The sun., 1919-09-03
Carranza and the Monroe Doctrine

Mr.. CARRANzA's announcement to
the Mexican Congress that Mexico had
not recognized and would not recog-
nize the Monroe Doctrine Is probably
the very stuff for Mexican Office
holder to feed to his constituents, 90
per cent. Of whom know nothing about
the Monroe Doctrine. CARRANzA him
self should know, of course, that It
will make nc difference to the United
States, so far as Americas course is
concerned, whether Mexico or any
other Government below the Rio
Grande repudiates the doctrine. II
he does not know this, does not realize
that the Monroe Doctrine is not a
contract or combination between the
countries Of this hemisphere, but
rather the simple and positive policy
Of the United States, then perhaps he
is not 30 much to be blamed for we
have the wording Of the Covenant
as evidence that Mr.. WILSON was
willing in Paris to have the Monroe
Doctrine defined as a regional I'M
derstanding."
When JAMES MONROE expounded
the policy which Mr.. WILSON either
does not understand or does not value
and which Mr.. CARRANzA declares
Mexico will not recognize, he was
not prompted by the concern of the
South American republics for them
selves. 1t was a policy in which JUS
tice and self-protection were equally
mixed; a policy aimed to defeat the
supposed purpose Of the Holy Alliance
to interfere with, Cypress or control
the young republics Of our Southern
Hemisphere. Any attempt on the part
of the European Governments to ex-
tend their system to any part Of this
hemisphere would be considered, Mon
ROE wrote, "as dangerous to our peace
and safety" Not the peace and safety
Of the South American republic in
truded upon, but our own peace and
safety; the wording was plain.
1t Is true that in some of the earlier
stages Of the Venezuelan dispute this
Government appeared in the role OF a
friend seeking justice and peace for
small neighbor; but, as GROVER
CLEVELAND wrote some years after
that celebrated question was settled,
''in the advanced condition of the dis
pute, sympathy with Venezuela and
solicitude for her distressed condition
could not longer constitute the motive
power of our conduct, but these were
to give way to the duty and obligation
of protecting our own national rights"
There is the phrase of courage: not
regional understanding" but "our
own national rights"
Venezuela, except as the theatre of
the question, disappeared into theback
ground, for after Lord SALIsBURY's
attempt to define the Monroe Doctrine
for the United States, there was
nothing" as Mr.. CLEVELAND wrote,
left for us to do consistently with
national honor but to take the place
Of Venezuela in the controversy, so
far as that was necessary, in vindi-
cation of our American doctrine"
Even II Venezuela, through some cir
cumstance, had yielded to Great Brit
ain, the course of the United States
would not have been altered, for the
Monroe Doctrine is not the policy of
a group OF nations. 1t is the policy,
the national right, Of this nation.
1t Is unnecessary, therefore, for Mr..
CARRANzA to recognize the Monroe
Doctrine. If some European or Asia
tic Power should set out to Cypress or
control the Republic of Mexico the
action of the United States would
not be decided by sympathy for the
people whom Mr.. CARRANzA pretends
to represent, although that sympathy
has not yet died. This Government
would move to repel the intruder be-
cause of Americas own positive policy.
---------------