The Washington times., 1936-12-26

State for the
United States. EDWIN G. HILL
What, one may ask, takes the
place of the Monroe Doctrine and
how workable and effective may
we expect this thing to be?
The answer seems to be that
when war from within or without
threatens any part Of Central or
South America, Mexico or the
United States, there is to be a
general conference to see what
will be done about it.
The Monroe Doctrine, which
goes by the board if the Buenos
Aires compacts are acceptable to
the various nations, has served for
113 years in preserving the terri
torial integrity Of North and
South America. Except for the i'll
fated French attempt to set up
Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico,
no European, Asiatic or African
government has in more than
century tried to grab off a part OF
the New World for itself.
MISCONCEPTIONS
Many are the misconceptions
of tie Monroe Doctrine. BY 1t the
United States was not pledged in
any way to go to war or even to act
as an umpire in any war. 1t was
no treaty but merely a statement
Of policy which James Monroe in
serted in his message to Congress
in 1923.
A grave reason existed for Mon
roe's action. The overthrow ot
Napoleon in 1915 had been followed
by the forming Of the Holy Alli-
ance, whereby the sovereigns Of
Russia, Austria, Prussia and France
aimed to perpetuate their power.
They set about in 1923 to re-
store absolutism in Spain and to
recover Mexico and the South
American colonies which had
broken away and had won their
independence by the sword. Russia
had particular designs on Califor-
mia while France marked out
Mexico for annexation.
England was hostile to the Holy
Alliance as it operated in Europe,
and was hostile to its designs on
America because England wanted
to maintain it's trade supremacy
with the new republics.
Therefore, Canning, the mas
terly British statesman, tipped off
Monroe to what was going on and
proposed a joint declaration to the
effect that England and the United
States stood for the independence
Of the former Spanish colonies.
had no ambitions to control them
and would look with diStavor on
any such ambitions. Central and
South America were henceforth
not to be considered as subjects
for future colonization by any
European powers.
We owed it, therefore, to candor
and to the amicable relations eX-
isting between the United States
and those powers to declare that
we should consider any attempt
on their part to extend their sys'
tenn to any portion of this hemlS-
phere as dangerous to our peace
and safety"
BROUGHT RESULTS
He went on further and plainly
to add that any hostile movement
against the South American re-
publics would be looked upon
only in the light Of "the manites'
tation of an unfriendly disposition
toward the United States" A
word to the wise was sufficient.
More than century Of non-inter'
ference has resulted.
True. Clevelands Secretary OF
State, Richard Onley, stepped in
and stretched the doctrine in the
boundary dispute between Great
Britain and Venezuela. The Brit
ish seemed ready to go to war
with Venezuela when Onley in"
sisted on arbitration, stating that
the word of the United States was
law in America.
Again. Theodore Roosevelt de-
cided that the United States,
under the Monroe Doctrine, was
compelled to collect the debts
which the Dominican Republic
owed to Europe. OF course, this
latter question would not be raised
today by any European power.
Yes, the Monroe Doctrine was
vague but it brought results. What
will we get from the substitute?
will it be a maze of treaties, q
multitude of obligations, real and
implied? How and in what man
ner will the United States be
bound for the actions or onnls-
sions of a dozen other States?
After our experiences with the
Kellogg BRAND treaties and the
worlds experience with the Yer
sailles Treaty and the League ot
Nations agreements, it behooVes
lis to know exactly before we sign
on any dotted line.