Question

What do you think were the pros and cons of big stick diplomacy

Answer 1

The pros of big stick diplomacy were protecting American interests and maintaining stability, while the cons were creating resentment and sometimes leading to military intervention.

Step-by-step explanation:

The big stick diplomacy, also known as the Roosevelt corollary, was a foreign policy approach used by President Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s. The idea behind it was to use a strong military presence to exert influence and control over Latin American countries, in order to protect American interests and maintain stability in the region. One of the pros of big stick diplomacy was that it allowed the United States to project its power and protect its economic interests in the region. For example, Roosevelt used this approach to mediate the Russo-Japanese War and negotiate the construction of the Panama Canal.However, there were also cons to this policy. One of the cons was that it could create resentment and hostility from other countries, as it seemed like the United States was asserting its dominance and interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations. Another con was that it sometimes led to military intervention, which could result in loss of lives and resources.

Answer 2

The pros and cons of big stick diplomacy allowed the US to project power without large-scale military conflicts, but strained relationships and risked bypassing peaceful negotiations for military interventions.

Step-by-step explanation:

The pros and cons of Big Stick diplomacy can be analyzed by examining its effects on international relations. One of the major pros of this approach was that it allowed the United States to project its power without actually engaging in large-scale military conflicts.

This was achieved by using the threat of military force as a diplomatic tool, giving the US leverage in negotiations and preventing conflicts from escalating. For example, Theodore Roosevelt's use of the 'big stick' policy was instrumental in the construction of the Panama Canal, where the US maintained control over the strategic waterway.

However, there were also cons to this approach. Acting unilaterally and relying heavily on military force could strain relationships with other countries and damage diplomatic ties. Some countries may feel offended by the US taking unilateral action and prefer a more multilateral approach to resolving conflicts.

Moreover, there is the risk that diplomatic solutions and peaceful negotiations could be bypassed in favor of military interventions, which can lead to unintended consequences and further instability. So therefore big stick diplomacy allowed the US to project power without large-scale military conflicts