Evening star., 1934-11-11

ing the SiXtleth member
of the League of Nations,
the number of Latin American coun-
tries which have officially expressed
their disapproval Of article 81 Of the
League Covenant has been increased
to six.
Before taking his seat at the re-
cent Geneva assembly the Ecua-
dorean representative emphasized the
fact that his action did not imply the
recognition by Ecuador of the Mon
roe Doctrine as a regional under
standing" as specified in the much
controverted article 81. Thus was
the name of Ecuador added to the
list of Latin American republics
which have formally gone on record
as opposing article 81. Honduras.
Salvador. Cos Rica, Mexico and
Argentina.
1t should not be difficult for stu
dents of inter American relations to
understand the Ecuadorean reserva-
ton, or the previous ones, disavowing
article 81, which provides that moth
ing in the Covenant shall be deemed
to affect the validity of international
engagements, such as treaties of arbi-
tration or regional understandings
like the Monroe Doctrine, for securing
the maintenance of peao,."
Always Unilateral.
There is nothing in the whole his
tory of the Monroe Doctrine, in this
whole history of inter- American re-
lations, that may justify t..l, name of
regional understanding" as applied
to either the original pronouncement
of President Monroe or any one Of its
derivatives. The Monroe Doctrine has
always been, from its very inception,
an unilateral, exclusive policy of the
United States. That is the one thing
about the Monroe Doctrine on which
all the statesmen of this country, in
more than 100 years, have invariably
agreed. That Is the one thing which
has resisted change and has been
preserved intact.
Contrary to the belief of Latin
Americans of the time-which is still
the belief of the large majority of
Latin Americans-the Monroe Doc
trine was originally intended to be
nationalistic policy exclusively of the
United States. And it has been just
that, in spite of all the transforma-
tions and corollaries which have fol-
lowed it. Monroe, Adams, Clay Gin
his later career as Secretary of State),
Polk, all the statesmen which had a
part in the PRONUNCIATION of the doc
trine, abhorred the idea of its being
converted into continental pact in
which the Latin republics to the
south would have part. And later
on, Seward, Grant, Olney. Cleveland,
Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root, Taft,
Knox, Wilson. Bryan, Lansing,
Hughes, Coolidge, Kellogg, Hoover,
Stimson-all the Northern statesmen
who have had anything to do with the
Monroe Doctrine in its hundred and
ten years of existence-have stressed
the fact that this is a policy of the
United States, which the United States
alone can interpret, apply or disregard
at will.
How were the drafters of the League
Covenant induced to call the Monroe
Doctrine a regional understanding"
Can't See Understanding.
Latin Americans have several queS-
tions to ask in this connection. Where,
they say, is there any such regional
understanding" about the Monroe
Doctrine? If there is any, which of
the different versions of it has been
adopted? Upon which formula has
the understanding been reached?
Upon formulas already expressed?
Then. upon which of them? Upon
future formulas? This would amount
to accepting. in advance, whatever
new interpretations the Washington
Government may choose to favor in
the years to come. When have the
Latin American states expressed their
adherence to the Monroe Doctrine,
particularly to the Monroe Doctrine
as it stands today. with corollaries,
ETC.? When has the doctrine even re-
motely approached an understanding