Evening star., 1934-05-20
HTUJ,JL s. INTERVENTION
STATEMENT QUESTIONED
Despite Secretary's New Policy, Former
State Official Declares That Ma
tiOnals Must Be Protected.


ships and did not take sides
A little closer to Intervention, per-
haps, was the plan, little later, to
send American troops to what were
intended to be more or less perma-
nent camps in Cuba. This was pro-
posed at the invitation Of President
Menocal, whose purpose obviously
was to overawe the bandits who still
threatened the security Of the regime
but who can tell whether bandits
are bandits or revolutionists, whether
they may not constitute the next
government of the country?
1t may be argued that the Platt
amendment gives us the specific right
to send in our troops to maintain
law and order, but it is doubtful
whether the amendment gives us any
further right than we already have
under international law to protect our
people. There Is no doubt, on the
other hand, that the Platt amend
ment gives, in the popular mind,
rights Of real Intervention which seem
to diminish the sovereignty of Cuba
and therefore will always cause Cuban
unrest on the island, will take away
Cubans' sense Of responsibility and
will bring about Misunderstanding in
the United States.
Policy Carried Too Far.
1t Is probably true that our coun-
try at times has carried too far, or
has at least exercised too carelessly,
the right to protect American citi-
zens agroad, and that this has been
ocnan{o llty to
that month of March, 1917, for ex-
ample, with its almost daily landings
on Cuban soil, there was practically
no regard for national frontiers. little
attempt to find out whether or not
the Cuban authorities themselves
were able to protect Americans. II
the manager of an American sugar
plantation lost his head and said
that he was afraid of trouble, Ma
rines were sent to the plantation.
IN other countries and at other
times the American authorities seem
Always 10 nave made more real effort
10 estlmate the necessity of protec-
tion. ms can be seen by study of
Ine record IN Honduras, where there
mas Always been trouble. At the time
OF the revolution there in 1924 yari-
GUS groups were sent ashore to pro-
tect the American legation and Amer
ican consulates, and in one or two
instances TO establish neutral zones
10 keep foreign interests out of the
nne OF probable bombardment. There
nave oeen serious situations In Hon.
uuraS since that time, but no troops
nave neen landed there since April.
1873. although there is no doubt that
Llle rear OF such landings was often a
restraining influence. The Hoover
polcy was never to use force unless
american lives were in Imminent
| danger
Whenever one hears Of American
intervention" in Latin America, the
country which instantly springs to
mlno Is Nicaragua. Probably this is
because the Nicaraguan situation has
SO olten been the subject of heated
pontlcal discussion. American and
British forces were landed to protect
American citizens or for some other
purpose. American and British forces
were landed in Nicaragua to protect
tne nves and property of foreigners
IN 1879 and again IN 1910. In 1912
the government Of Nicaragua declared
ltself unable to protect foreigners and
IN consequence American forces had
to be landed several times.
Withdrawn by 1888.
1t was at this time that a guard for
the American legation was stationed
at Managua, a guard which remained
until 1925. Almost Immediately fol-
lowing its withdrawal there were new
revolutionary outbreaks and once more
troops had to be landed to protect
lives and property. Peace terms were
agreed on in 1927, and since that
time there have been no landings of
American troops for protection pur-
poses, although at the request of the
Nicaraguan government certain troops
were left in the country to train the
National Guard, and, also at the re-
quest of the government, Americans
supervised the elections of 1928 and
1882. BY January. 1888, every Amer
ican soldier had left the country So,
within a short time, all American
troops which have been in Haiti un-
der the treaty stipulations since 1915
will have been withdrawn In line with
plans decided on by the Hoover ad-
ministration.
The question might fairly be asked
as to why, If this landing of troops
for purposes of protection Is legal,
there should be any reason for salts
faction that the practice has dimin-
ished in recent years. The answer to
the question has several angles. but
none of them carries the suggestion
that the right to land troops for pro-
lection should be abolished In inter-
national law. still less that any nation
can wisely renounce the right inde-
pendently of others.
The danger lies in excess II we
land troops as habit in protection of
American life and property we almost
inevitably become careless In our OBJ
servance of other phases of national
sovereignty. If we land troops when
ever American citizens seem to be in
danger we diminish the sense of re-
sponsibility for their protection which
is the duty of the country in which
they hapen to be. If the right Is not
rigidly restricted there is always the
danger that actually we shall inter-
| NCAlC Al OAlC HOAlIlOdA d44d2S VA q c4oVSA
and sovereign nation.
Too frequent use of force, finally, is
bad for us Americans psychologically
because it leads us to believe that the
threat of military action is the SIM
plest way to settle diplomatic ques-
tions. People do not differentiate
troop landings, whatever their pur-
pose, from war-and therefore war be-
comes less abhorrent.
Hoover Was for Protection.
President Hoover felt very strongly
that American troops should serve al
home. not abroad. and that the mill.
tary missions stationed in variou!
; parts of the world ought to be dis.
continued as soon as possible. In thii
attitude he developed the idea Of hi.
immediate predecessors. He was in.
sistent on the reduction as soon a!
possible of the forces In China. HI
withdrew all troops from Nicaragus
and sent a commission to Haiti Il
arrange for complete and permanent
withdrawal there.