Nixon Doctrine
The Nixon Doctrine (sometimes referred to as the Guam Doctrine) was the foreign policy doctrine of Richard Nixon, the 37th president of the United States from 1969 to 1974. It was put forth during a press conference in Guam on July 25, 1969, by Nixon,[1] and later formalized in his speech on Vietnamization on November 3, 1969.[2]
According to Gregg Brazinsky, author of "Nation Building in South Korea: Koreans, Americans, and the Making of a Democracy", Nixon stated that "the United States would assist in the defense and developments of allies and friends" but would not "undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world."[3] This doctrine meant that each ally nation was in charge of its own security in general, but the United States would act as a nuclear umbrella when requested. The Doctrine argued for the pursuit of peace through a partnership with American allies.
Background[edit]
At the time of President Nixon's first inauguration in January 1969, the US had been engaged in combat in Vietnam for almost four years. The war had so far killed over 30,000 Americans and several hundred thousand Vietnamese citizens.[4] By 1969, US public opinion had moved decisively to favoring ending the Vietnam War;[5] a Gallup poll in May showed 56% of the public believed sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake. Of those over 50 years old, 61% expressed that belief, compared to 49% of those between ages 21 and 29, even if tacit abandonment of the SEATO Treaty was ultimately required and caused a complete communist takeover of South Vietnam despite previous US guarantees.[6] Because Nixon campaigned for "Peace with Honor" in relation to Vietnam during the 1968 presidential campaign, ending the Vietnam War became an important policy goal for him.
Contemporary usage[edit]
Scholar Walter Ladwig argued in 2012 that the United States should adopt a "neo-Nixon doctrine" towards the Indian Ocean region, in which the US would sponsor key local partners—India, Indonesia, Australia and South Africa—to assume the primary burden for upholding regional peace and security. A key shortcoming of the original Nixon Doctrine, Ladwig argues, was its reliance on pro-Western autocrats who proved to be a poor foundation for an enduring regional security structure. In contrast, his "neo-Nixon Doctrine" would focus on cultivating the major Indian Ocean nations that are democratic and financially capable of being net providers of security in the region.[20] Although crediting this idea for the "reasonable balance it strikes between US leadership and local initiative", Andrew Philips of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has suggested the idea overstates "the degree of convergent security interests between its four presumptive sub-regional lynchpin states."[21][22]