Evening star., 1933-09-24
CUBAN POLICY DISPUTE
IGNORES LEGAL NUANCES
Extremely Divided Sentiment Found on
Wisdom of Intervention With
Middle View Held Correct.

orders, and in undertaking the risk he
is automatically accepting full RESPONSE
bility for it and renounclng any outside
protection. except that obtained through
the established channels of diplomatic
representation. He has not been forced
to go down there and he is not forced
to stay down, if he considers his per-
sonal safety or property endangered.
Anything else would amount to placing
the foreign interests in privileged
position with respect to the local ones,
which not only have to submit entirely
to the laws of the country, but are
also subject to the same dangers and
possible damage as the former in times
Of civil war;
The judgment OF an impartial OBJ
server would have to be equi-distant
from these two extreme views. Argu-
ment No. l must be credited to the
Latin American side. The Monroe Doc
trine is. really, not involved in the Gu
ban case. The doctrine does not forbid
the protection of European lives in a
Latin American country by European
governments, provided. Of course, that
such protection is limited to measures
Of a precautionary nature, without at
tempting to control the destiny" of
that country. The presence in Cuban
waters of European warships sent there
to stand by, like the American ones,
and to afford safe haven for Euro
peans who consider themselves endan-
gered by the Cuban internal situation,
would not be in violation Of the Monroe
Doctrine Most editorial writers in the
United States, and several public men,
including three United States Senators,
who invoked the doctrine in connection
with the Cuban crisis we're dangerously
siding with the extremists on this side
Of the Rio Grande.
Platt Amendment Effective.
Argument No. 2, on the other hand,
must be decided for the affirmative. I'm
posed or not, the Platt amendment is
embodied IN an international pact. 1t
Is, moreover, sanctioned by the Cuban
magma charta. Disliked or not by the
Cubans. it is there. And as long as 1t
Is there. it is useless to contest the
right of the United States to intervene
in Cuba for the maintenance of gov
ernment adequate for the protection
Of life. property and individual liberty"
Only the mutual consent of both parties,
not the reputation of one of them, can
bring about the abandonment of that
right The infringement of Cuban
sovereignty was committed when the
Platt amendment was forced into the
Cuban constitution, but. now that Is
| part of it. it appears solely as self
limitation" of sovereignty. its enforce
ment being sanctioned in advance by
the Cubans themselves. This circum-
stance makes the position of the
| United States toward Cuba a very
! peculiar one, which cannot be taken
/ as a test for the Latin American policy
| of the State Department. American
| intervention in Cuba. undesirable as it
may be. but justified, from a legal point
| of view, by the Platt amendment, would
not be sufficient evidence that the
United States would employ similar
| methods toward other Latin republics
with which no such special commit
ments bind it. or that it had reverted
| to the old policies of the big stick"
dollar diplomacy" or the big brother"
days.
With one point each to their credit,
the two groups of extremists must di-
vide honors for the third and last argu-
ment The use Of armed forces for the
protection Of lives or property of for
eigners is. certainly, condemned by the
accepted canons of the law of nations,
so long as there is an established local
government able to afford such pro-
lection. The fairness Of the rule is
easily perceived by inverting the terms
and imagining Cuban sailors and
marines landing in the United States
to protect the lives or the property OF
Cuban citizens threatened by gang war
fare in Chicago. But. surely this is
not the kind of protection which Ameri-
can officials have in mind when they
consider Intervention in the island.
Collective Action Banned.
The protection they are thinking of
! is that which would be required in the
absence of any local authorities able
to control the situation-that is. when
internecine strife had degenerated into
domestic anarchy and chaos. Not even
the most exalted Latin American eX-
tremists would deny the necessity OF
armed protection under those circunl-
stances. Naturally, in anv other Latin
American republic, the proper course
would be collective action by all the
American governments, but in the case
of Cuba, or in that of Panama, the
peculiar treaty rights granted the
United States would justify American
action.
But the main fault of extremists, both
here and in Latin America, is the spirit
in which they think of Intervention.
The former look at it as God-given
privilege of the United States. to pre-
serve order and protect foreigners in
any Latin American country torn by in
ternal unrest. The latter look at it as
an abuse of power on the part of the
United States for the advancement of
selfish, imperialistic aims. Neither of
them seem to have heard of the "Roose-
welt revolution" in the United States.
which has placed in the Government at
Washington men who do not believe in
imperialism, men who have pledged
themselves to a new deal and the
policy of the good neighbor" in inter-
national relations.
tCopyright. 1933)