NOTE TO READERS
With the Truman Doctrine, President Harry S. Truman established that the United States would provide political, military and economic assistance to all democratic nations under threat from external or internal authoritarian forces. The Truman Doctrine effectively reoriented U.S. foreign policy, away from its usual stance of withdrawal from regional conflicts not directly involving the United States, to one of possible intervention in far away conflicts.
The Truman Doctrine arose from a speech delivered by President Truman before a joint session of Congress on March 12, 1947. The immediate cause for the speech was a recent announcement by the British Government that, as of March 31, it would no longer provide military and economic assistance to the Greek Government in its civil war against the Greek Communist Party. Truman asked Congress to support the Greek Government against the Communists. He also asked Congress to provide assistance for Turkey, since that nation, too, had previously been dependent on British aid. At the time, the U.S. Government believed that the Soviet Union supported the Greek Communist war effort and worried that if the Communists prevailed in the Greek civil war, the Soviets would ultimately influence Greek policy. In fact, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had deliberately refrained from providing any support to the Greek Communists and had forced Yugoslav Prime Minister Josip Tito to follow suit, much to the detriment of Soviet-Yugoslav relations. However, a number of other foreign policy problems also influenced President Truman’s decision to actively aid Greece and Turkey. In 1946, four setbacks, in particular, had served to effectively torpedo any chance of achieving a durable post-war rapprochement with the Soviet Union: the Soviets’ failure to withdraw their troops from northern Iran in early 1946 (as per the terms of the Tehran Declaration of 1943); Soviet attempts to pressure the Iranian Government into granting them oil concessions while supposedly fomenting irredentism by Azerbaijani separatists in northern Iran; Soviet efforts to force the Turkish Government into granting them base and transit rights through the Turkish Straits; and, the Soviet Government’s rejection of the Baruch plan for international control over nuclear energy and weapons in June 1946. In light of the deteriorating relationship with the Soviet Union and the appearance of Soviet meddling in Greek and Turkish affairs, the withdrawal of British assistance to Greece provided the necessary catalyst for the Truman Administration to reorient American foreign policy. Accordingly, in his speech, President Truman requested that Congress provide $400,000,000 worth of aid to both the Greek and Turkish Governments and support the dispatch of American civilian and military personnel and equipment to the region. Truman justified his request on two grounds. He argued that a Communist victory in the Greek Civil War would endanger the political stability of Turkey, which would undermine the political stability of the Middle East. This could not be allowed in light of the region’s immense strategic importance to U.S. national security. Truman also argued that the United States was compelled to assist “free peoples” in their struggles against “totalitarian regimes,” because the spread of authoritarianism would “undermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States.” In the words of the Truman Doctrine, it became “the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” Truman argued that the United States could no longer stand by and allow the forcible expansion of Soviet totalitarianism into free, independent nations, because American national security now depended upon more than just the physical security of American territory. Rather, in a sharp break with its traditional avoidance of extensive foreign commitments beyond the Western Hemisphere during peacetime, the Truman Doctrine committed the United States to actively offering assistance to preserve the political integrity of democratic nations when such an offer was deemed to be in the best interest of the United States.
A lesson focusing on foreign policy.
Students will compare and contrast the foreign policy aspects of the Truman, Eisenhower, and Monroe Doctrine using excerpts. This can be done individually, in rotating groups, or in jigsaw/expert groups.
Rationale (why are you doing this?) To emphasize and review essential aspects of US foreign policy.
Lesson Objectives - the student will
District, state, or national performance and knowledge standards/goals/skills met
Primary sources needed (document, photograph, artifact, diary or letter, audio or visual recording, etc.) needed
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=81&page=transcript 7/18/13
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1957eisenhowerdoctrine.html Eisenhower Doctrine Background: Eisenhower Doctrine, (Jan. 5, 1957), in the Cold War period after World War II, U.S. foreign-policy pronouncement by President Dwight D. Eisenhower promising military or economic aid to any Middle Eastern country needing help in resisting communist aggression. The doctrine was intended to check increased Soviet influence in the Middle East, which had resulted from the supply of arms to Egypt by communist countries as well as from strong communist support of Arab states against an Israeli, French, and British attack on Egypt in October 1956. Eisenhower proclaimed, with the approval of Congress, that he would use the armed forces to protect the independence of any Middle Eastern country seeking American help. The Eisenhower Doctrine represented no radical change in U.S. policy; the Truman Doctrine had pledged similar support to Greece and Turkey 10 years earlier. It was a continuation of the U.S. policy of containment of or resistance to any extension of the Soviet sphere of influence. -Encyclopedia Britannica Excerpt from The Eisenhower Doctrine on the Middle East, The Middle East has abruptly reached a new and critical stage in its long and important history. …Our country supports without reservation the full sovereignty and independence of each and every nation of the Middle East. …(J)ust recently there have been hostilities involving Western European nations that once exercised much influence in the area. Also the relatively large attack by Israel in October has intensified the basic differences between (Israel) and its Arab neighbors. All this instability has been heightened and, at times, manipulated by International Communism.
Russia’s rulers have long sought to dominate the Middle East. That was true of the Czars and it is true of the Bolsheviks. The Soviet Union has nothing whatsoever to fear from the United States in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world, so long as its rulers do not themselves first resort to aggression. The reason for Russia’s interest in the Middle East is solely that of power politics. Considering her announced purpose of Communizing the world, it is easy to understand her hope of dominating the Middle East. . . . Thus, we have these simple and indisputable facts:
Under all the circumstances I have laid before you, a greater responsibility now devolves upon the United States. We have shown, …our dedication to the principle that force shall not be used internationally for any aggressive purpose and that the integrity and independence of the nations of the Middle East should be inviolate. There is general recognition in the Middle East, as elsewhere, that the United States does not seek either political or economic domination over any other people. Our desire is a world environment of freedom, not servitude. V Under these circumstances I deem it necessary to seek the cooperation of the Congress. …
The action which I propose would have the following features. It would, first of all, authorize the United States to cooperate with and assist any nation or group of nations in the general area of the Middle East in the development of economic strength dedicated to the maintenance of national independence. It would, in the second place, authorize the Executive to undertake … programs of military assistance and cooperation with any nation or group of nations which desires such aid. It would, in the third place, authorize such assistance and cooperation to include the employment of the armed forces of the United States to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid, against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by International Communism. These measures would have to be consonant with the treaty obligations of the United States, including the Charter of the United Nations and with any action or recommendations of the United Nations. … The present proposal would, in the fourth place, authorize the President to employ, for economic and defensive military purposes, sums (money) available ….
The proposed legislation is primarily designed to deal with the possibility of Communist aggression, direct and indirect. Experience shows that indirect aggression rarely if ever succeeds where there is reasonable security against direct aggression; where the government possesses loyal security forces, and where economic conditions are such as not to make Communism seem an attractive alternative. The program I suggest deals with all three aspects of this matter … And as I have indicated, it will also be necessary for us to contribute economically to strengthen those countries, or groups of countries... Such measures will provide the greatest insurance against Communist inroads. Words alone are not enough.
…If power-hungry Communists should either falsely or correctly estimate that the Middle East is inadequately defended, they might be tempted to use open measures of armed attack. If so, that would start a chain of circumstances which would almost surely involve the United States in military action. I am convinced that the best insurance against this dangerous contingency is to make clear now our readiness to cooperate fully and freely with our friends of the Middle East …. IX The policy which I outline involves certain burdens and indeed risks for the United States. The occasion has come for us … to show our deep respect for the rights and independence of every nation - We seek, not violence, but peace. … Source: from The Department of State Bulletin, XXXV1, No. 917 (January 21, 1957), pp. 83-87. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1957eisenhowerdoctrine.html 7/18/13
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=23&page=transcript Monroe Doctrine Background: Monroe Doctrine, (December 2, 1823), cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy enunciated by President James Monroe in his annual message to Congress. Declaring that the Old World and New World had different systems and must remain distinct spheres, Monroe made four basic points: (1) The United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of or the wars between European powers; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere; (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization; and (4) any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States. -Encyclopedia Britannica Excerpt from Transcript of Monroe Doctrine (1823) Note: The Monroe Doctrine was expressed during President Monroe’s seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823: . . . as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents…are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . . … In the wars of the European powers … we have never taken any part… It is only when our rights are invaded … that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected…. We owe it, therefore, …to the… relations existing between the United States and those powers (in Europe) to declare that … any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. Our policy in regard to Europe…is not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; …to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy…. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren (South and Central America would choose this), … It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course. . . . Transcription courtesy of the Avalon Project at Yale Law School. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?flash=true&page=transcript&doc=23&title=Transcript+of+Monroe+Doctrine+%281823%29 7/18/13
Fully describe the activity or assignment in detail. What will both the teacher and the students do?
Assessment: fully explain the assessment method in detail or create and attach a scoring guide Students could be assessed in a variety of ways.
|