Evening star., 1935-01-13
FORFEIT OF PROTECTION
TO CITIZENS IS DENIED
Observer Disputes Castles Claim That
Hull Surrendered Rights of Amer.
leans in Latin America.

They fail to see-or pretend to do
so-that the protection theoretically
sanctioned by law. is one thing. and
United States intervention in Latin
America another. an entirely different
thing. The former no one contests.
Latin American experts. like Calvo
and Bello, have been among the first
to uphold it. The latter type of pro-
lection not one of the authorities they
quote would even include under the
heading of protection" and many of
them have specifically pointed to 1t
as the thing to be avoided, not to be
confused with rightful protection.
One Of Mr.. Castles colleagues, for
example, Mr.. j. Reuben Clark, pre-
pared some time ago. as solicitor for
the State Department., q "Memoran-
dunn on the Right to Protect Citizens in
Foreign Countries by Landing Forces"
in which a brilliant exposition of the
right of protection is offered, with
quotations from a distinguished ar
ray Of authors from many countries.
But one needs only to read that erudite
QC1CllSC VI tllC llSuU Va PiOtSSOiOAi
and compare it with historical ac-
count of the acts committed by for
mer officials of the United States in
various Latin American republics, in
the name of protection, to realize that
the problem, so far as inter-American
relations are concerned. lies not in
the lawfulnesS. but in the extent of
protection.
Protection of nationals abroad IS
privilege accepted by international
law, provided certain limitations are
respected and certain prescribed
methods-legal and judicial, instead
of political and military-followed.
The sort of protection involved in
United States-Latin America rela-
tions has been. clearly, an abuse OF
that privilege.
"Interposition."
In the memorandum mentioned,
Mr.. Clark concluded. from his care
full study of the matter. that the right
kind of professionalism he calls,
somewhat misleadingly, "interposi-
tion'-"need not have any reference
to the internal politics of the invaded
country in the matter of either sup
porting or changing the particular
form Of government" or any other
domestic question of solely local con-
Germ. In the same memorandum,
one of the authorities most often
quoted defines the wrong kind Of pro-
lection, the protection identified with
intervention, as that in which he who
protects or intervenes imposing his
authority on state weaker and in
capable of escaping through fear of
the consequences of its resistance, Is
q burden upon the sovereignty Of that
country, suppresses its laws, acts con-
trary to its institutions, NEEDLES in
the administration of its justice,
orders the measures which 1t Is to
take, suppresses measures taken. sub
stitutes, in q word, its will for the
effaced will of the government of
that state" and attempts by inva-
sion, by military occupation, to i'm
pose upon the will Of country, to
interfere in its internal affairs. to
direct its conduct in determined
ways"
It is, obviously. this latter kind Of
protection, this abuse of the right Of
protection, that Secretary Hull sur
rendered at Montevideo, not, as Mr..
Castle asserts, the right Of the United
States to protect its citizens abroad
In time Of peace.
-.- (copyrisht, 1851