Evening star., 1933-08-27


II the latest political crisis in
Cuba, the Monroe Doctrine has
~ been the subject of much pub
lie and editorial comment. And
once again the many times famous
pronouncement of President Monroe has
been the victim of that long chain
of neutrality-suspicious. and distortions.
which, beginning almost simultaneously
with 1t, has completely altered its orig
inal meaning and scope.
Once again, the Monroe Doctrine has
been wrongly invoked. Few, very few,
| were the editorial writer's who did not
gravely refer to the Monroe principles
as being affected by the Cuban situa
| tion or who did not solemnly remind
the Government Of the United States
| Of its serious responsibilities" under
the Monroe Doctrine. Congressional
leaders, three Senators among them
| issued statements to the press along
similar lines. And, of course, In public
conversations, the name Of the doc
tripe was heard almost as often as
that Of Machado.
Misunderstanding General
The editorialists cannot be blamed
Neither can the statesmen Of today or
| the public. The misunderstanding Of
the Monroe Doctrine has been SO gen
eral and so consistent, for so many
years. that no new misinterpretation
can cause surprise. Any modern mis-
| taken conception of the doctrine must
be traced back to the changes and
corollaries imposed upon it by Monroe's
| successors; to the stretching or con-
tracing of the doctrine. according to
! the circumstances. in the century of
existence. in order that it might cover
= ntir 11k4 r-1,s1
alien to it in its original form.
It Is impossible to describe, within
, the limits Of short article, that ex-
traordinary metamorphosis Of the Mon
| roe Doctrine from a purely defensive
and precautionary declaration in be-
! half df the safety and interests Of the
| United States into an all bracing
shibboleth and an instrument Of pre-
dominance and overlordship of the
, United States in the New World But.
J that the change has taken place, and
| that today the Monroe Doctrine is
/ something entirely different from what
James Monroe inended it to be in 1928.
IS clearly shown every time an emer-
gency arises in Latin America and the
doctrine is unavoidably invoked.
The most recent instance is this Of
Cuba, In which not only Saxon Ameri-
cans and Europeans, but Latin Ameri-
cans as well. revealed once more their
lack OF understanding of the real pur-
pose and scope of the original Monroe
Doctrine
| Doctrine Has Two Purposes.
The average argument ran as follows
The Monroe Doctrine prevents Euro
pean differentiation in Latin America,
and the United States being the coun-
| q liz,
| follows that the United States must af-
| ford protection TO the lives and property
OF European citizens endangered by in
! ternal disturbances IN q Latin Ameriz =
can republic. Therefore. if a chaotic
+ situation in Cuba foces some European
power to send warships to the island
this would be an infringement of the
Monroe Doctrine which the United
States could not tolerate.
The accuracy of the argument can be
contested on several grounds In the
first place, the Monroe Doctrine plainly
specified the kind of European inter
vention to which it objected The
| Monroe Doctrine, that is, the original
Monroe Doctrine. the Monroe Doctrine
Of President Monroe, condemned only
two things-one was the further acqui-
sition of American territory by Euro
pean opwers; the other was any in
terposition for the purpose of oppress-
| ing" the Latin American republic "or
| controlling in any other manner their
destiny or change their form of gov
ernment by any European power.
These two principles-which, Incl
: dentally. have been repeatedly violated
in the past with the knowledge of the
United States-are the sum total Of the
original Monroe Doctrine 1t IS obvious
therefore, that the doctrine did not
prevent European countries from af-
fording to their citizens in the Ameri-
can continent the protection recognized
by the canons of international law It
did not forbid European governments to
look after the lives of their subjects If
these happened to be inhabiting some
. country in the Western Hemisphere. 1t
could not have done so.
Warning Against Colonization.
| II, then. British or French or Span
ish memo war had been dispatched to
Cuban waters for the mere purpose Of
! protecting European lives. without in
terfering with the natural development
of the domestic struggle. their presence
in Havana H9bor would not have con-
stituted an infringement of the Monroe
Doctrine OF course, such protection
not because of the Monroe Doctrine, but
because Of the accepted rules of inter
national law-could not have been exer-