Evening star., 1933-01-29

" firming his faith in the doctrine
4 \ that the sanctity of treaties
must be the basis of interna-
tional relations has created wide COM
fnent IN Europe. Obviously designed
to give the celor Of support OF an IN
coming administration to the policy OF
the outgoing in the Far East, it never
theleSs had immediate ana far-reach-
Ing European implications.
Thus. literally Interpreted. Mr.. Roose-
velt's statement would seem a blanket
Endorsement of the status QUO princi-
pie which is the basis of tn policy OF
France and her Polish and Little En-
tente allies. And similarly it would
strike fatally at the hopes of Germany
and her fellow reviSioniSts, Austria,
Hungary. Bulgaria and even Italy. In
a word, this Roosevelt statement would
seem to put the new administration
solidly on the side of one of the two
groups of opposed powers in Europe.
For the basis of the policy of France
and her allies is that the present ter
ritorial situation ON the continent, hav-
ing been established by the several
treaties of the Paris Conference, of
which the Versailles treaty is the most
famous, cannot be changed save by
agreement. And since in practice all
Sulll dSA CClilSlll ID lllipOSSlDIC, oilS az
tempt to revise frontiers by force would
not only be illegal but would call for
protest from all signatory powers of the
treaties and of the Kellogg pact, which
is where the United States would
come in.
If the United States is prepared to
undertake to uphold the Sanctity OF
treaties. even to the extent of protest.
ing against violent attempts to set them
aside, then obviously the United States
would be called upon to act in case
any one of the peace treaties OF 1919
were assailed Thus, if Germany sought
to revise the Polish Corridor by force,
Hungary to recover Magyar minoritieS
in Czechoslavakia, Rumania or Yugo-
slavia, Bulgaria to liberate the purely
Bulgar populations of Macedonia. all
such actions would constitute denial
of the sanctity of treaties and would be
OF concern to the United States.
Principle Reafhrmed.
In itself this statement bN Mr.. Roose-
velt is patiently only reafflrmatlon OF
the principle which has been variously
described as the Hoover and the Stim-
son doctrine. Called forth by the Man.
churian events, this doctrine commits
the United States to refuse to recog-
nize any change in sovereignty or ter
ritorial status achieved in disregard OF
the Kellogg pact.
Under this doctrine the United
States, were Poland to seize Koenigs-
berg. Germany to take Thorn, Hun
gary to occupy Kassa or Bulgaria to
lay hands on Monastir. would refuse to
give its approval by ignoring the change
in sovereignty. And in doing this 1t
would only follow the course which the
Hoover administration has already
adopted in respect of Manchukuo.
Formally ratified. this Hoover doctrine
would have an Importance hardly less
considerable than the Monroe Doctrine
once possessed and would bind this Ma
ton to apply moral sanctions to nations
infringing international law and breach
ing treaty contracts anywhere in the
world.
Obviously this step is revolutionary
in itself and has still greater impor-
tance when associated with that other
StimGon uncement-namely, that
the Kellogg pact abolished neutrality
and imposed upon all signatory states
the duty to go to conference in case OF
crisis. If this is now to be the policy
of the United States. the country is
bound to go to international conference
in any such event as the recent Man.
dllGlI VI III SuCll d CllSlS do
was precipitated in 1914 by the German
invasion of Belgium.
In reality Mr.. Roosevelt's pronounce
ment seems to foreshadoW an adoption
of the whole StimSon thesis that Ameri
can isolation is thing of the past, that
the United States must participate in
all international meetings called to
deal with perils to peace anywhere and
that the United States must in addition
employ moral sanctions-that is, follow
the principle of non-recognition- when
ever it holds treaty to have been vio
lated.
But, as was inevitable, this Hoover
doctrine has provoked much protest
not merely among the isolationists, but
also among those who advocate far
going American cooperation with the
world in peace endeavors. Thus. Presl-
dent Lowell of Harvard has challenged
the whole conception as likely to lead,
not to the prevention of treaty viola
tion, but rather to an ENHANCEMENT Of
the United States in the consequences