Evening star., 1933-08-27
MONROE DOCTRINE ONCE
AGAIN WRONGLY INVOKED
Cuban Political Crisis Adds TO Long
Chain of Misinterpretations and
Distortions of Pact.

ctSed beyond measures q precautlon-
ary character, unless every seMbisiIcs
Of government had disappeared in Cuba
and veritable state Of anarchy and
chaos prevailed throughout the island.
In other words, If European wafships
had been sent to Cuba, to stand by, as
were the u s. S. Taylor and the U.
S. S. Claxton. and to afford safe
haven for endangered European lives,
without attempting to control the des-
tiny of the Cuban nation, the Monroe
Doctrine would not have been disre-
garded
- Moreover. the Monroe Doctrine did
rot impose any obligation upon the
United States. as seems TO be the gen.
eral belief. to protect the lives and prop
erty of Europeans in Latin America.
The Doctrine was simply warning that
the United States, because Of Us own
safety and i~terests. would not permit
the future col0nization Of American ter
ritory or the extension of the European
system Of government-then monarch
ical-to this part of the world. That
did not place upon the United states
the responsibility of looking after the
lives and property of Europeans through
out Latin America. although this was.
unfortunately. and still seems to be, the
view of many American and European
statesmen.
If this misconception Of the Monroe
Doctrine had not existed the British and
the Spanish governments would not
have made the mistake of appealing to
the United States for protection Of their
nationals, alleging that the Monroe
Doctrine forced them to do so. They
could have properly done the same by
mentioning the Platt amendment. which
Is an entirely different thing, but never
the Monroe Doctrine. After all, the
GAYS Of Clevelands North American fat
and Of Theodore Roosevelt's policing Of
the Caribbean are no longer In vogue.
And Theodore Roosevelt hinsf once
said that the Monroe Doctrine did not
guarantee any state against punish
ment If 1t misconducts itself, provided
that punishmnt does not take the form
of the acquisition Of territory by any
non American power"
Not Slow to Press Obligation.
A well known authority on interna-
tional affairs commented in a local
paper, with respect to the Cuban stu
alton. that the European governments
had not been slow to press the obliga-
ton of the United States, under the
Monroe Doctrine, to protect the interests
of their nationals as concomitant Of
the right Of the United States to pre-
vent the Intervention Of Europe In the
affairs Of this continent" Threefold
error First. because there is no such
obligation involved in the Monroe Doc
trine: second. because the Doctrine Goes
not prevent the Intervention of Europe
in the affairs Of this continent" but
only that intervention directed TO ac-
ouire territory or control the political
destiny of the Latin American nations,
ard, third, because the Monroe Doctrine
does not accord any right" TO the
United States to prevent anything
The Doctrine was advanced by the
United States and is maintained be-
cause the United States deems it con-
venient to its interests and safety. II
is a self-imposed burden to see that
Latin American independence is pre-
served. because its infringement would
be harmful to the United States. It is
a unilateral declaration of policy which
derives all its strength from the physi-
cal power of the country which spon-
sors it.
In so far as the Doctrine Is base
upon reasons of self f-preservation an
national interests. 1t cannot be assailel
But 1t does not give any right" TO ii
! United States to do this or that J
do SO there would have to be an inte,
ildtlOlldl dBIcttuellL, COQII1SQCdl az
cord, or, at least, tacit understand.
among all the American States, 81,
porting the Monroe policies in the
modern sense. in their enlarged an
distorted sense. and acknowledging tbs
! right of the United States to keep
European governments out of any and
all the affairs Of this continent. No
! such thing has ever existed. And every
day that goes by the possibilities Of
such an accord grow DINNER
II the United States was so directly
interested In the Cuban crisis, it was
not because of the Monroe Doctrine
1t should not have been because of the
Monroe Doctrine-but because of three
! other reasons, each one more tang BILE
and more timely than the Monroe Doc
trine. They fall under the claSsifca-
tons Of economics, national security
and international obligations, but by
international obligations is meant the
Platt amendment-which authorizes
this country. with the consent Of the
Cubans. to intervene In Cuba "for the
maintenance of q government adequate
for the protection OF life. property and
! individual Nberty'-and not the Mon
roe Doctrine Of 1928 Unless Ambassa-
cor Welles' friendly curiosity'-as his
role in the Cuban crisis was interpreted
by State Department ohicials-k to be
taken as the latest corollary to the
Monroe Doctrine.
tcopyrisht. 19SS>