Evening star., 1933-01-22
ARGENTINA AIRS VIEWS
ON MONROE DOCTRINE
Declaration That 1t Is Not Regional
Agreement Crystallizes Latin Amer
lean View of Document.

Of Honduras, Salvador, Haiti and Se-aa
Rica. it is not entirely original. Lxso
than a year and a half ago, the gov
eminent of Mexico, in accepting the
Leagues invitation to become its nifty
fifth member. stated unequivocally:
Mexico considers it necessary to
make it known, in accepting, that
Mexico never has admitted the regional
| understandings mentioned In Article
| XXI Of the League pact"
Lacked Opportunity.
Mexico had not had an opportunity,
before, to voice her disapprobation of
Article XXI, because-being at that
| time under the rule of revolutionary
government not recognized by the
| United States-she was barred in 1919
from the list Of founder members OF
the League.
But, late in 1881, when, after long
negotiations, the Mexican government
agreed to accept an invitation to join
the League if this would come accom-
panied by an "amende honorable" for
the original discourtesy. Foreign Min
lister Estrada of Mexico seized the op-
portunity to repudiate the continental
character given the Mcnroes Hoctrine
by Article XXI
Latin American editorial writer's re-
| Joiced at the announcement of Mexicos
admission into the League. by unani-
NOUS vote, after her frank denuncia-
ton Of Article XXI. They remarked
that Mexico had not been originally in
vited, in 1919, out of the Leagues def
erence for the United States, which had
at that time no diplomatic relations
with Mexico. And that MeXico's ad-
mission, now, in spite of her reServa-
ton, was an acknowledgment of the
error previously committed in qualify
ing the Monroe Doctrine as a regional
understanding.
The error is made more apparent by
the fact that officials of the United
States Government have been the first
to deny the doctrine that character Of
regional understanding The United
States Senate discussing the draft Of
the treaty of Versailles, suggested the
| following reservation upholding the
Monroe Doctrine in the face of any pos
sible conflict with the covenant of the
League:
The United States will not submit
to arbitration or to inquiry by the As
Sembly of by the Council of the League
Of Nations, provided for in said treaty
OF peace, any questions which in the
judgment of the United States depend
upon or relate to its long established
policy commonly known as the Monroe
Doctrine; said doctrine is to be inter-
preted by the United States alone and
is hereby declared to be wholly outside
the jurisdiction of said League of Ma
tlons and entirely unaffected by any
provision contained in the said treaty
of peace"
Held National Policy.
Similar reservations had been placed
on record, before by the United States,
|
CT 1899 and 1907. The Monroe Doc
trine has always been considered by
the Washington Government a ma
tional policy, entirely of its own. the
Interpretation and application of which
| depend exclusively upon the Judgment
Of the Washington authorities.
In commenting upon the Mexican
reservation to Article XXI, in Septem-
/ ber 1881. the State Department was
most emphatic in stressing, once more,
that the Monroe Doctrine was policy
Of the United States, mot treaty or
agreement with any other government,
and may be changed only BY action Of
this country
That is Just what Latin Americans
argue in repudiating Article XXI of
the League Covenant. How can be
labeled regional understanding" q
policy in the application of which the
I
executor. sometimes even against the
wishes and interests Of certain Latin
American nations?
The only regional understanding
as between the United States and the
rest of the American republics-seems
to be, precisely, about the unilateral,
one-sided nature of the Monroe Doc
trine. That is, about the doctrine not
being regional understanding"
That the authors of the League cove
nant. originally, had no intention of
miSstating the place occupied by the
Monroe Doctrine in the realm of inter-
national affairs. is clearly shown by the
drafts prepared by Taft, Wilson and Sir
Robert Cecil in reference to the doc
trine's relation to the covenant Those
drafts recognized the policy embodied
IN the Monroe Doctrine as being COM
patible with the League covenant, but
did not even mention the doctrine by
name. 1t was only after several indica-
tions had come from the other side Of
the Atlantic that opposition to an en-
tanglement with the League was grow
ing in the United States, that the
regional understanding phrase was
inserted Is Article XXI, merely as a
sop to the United States Senate.
What controversies two misplaced
words in an international document can
provoke! And how many more these
two could engender in the near future.
If the Japenese spokesmen, who have
SO cleverly been using Western prece-
dents as alibiS would call their recently
proclaimed "ASiatic Monroe Doctrine"
a regional understanding protected by
Article XXI!