Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-09-27
Continued From Third Page,

fConttnued From Third Page.)
attributing intentions contrary to this
effect to the Monroe Doctrine. They
are wrong in considering the Monroe
Doctrine an instrument Of foreign po-
litical interference.
The Saxon Americans are right In
supporting any national policy, like the
Monroe Doctrine, which is for the good
of their self-preServation and security.
They may be also right In maintaining
their privilege to protect with force
their fellow citizens abroad But they
are wrong in tying up these two separa-
rate problems of their foreign policy
and in taking for granted that the
Monroe Doctrine entities them to use
that force. They are wrong In sup
posing that the Monroe Doctrine justi-
fies their intervention in Latin Aineri-
can countries or gives them the role OF
an international police power in the
Western Hemisphere.
Thus, from their own points Of view,
from their own conceptions OF the
Monroe Doctrine, both Saxon and
Latin Americans are right in unfolding
and denouncing 1t. But from the view
point OF the doctrine itself, from the
viewpoint of VIZ the Monroe Doctrine
was really int-r ID to be, and mean,
eAASJ eAAC HOtAA Wa b
Change Interpretation.
Fortunately enough, statesmen in this
country have lately realized t.lct their
predecessors had betn on the wrong
track in their judgment of the. doctrine
To amend past nlisunds rstandings they
have been repeating once and again,
although not often enough to be fully
heard on the other side of the, Rio
Grande, that the Monroe Doctrine is
exclusively national policy of national
interests, which does not require the
support of any other American republic
Spokesman for the State Department
have been recently proclaiming this new
Interpretation of the doctrine. In its
latest cornrnunique, originated by the
Mexican reply to the League, the de-
partf1ent pointed out, once MORE, that
the Monroe Doctrine SIS an American
policy, not a treaty or agreement with
any other government. and may be
charged only by action of this country"
OF course, this is the opinion of well
versed statesmen who have studied the
real meaning Of the doctrine. The
bulk of public opinion. in the country
still has to be converted to this new
Interpretation Of the Monroe Doctrine,
which Is the only trtie one.
AS for the Latin Americans, the prob
lem Is even harder, for not even their
statesmen are yet familiar With this
new Understanding of the Monroe
Doctrine. And until they do, until they
realize they have nothing to fear from
the doctrine, they will keep on Selling
every opportunity to attack it and. dis
credit 1t.
international life is fun Of r1isuflder-
standings. Perhaps the authors of the
Leagues covenant did not mean to in
dorse doctrine disliked by the Latin
americans, but evidently their mistake
was in the wording of Article XXI
which makes special reference to it.
Defined as UNDERSTANDING.
Article XXI defines the Monroe Doc
tr1ne ss regional understanding. y
This. presupposes the backing of a
number of American states, which has
nexer existed, and which the doctrine
never needed.
The Monroe Doctrihe, as the Stats
Department is constantly feffiarking
nowadays, is a national policy, the ap-
plicatior Of which depends entirely
upon the United States Government.