Evening star., 1933-03-26
LEAGUES FAR EAST STAND
SAME In SOUTH AMERICA
Support by U. S. of Move to End War
Destroys Japanese Argument of Force
as Justified by Monroe Doctrine.


for the first time on dispute in the
American hemisphere, was challenging
the Monroe Doctrine should be brushed
aside as invalid" And thereby hangs
tale.
For years. students of international
affairs on both sides Of the Atlantic
have been under the impression that
the ascendency which the United
States attributed to itself in the West
ern Hemisphere, via the Monroe Doc
trine, prevented the interference of
any agency not exclusively American,
in the political affairs of the New
World.
Monroe Doctrine Distortion.
OF course, only the unparalleled dis
tortion which the Monroe Doctrine has
suffered in the 110 years of its exist
ence made such theory possible. So
many corollaries were added, so many
and such capricious interpretations of
it were adopted by the successors of
President Monroe, so many abuses
we're committed in its name, such a
broad and unwarranted scope was ac-
corded to it, that, until very recently
the Monroe Doctrine was considered,
not only by public opinion, but by
statesmen AS well, as giving the United
States the final saying on any Questions
affecting the relations of Latin Amer
lea with the rest of the world.
To be sure, q Monroe Doctrine of this
kind is such a departure from the
original pronouncement of President
Monroe that if its author would come
to life today he would be unable to
recognize it, but. nevertheless, this is
the view which prevailed and still pre-
walls, in a large section of public
opinion in this country and in Europe.
And it is because this conception
rather this misconception-of the Mon
roe Doctrine was the prevailing one.
that observers not only here and in
Europe. but also in Latin America, were
skeptical as to the efficiency Of the
Leagues intervention in purely Latin
American dispute and awaited eagerly
to know the position of the United
States in the Leticia incident.
The support given the League by the
State Department in preserving South
American peace must, therefore, have
taken by surprise those who still be-
lieve in the big brother" role which
the Monroe Doctrine. in the opinion Of
past administrations, allotted to the
United States in this part of the world.
And they were in the majority
But it has not surprised-it could not
have surprised-those Latin Americans
who have been denouncing for years
the misinterpretation and the misuse of
the Monroe Doctrine which led to its
temporary acceptance by the world as
a force in preSent-day international
relations.
Restatement by Stimson.
1t has not surprised those who had
been watching recent changes in the
policies of the United States toward
Latin America; changes, which, in the
past four years, have given ground to
the impression that there is today an
entirely new Latin American policy"
in the State Department. One of the
first acts of former Secretary Stimson
upon taking Office was restatement
of the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine,
declaring it to be aimed solely at pre-
venting European imperialistic inter-
vention or occupation in the Western
Hemisphere. The State Departments
attitude, now, in the Leticia case is only
a confirmation of this view. Hence,
call it the end of an era and the be-
ginning Of a new one in the relations
OF Latin America with the United
States and with the rest Of the world.
1t was about time that the United
States disavowed openly, in the practice,
the old conception of the Monroe Doc
trine. That conception was not only
unjuStiflable in law and an arbitrary
distortion of the original Monroe deelar-
alton, but it was also in conflict with
the fundamental principles and agencies
on which international relations and the
peace of the world are based today.
1t was in conflict with the very nature
Of the League of Nations, an institution
founded by another President of the
United States, to keep world peace
wherever it may be menaced. 1t was in
conflict with the spirit of the Kellogg
BRAND pact, which renounced war as an
instrument Of national policy. 1t was in
conflict with the Hoover Stimson doc
trine of non-recognition of territorial
gains by force. It was in conflict with
modern arbitration treaties between
European and Latin American states. 1t
was in conflict with the whole peace
machinery built up. since Versailles, to
assure the cooperation of all the ma
tons Of the world. American or nom
American, in the prevention of war
Finally-and here may be found the
clue to the change-it gave the spokes-
man for the Japanese foreign Office
seemingly logical ground to account for
the presence Of the Nipponese warning
legions in Manchuria. With Washing
ton supporting the League as an agent
of law and order in Latin America, the
gentleman on the other side of the Pa
cific "has not leg to stand on" in his
claim that the United States application
of the Monroe Doctrine entities Japan
to similar privileged position as the
sole country responsible for peace in
the Far East.
tCopyright. 1880