy emerged during the early 20th century under the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt in the United States. It refers to his foreign policy strategy, which was based on the West African proverb "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." This approach to international relations was evident from 1901 to 1909 and emphasized negotiating peacefully while simultaneously threatening with military force. The term particularly applied to U.S. interactions in the Caribbean and Latin America.

Historical Significance

The Big Stick diplomacy had significant implications for U.S. foreign policy and its role as an emerging global power. It justified American intervention in the Western Hemisphere, leading to actions like the building of the Panama Canal and the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which asserted U.S. authority in Latin America. The doctrine contributed to the perception of U.S. imperialism and set a precedent for future American interventionist policies that would shape international relations throughout the 20th century and beyond.

Related terms

Monroe Doctrine: A principle of US policy that any intervention by external powers in the politics of the Americas is a potentially hostile act against the US.

Roosevelt Corollary: An addition to the Monroe Doctrine articulated by President Theodore Roosevelt asserting American intervention in Latin America's affairs when necessary.

Gunboat Diplomacy: The pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the aid of conspicuous displays of naval power implying or constituting a direct threat of warfare, should terms not be agreeable to the superior force.