Evening star., 1921-11-13
BY EDWARD N. DINGLEY.

M doctrine in the arms con-
" ference? 1t is not included
in the agenda; but since
the far. east problem involves special
interests" spheres Of influence"
paramount control" and the "open
door," the question has been raised
not infrequently: "Is' the Monroe
doctrine to be involved?"
1t is an open secret that since the
end of the war in 1918 school OF
economic. and political thought has
developed insisting that the Monroe
doctrine was abandoned when the
United States entered the war; or, as
Prof. Hiram Bingham puts 1T, Is an
obsolete shibboleth." In a recent ad-
dress in London Ambassador Harvey
replying to certain criticisms. said
that the arms conference 'is no more
a challenge to the league Of nations
than to the Monroe doctrine" Did he
mean by this that 1t is a challenge to
both or a challenge to neither?
Definitions Differ.
Much has been written and spoken
about the Monroe doctrine. The late
Prof. Edward J. Phelps. once Ameri.
can ambassador to England. said
every leading statesman had attempt
ed to define the Monroe doctrine. but
mo two of them agree" This may be
extravagant. but certainly 1T is true
that recurring misapprehensions as to
the underlying principle of that ia
nous doctrine have met with unfa-
vorable comment. not to say open op-
position. Is the doctrine in danger:
Has it outlived it's usefulness?
What is the Monroe doctrine? For
mer President Taft says 'it is a pol
icy, not an obligation of international
law; it does not contemplate inter
ference with the self-development OF
any Central or South American coun-
try: 1t has promoted the peace of the
world: it's extent is a matter OF our
own judgment. We are concerned
that their (South American) govern.
ments shall not be interfered with by
European governments: that this
hemisphere shall not be a field fol
land aggrandizement and the chase
for increased political power by Euro.
pean governments such as we have
witnessed in Africa and in China and
in Manchuria: and we believe such a
condition would be inimical to our
ssfety and interests. 1t il
said the doctrine rests on force. Tha,
is true if it's enforcement is resisted
Its ultimate sanction and vindicatior
are in our ability to maintain it. . "
1t Is a national asset - fol
those who would promote the peace
of the world. II abandoned. a situa
Ition would be created much more dan
gerous to the peace of the hemisphere
than our continued assertion Of the
doctrine properly understood ant
limited"
Theodore Rsosevelt's View.
The late President Roosevelt de.
clared the Monroe doctrine gives tht
United States mo sovereignty ovel
South America; does not prevent thu
SOlASSSioh Va NSoSSB PioN1NSu thSiS z as
no attempt to take over the ownership
Of territory. The doctrine is not 8
part Of international law. but funda
mental feature of our entire foreign
policy. When we announce policy
such as the Monroe doctrine, W.
| thereby commit ourselves to accept
ing the consequences Of the policy
We mean what we say and are pre-
pared to back 1t up. to recognize oul
obligations to foreign peoples no les!
than our rights. 1t is in no wise in
tended as heing hostile to any natior
Of the old world: has nothing to dt
| with commercial relations Of an,
American powers. It is watchful Zig
| ilance on the part Of America"
Mr. Elihu Root says: I'VE wish fol
| no victory except those of peace: fol
no territory except our own: for NJ
J sovereignty except the sovereisnt,