Evening star., 1934-11-11
MONROEDOCTRINEH HELD
NORECIONAL AGREEMENT
EcuadOrean Government Is Sixth in
Giving Disapproval of Article 81
of League Covenant.

among the nations Of the Western
Hemisphere? Is not the doctrine, on
the contrary, denounced every day by
Latin Americans-due. it is true. to
misunderstanding Of it, but also to
the misuse and distortions which
have caused such misunderstanding
And. even in the case of the original
doctrine, when has the United States
expressly received from the Latin
American countries a mandate to pro-
tect or defend their territorial in
tegrity or their political sovereignty
from non-American influences?
The United States undertook this
responsibility without consulting or
asking permission from any one, be-
cause it deemed the integrity of its
Latin American neighbors convenient
to its own safety and interests. When
ever an infringement Of that integrity
threatened its interests or safety the
United States upheld the Monroe Doc
trine. When the infringement failed
to alarm it, even the United States
overlooked the doctrine And it is
safe to predict that whenever in the
future the United States feels that
a violation of the Monroe Doctrine is
again threatening its safety and inter-
ests, it will promptly get ready to
meet the emergency.
But where, in all this. Is the ex-
plicit, or even the implicit recogni-
ton by the other 20 American re-
publics that the United States has a
right or an obligation to look after
them? They have certainly had proof
that the United States did not con-
slider it, always, an obligation. And
they most assuredly are opposed to
admitting it as right, after they
have seen the United States misuse
so often. and so seriously, its influ-
ence and power in the American con-
tinent itself.
Many people think the mention of
the Monroe Doctrine in the League
Covenant has given it legal validity
which it lacked before. A curious
legalization it would be, which legal
lied something undefinable, the Mon
roe Doctrine, and something nom
existent, the regional understanding
about it.
The provisions of international law
must be derived from an international
agreement, open or tacit, without
which they lack validity or effect,
unless they are put into force by sheer
violence No single State, without con-
sulting anything but its own peculiar
interests, can assume the role of
universal legislator for all of the Amer
ican continent.
Adherence Never Expressed.
The Latin American states have
never-except in isolated, individual
utterances of some of their statesmen
who had in mind, Of course, the origl-
nal doctrine, not its present derlva-
tives-expressed in formal or official
way their adherence to the Monroe
Doctrine as it is understood today. To
be sure, most Of them have praised,
and still praise, the original Monroe
Doctrine. In fact, they praise it ex-
aggeratedly. Some of them have even
gone so far as to call it principle of
American public law, when they
thought they could use it to their own
advantage. But these individual dec
larations are very far from giving the
Monroe Doctrine cOntractual or con-
tinental nature, just as the individual
declarations of their Northern COL
leagues did not give the doctrine an
obligatory, unalterable character.
On the other hand, on the one occa-
sion in which formal proposal for an
Endorsement Of the Monroe Doctrine
of the original Monroe Doctrine, not
of the modern one, which they con-
slider anathema-was submitted to the
representatives Of the Latin American
republics, they rejected it overwhelm-
ingly. At the Fourth Pan-American
Conference at Buenos Aires, Brazil
ian project for collective acknowledge
ment of the benefits derived by Latin
America from the PRONUNCIATION of the
Monroe Doctrine failed to receive any
support, even after it had been modi-
fled and redrafted several times. And
that was in 1910, before the more re-
cent interpretations Of the doctrine
had added to its debit In the eyes
of Latin America.
(Copyri1ht. 1034A