Evening star., 1934-06-17
CUBA STILL u. S. WORRY
AND UNREST UNCHANGED
Platt Amendment Gone, but Powerful
and Greedy American Interests, Com
merce and Finances Of Island Remain.

which such a course would raise, some
people, very few, in this country have
realized the presence Of the factors
just described and admitted that the
abrogation of the Platt amendmens
has not closed permanently the door
to United States Intervention in Cuba.
Senator Pittman's View.
Senator Pittman, chairman Of the
Foreign Relations Committee, COM
menting on the notification Of the
Platt amendment, stressed the fact
that it did not mean that "our forces
will not go ashore to protect our ma
tionalS" if they become endangered
by domestic unrest in Cuba.
An editorial in the New York Times
pointed out that the United States
could intervene in Cuba without the
Platt amendment. Expressing point
of view which is common to public
opinion in this country. thanks to the
insistence and the emphasis with
which it has been eXpounded by
President after President. and by one
Secretary of State after another that
editorial said:
In protecting American citizens
and property this Government can
land forces from warships ordered to
Cuban ports without that being an
act Of war. 1t can keep its forces in
the island until conditions have i'm
proved to its satisfaction, and it ha:
done this in Nicaragua, Santo Do
n1ingo and Haiti. On at least two
recent occasions the United States hac
troops on the soil of Mexico without
the existence of a state of war. And
there was no Platt amendment needed
to give those acts the color Of inter,
national legality"
That is a very realistic statement
of facts and no one Will contest the
facts themselves. But as to the
legality or the expediency, at this
time, of relying on that past record to
keep open the door to intervention in
Cuba. Latin Americans may have some
serious objections.
Cause of Resentment.
1t is just because such things were
done in the past-landing Marines on
Caribbean shores in times of peace
for the alleged protection of nationals.
keeping them there until conditions
had improved to the satisfaction of
the State Department. allowing them
to become involved in the domestic
struggles in prograss etc.-that sus-
picion of and resentment against the
policies of the United States prevail
throughout Latin America.
1t is true that the United States has
done such things before, but does that
mean that it intends to continue them
in the future? How could the present
administration reconcile the old-fash-
ioned. imperialistic practices of yes
terday with its new Latin American
policy" and its good neighbor'
pledge?
Moreover, is it true that there was
no Platt amendment needed to give
those acts the color of international
legality? But who told the writer
OF that editorial that those acts ever
had the color of international legality?
On the other hand. the Platt
amendment did give legal sanction to
intervention in Cuba, just as the 1903
treaty with Panama still sanctions
intervention there. All the other in
terventions of the United States in
Latin American countries we're in
violation of international law. How
can such interventions be invoked,
now that the Platt amendment is no
more. to justify future interventions
in Cuba?
CCopyrieht Ia34)