Evening star., 1934-09-30
RESERVATIONS HANDICAP
FAITH OFLATIN AMERICA
Observer Claims U. S. interpretations
May Leave Relations Where They
Were Before Montevideo Parley.

categorically established that mo
state has the right to intervene in the
internal or external affairs of an
other" This declaration has been for
many years bone Of contention in
continental gatherings and had been
on the verge of wrecking q previous
pan American conference, the United
States contending that it was entirely
too broad and imperiled the right of
protection of nationals in foreign
countries.
Article tended to avoid the prob
lens arising out Of such protection by
announcing that the Jurisdiction OF
the states applies to all the inhabi-
tants within the limits of the national
territory. Nationals and foreigners, it
said, are under the same protection
of the national legislation and au-
thorities, and foreigners may not
claim other or more extensive rights
than nationals.
ArticH IL was formal reputation
of force as a means of international
policy. And 1t was more than a mere
declaration in this sense, for it spe-
ciflcally consecrated "the express OBJ
legation not to recognize territorial
acquisitions or special advantages
realized by force" Furthermore, it
added that this applied whether force
consisted in the use of arms, in
threatening diplomatic representa-
tions or in other means of effective
compulsion.
Territories Inviolate.
The convention concluded with this
unequivocal statement THE terri
tory of the states is inviolate and may
not be the object of military occupa-
tions or of other measures of force
imposed by other states, either direct
ly or indirectly, or for any motive, or
even of temporary nature"
If these terms of the Montevideo
convention had been accepted and
adopted unreservedly by the United
States, as they had been by the great
majority of the Latin-American ma
tions, ratification by the United
States would have been, indeed, an
auSpicious event in the annals Of in
ter-American relations. Unfortunate
ly, such was not the case. The Senate
of the United States, following the
advice of the State Department, rati-
fled the instrument with an express
reservation, couched in ambiguous
terms, but unmistakably intended to
sidetrack the issue and leave O door
open for future emergencies.
The reservation was to the effect
that ''in case of differences of inter-
pretations and also until they (the
proposed doctrines and principles) can
be worked out and codified for the
common use of every government
the United States Government "in all
of its international associations and
relationships and conduct will follow
scrupulously the doctrines and pol
icies which it has pursued since March
4, which are embodied in the different
addresses of President Roosevelt since
that time and in the recent peace
address" of Secretary of State Hull,
"and in the law of nations as gener-
ally recognized and accepted"
Danger Still Present.
Obviously this leaves things tust
where they were before the Monte
video convention was drafted. Given
the well-known theories of the State
Department as to the protection of
nationals in small Caribbean countries.
and its own Interpretation of the law
Of nations "as generally recognized and
accepted" the danger is still present.
Whenever a difference of interpreta-
ton presents itself, that is, whenever
new emergency occurs. the United
States will not be bound by the Monte
video pact, but by the views and policies
Of President Roosevelt and Secretary
Hull. Which cannot help but remind
one of the answer of Secretary Lansing
when, called upon to define the Mon
roe Doctrine, he referred the Saliva
dorian government to 'the views of
President Wilson" on the subject.
Copyright, 1934)