Evening star., 1934-05-20
Continued From First Page.)

living in foreign countries in
no way diminisffes the duty OF pro-
lection.
It stands to reason. of course. that
those who choose to live abroad and
to carry on business abroad are
amenable to the laws Of the land
where they may be; that the duty OF
their own government toward them
begins only when local laws are un-
equally applied, to their detriment, or
when conditions become such, through
riot or insurrection, that the govern
ment under which they live is unable
to give them adequate protection. 1t
follows naturally from this that the
American Government is compelled
very rarely to take action in their
behalf in wholly civilized countries |
with responsible governments, and
that it has often been compelled to
take drastic action in countries where
the administration of justice Is less |
certain and the government less
stable But when the need arises and
the American Government does not |
so move, it is not only a traitor |
toward it's own citizens, but, through |
its inaction, makes a breach in the |
gradually developing structure of in |
ternational law.
America Has Been Careful.
The American Government has |
always agreed with the writer's on in |
ternational law that the protection OF
American citizens and American
property in foreign countries does not
legally constitute intervention. This |
Government has very seldom inter-
posed in the domestic affairs OF other
nations, either automatically or by
force of arms. 1t has repeatedly pro-
tested at unfair treatment Of its citl-
zens and has repeatedly landed Ma
rines in various parts Of the world to
protect their interests; but it has
withdrawn the troops as soon as this
could be done with safety and, as a
rule, has been scrupulously careful
not to interfere in the domestic pont-
ical affairs OF the countries affecteo.
There can be no doubt that Presi-
dent Wilson's attitude toward the
Huerta government in Mexico and the
landing of American troops at vera
Cruz was Intervention, because Wilson
made no pretense that he was not try
ing to effect a change in the govern
ment of Mexico. And it would be idle
to assert that the very recent actions
of Sumner Welles in Cuba did not
again constitute intervention 1t Is
true that we did not have to land
troops, but there was always, to the
Cubans, the threat of active military
Intervention unless the verbal inter-
vention of the Ambassador, who want
ed to get rid Of the President, Ma
chado, was successful. In both these
instances the purpose may have been
laudable and the result fortunate Tor
all concerned-except for the deposed
Presidents but both instances will
be written into the history Of inter-
national law as examples of unsoHcit-
ed and perfectly clear interference IN
the domestic affairs Of another nation
in other words, as intervention.
The Public's Interpretation.
The general public thinks of any
landing of troops to maintain or to
restore law and order TO assure the
safety of American citizens as inter-
vention. President Roosevelt's state
ment. THE definite policy OF the
United States from now on is op-
posed to armed intervention" as well
as similar statements of the Secre-
tary Of State in Montevideo and since
his return, were taken by the public
both in the United States and In
Latin America as meaning, quite SIM
ply, that the American Government
would never again land troops.
There seems little doubt, further
more, that this is exactly what the
President and his Secretary OF State
did mean, and their declarations were
so accepted by the governments OF
Latin America and by the paclflsts OF
the United States.
It goes without saying that the re-
ception in the United States of these
declarations would have been very
different if they had been differently
and a little more clearly worded.
When the President said that the pol
icy of the United States Is opposed
to armed intervention it was absurd
to add the words from now on" if he
meant intervention in the technical
sense. That has always been Amer
ican policy. so definitely American
policy, in fact, that this country OF
ours has led, not followed, in opposing
intervention. This. therefore. cannot
be what he meant; and his state
ment, to have any meaning at all,
must point to disapproval OF the
landing of armed forces-or, to put
the matter even more clearly, 1t must
be taken as an assertion that IN the
future the United States does not pro-
pose to protect its citizens in foreign
countries if their lives can be saved
only by forceful measures.
Retreat Into Nationalism.
Such a policy is contrary to all
American tradition and would never
be accepted by the American people.
It flouts the axiom that the first duty
of the state is the protection of its
citizens. It would mean that Amer
leans would never again dare to risk
their fortunes or their persons out
side the United States. It would be
another step toward nationalism,
retreat within ourselves which would
still further depress international
trade, which would hinder the de-
| velopment of backward countries that
look to us for capital and economic
assistance.
If these are to be the consequences
of scuttling our responsibilities to our
own citizens it Is hard to believe that
the policy can possibly be the consid-
cred aim of the administration. Per-
haps it is not: perhaps the various
statements were merely the over
exuberant expression of the policy
of the good neighbor." Unfortunately,
| they have been accepted at face value
or what is popularly considered face
yalue-in Latin America.
1t is always dangerous to promise
too much Unfortunately, the time
will come when, somewhere, the lives
of American citizens must be pro-
tected. The people of the United
States will insist that they be pro-
tected and there will again be armed
Intervention" And when it comes 1t
will not be easy to explain away.
Few Americans realize how often