New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-12-20
Not a Self-Executing Doctrine

Not a Self-Executing Doctrine.
At the Worcester Mass, conference OF
the European war Professor Albert Bush
nell Hart laid rude hands on pet Amer
can superstition. That superstition con
Germs the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe
Doctrine has persisted so long withou
serious challenge from any quarter ina
most Americans have come to believe tina
Il is self-sustaining and self-enforcing.
II has been treated as dogma with {
sort Of international sanction-one tina
the nations Of Europe have tacitly &C
eepted. Because it has had behind it the
moral support Of the United States and the
self-interested approval Of the other Amer
lean republics 1t has been supposed x
maintain itself Of its own strength.
Under the Monroe Doctrine the United
States frankly assumed the role OF guar
dian and guarantor Of the territorial In
tegrity Of all the other nations IN the two
Americas. Even the consent Of the Other
nations to this guardianship was not
deemed essential. In the Venezuela bound
ary dispute with Great Britain Secretary
Olney announced that the fiat Of the
United States was law in the Western
world. That was a blunt way Of putting
it. But what Mr.. Olney said was un-
doubtedly a true Interpretation of the
doctrine from our point of view.
What Americans have not sufficiently
realized is that the respect paid by Europe
TO the Monroe Doctrine was due not to It's
validity as a general principle but to a
favoring deadlock of European interests.
The balance of power in Europe was the
bulwark Of Monroeism. Great Britain,
the largest holder Of colonies and posses
sions in America, was satisfied to see the
status quo maintained and unwilling to
permit aggressions on the part of rival
European powers II was the British navy
more than any other one factor which sus-
tanned the policy of America for the Amer
leans which Canning, British statesman,
had originated after the Spanish-Ameri-
can colonies were lost to Spain.
The outcome of the European war may
dissolve the old balance of power. 1t may
force the countries which lose most in the
new deal to look for compensations in
South America 1t may bring those coun-
tries who profit most by the new deal to
view leniently attempts on the part of the
losers to realize those compensations. In
that case the United States would quickly
find that the moral force behind the Mon
roe Doctrine, hitherto sufficient to uphold
II, would have to be replaced by physica
force. If we are going to insist that ouI
fat Is law In the New World we shall have
TO put behind that fiat the power of ar
adequate army and an adequate navy.
Professor Hart was therefore onl!
echoing the demands Of practical states
manship when he said: "The Monroe Doc
trine as collection of phrases expressing
the preferences Of the United States ha
lost its magic effect. Unless the doctrin,
is a fixed policy Of great nation, backed
up by sufficient force TO make it respected
it Is simply dream"
In his recent message President Wilson
failed to bring out our absolute dependence
on military preparedness for the mainten
ance Of the Monroe Doctrine. If we ar
going to continue our role Of guardianship
to the other American republics we mus
have an army and a navy large enough t
protect their territory as well as TO defent
our own shores. A half-trained "citizen
~" force will be unequal 10 either task
Nor will navy trailing behind European
navies be equal TO It.
The results Of the European war vii
compel Us to become an armed nation
whether we like the idea or not. TIL,
sooner we begin 10 accept this situation
the better. Monroe and Adams had tn,
courage TO proclaim the Monroe Doctrine
when the United States was weak power
without the military resources to maxi
such a declaration good. We have tn
necessary military resources now. Shall
we shrink from developing and using then
with the same high courage and in tn,
same spirit Of farseeing craftsmanship a
were manifested by Adams and Monroe?