To compare the goals of "big stick" diplomacy and dollar diplomacy accurately, we need to outline the key principles of each:
-
"Big Stick" Diplomacy: This approach, associated with President Theodore Roosevelt, emphasizes the use of military power to achieve U.S. goals, particularly in Latin America. It suggests that the U.S. should act decisively and show strength, but also implies that military intervention should be a last resort.
-
Dollar Diplomacy: This policy, associated with President William Howard Taft, focuses on the use of economic power and investment to secure U.S. interests abroad. The idea is to promote financial stability in other countries to create a favorable environment for U.S. investments, thereby avoiding military intervention when possible.
Now let's analyze the chart options provided:
- First Option: Lists goals that suggest a mix of military intervention and financial stability but is inconsistent.
- Second Option: Suggests peaceful conflict resolution, which does not align with the aggressive nature of "big stick" diplomacy.
- Third Option: This option presents a clear distinction but uses terms like “end conflict peacefully” which would not fit for "big stick" diplomacy.
- Fourth Option: This listing emphasizes military intervention for "big stick" diplomacy against economic strategies for dollar diplomacy more accurately.
Given these analyses, the best chart that compares the two strategies accurately would be the Fourth Option:
“Big Stick” Diplomacy
- End conflict with military intervention/force
- Reinforce U.S. control over Latin America
- Establish U.S. military power
“Dollar Diplomacy”
- Establish financial stability
- Reduce use of military intervention
- Expand U.S. economic interests
This comparison correctly distinguishes the aggressive military nature of "big stick" diplomacy from the more peaceful, economically-focused "dollar diplomacy."