Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-06-28
BY CASTOR NERvAL.

James Monroe, third President
i Of the United States. once more
has brought to the limelight the
merits and problems of that historic
Monroe Doctrine which, partly by ira.
dition and partly by Misrepresentation
has become the major issue OF pam
American relations.
The elaborate exercises in which Gov.
eminent officials of the United States
and diplomatic representatives of for
eign countries will pay respect to the
memory of President Monroe next Sat
urday at the University Of Virginia
have been widely announced throughout
the continent. Logically enough, thi,
announcement has brought about a re-
vival of discussion on that political
document with which his name is asso-
ciated in history and which constituted
the outstanding event of the Monroe
administration
Stanch supporters Of the Monroe Doc
trine in this country and bitter oppo-
nents Of 1t In Latin America and In
Europe have exhumed their old argu-
ments and are again engaged in a con-
troversy as futile as their contentious
are biased and mistaken-mistaken be-
cause they both start from an erroneou:
Interpretation of the doctrine. one which
was not in the mind of James Monroe
when on December 2. 1923. he solemnly
read his message to Congress.
Much Misinterpreted.
Few political acts have been less un-
derstood and more capriciously Judged
by international authorities than the
Monroe Doctrine. BY a series of mis-
interpretations, the blame for which
should rest with both American and
Latin American statesmen, public opin-
ion on both sides OF the Rio Grande
has been induced to regard the doctrine
as something quite different from what
1t was intended to mean when first an
nounced.
Far from being exclusively a declara
ton OF policy on the part Of the United
States and a announcement against
the interference of European powers in
the Western Hemisphere, as it was sup
posed to be, the Monroe Doctrine is
often confused today with United
States imperialism, United States inter-
vention in Latin American countries
regional accords. and even with pam
Americanism itself
Leaving aside psychological problems
economic barriers and cultural differ
ences. which are gradually adjusting
themselves with the passing of time and
slowly growing knowledge of each
ether, the one big remaining source OF
fear, misunderstanding and suspicion
preventing greater pan-American
friendship is the Intervention by the
United States in the domestic affairs OF
the Latin American countries.
Intervention Is today, as 1t has been
for years, tie real sore spot" of inter-
American relations. Now, by a series
Of misinterpretations. the Monroe Doc
trine has been the principle under which
such Intervention has been practiced.
Protection to Republics.
Originally the Monroe Doctrine was
not intended to justify United States in
tervention in Latin America. 1t was
meant to keep the European powers out
of the American continent and to af-
ford protection to the young morgan
lied Latin American republics against
the ambitions of those powers.
Later on. however. as the doctrine
barred European countries from med
ding with the domestic affairs of the
still unsettled Latin American republics
1t was thought that it gave the United
States certain obligations to protect
the lives and property Of European citi-
zenS living in one of them when endan-
gered by internal disorders. If the
United States by means of the Monroe
Doctrine forbade the interference of the
European powers. she herself should af-
ford protection to Europeans living in
Latin America. This theory developed
fast, and gradually the Monroe Doc
trine was converted from a merely pro-
tective policy into something entirely
different. under which the United States
was understood to be justified in pro-
tecting and almost obliged to protect
the lives and property Of foreigners in
Latin American republic.
Then came the tnterpreta tion-Or
rather, misinterpretation-of the doc
trlne by President Roosevelt, the famous
Roosevelt corollary," which specifically
stated that the Monroe Doctrine i'm
posed upon the United States the duty
to exercise an international police
power" in the Caribbean region. Since
then the terms Monroe Doctrine" and
policy of the big stick" have been as
sociated in the minds of most Latin
Americans. The Monroe Doctrine has
been described by the Latins as a means
devised by the United States to extend
its political influence over the rest of
the continent. Instead of a protection
they have looked upon it as a menace.
Regarded as Menace.
The Roosevelt corollary and the
capricious interpretations of the doctrine
by other high officials added to the
misunderstanding of the original Mon
roe principle by both Americans and
Latin Americans. A a consequence the
Monroe Doctrine has often been used by
the former as Justification for all inter-
ventionS IN the Caribbean zone, and has
become to be regarded by the latter as
menace Of foreign interference, and
even political control. In other words
it may not be ventureSome to say that
most of the mistakes of the United
States in Latin America have been
committed in the name of the Monroe
Doctrine. and that likewise nearly all
the attacks coming from Latin America
on the policies of the United States
have been centered on the Monroe Doc
trine.
Entirely misconstrued, the Monroe
Doctrine has thus been and still Is the
greatest obstacle in the way of a better
inter american understanding. Logi-
cally, If the pan-American ideal is to
be converted into reality in our days.
the first step is the removal of that
obstacle. The abolition or the modi-
fication of the Monroe Doctrine, under
which. though enormously, intervention
is practiced, appears to be necessary
Not long ago, commenting upon the
new Latin American policy of the State
Department and the efforts of the
Hoover administration in gaining the
good viii of the Southern neighbors,
had an opportunity to outline how this
vindication of the Monroe Doctrine
might be effected. On the eve of James
AEArar0ose e.