Evening star., 1933-01-26
Unilatersl Wonrce.sm.

At the moment chosen in Toxic for
the proclamation Of a japanese Monroe
Doctrine for =. it is Noteworthy that
the actual Monroe Doctrine-the policy
laid down by the United States one
hundred and ten years ago covering the
Western Hemisphere-is an issue Of
current interest at Geneva. In recently
authorizing the Buenos Aires govern
ment to rejoin the League OF Nations,
the Argentine Chamber Of Deputies un-
mistakably stated the position Of the
republic toward the Monroe Doctrine
While communicating the adhesion of
Argentina to the leagues secretariat,
the Chamber directed the government
to point out that the Argentine Re
public regards the Monroe Doctrine,
mentioned in Article XXI of the League
covenant, as unilateral political decla-
ration which In its time performed a
notable service to the cause of American
emancipation. but holds that it does
not constitute a regional agreement. as
stated in the aforementioned article"
In 1881, when Mexico accepted the
Leagues invitation to become its fifty
fifth member, the Mexican government
anticipated the language just used at
Geneva by Argentina, saying: Mexico
considers it necessary to make it known,
in accepting, that she has never ad-
mitted the regional understandings
mentioned in Article XXI of the League
pact"
In The Sunday Star, CASTOR Nerval,
we'll informed writer on Central and
South American affairs, recalls that
Latin-American editorial commentators
rejoiced at the announcement Of
Mexico's admission into the League by
unanimous vote. after her frank de-
nunciation of Article XXI. They did not
tail to. recall that Mexico, out of Gen.
eva's difference for the United States
then without diplomatic relations with
Mexico-had not been among the ma
tions originally invited to join the
League Mexicos admission, twelve years
later, in spite of hsr reservation, was
hailed throughout the Western Latin
world as an acknowledgment of the err
ror previously committed In qualifying
the Monroe Doctrine as a regional
understanding.
The United States has never dissem-
bled its position that the Monroe Doc
trine is, in fact, unilateral policy.
Commenting upon the Mexican reserva-
ton to Article XXI, the State Depart
ment was most emphatic In restatins
that Monroeism is a policy OF the
United States, mot q treaty or agree
ment with any other government, and
may be changed only by action of this
country"
Pending the arrival of an actual test
of its applicability. those who derive
satisfaction from quibbling over inter-
national terminology may split hairs
over the fine distinction between a re
gional understanding" and regional
agreement" The proof Of the pudding
will come when the Monroe Doctrine Is
confronted by a practical emergency.
Should such an occasion ever arise, it
is more than questionable whether
either Argentina, Mexico or any other
of the sister Americas-in case one Of
them were the object Of external ag-
gression-would reject the Intervention
Of the United States. At such q
moment discussion as to whether the
Monroe Doctrine is "unilateral," . re-
gional Understanding" or . regional
agreement" would automatically cease,
as the Western World coalesced in PAN
American defense. Meantime little
harm is done by academic debate over
the true inwardness Of Monroeism.