Evening star., 1937-03-21
BY GASION NERVAL.


N ALARMED correspondent
~ writes to inquire why We
~ hailed the Buenos Aires pledge
4 Of joint consultation in any
event susceptible of disturbing the
peace Of America as distinct i'm
provement over the d-fashioned and
unilateral Monroe doctrine He warns
that lin view of recent events in Ethi-
opia. Latin Americans may yet have
cause to regret the substitution of a
vague promise of consultation for the
definite commitment Of the Monroe
doctrine"
Apart from the fact that our cor
respondent is overlooking very great
cultural, material, economic, even
military differences between the Latin
American nations, inheritors of a
highly advanced European civilization,
and the obviously backward peoples
of the dark continent, he also is re-
vealing ignorance of the motives which
originated the Monroe doctrine and Of
the history of its application.
Never Definite Commitment"
In the first place, the Monroe doc
trine never was such definite COM
mitment." The Monroe doctrine was
advanced primarily to protect the in
terests and the safety of the United
States. Any conscientious study of
documents, memoirs, state papers and
political conditions of the time is suffi-
cient to prove that, and to destroy the
romantic legend of idealism which
popular imagination has woven around
the old "shibboleth" of 1923. 1t was
because the presence of powerful Euro
pean colonies in its neighborhood was
dangerous to the security and the in
terests of the United States that Presi-
dent Monroe warned the world Of
the concern of his country for the
preservation of Latin American inde-
pendence.
The use and non-use of the doctrine
to this day, that is, the applications
and the violations of the Monroe doc
trine, Furthermore show that it was
not theoretical considerations, but a
very practical appraisal of the inter-
ests of the United States, which in
the last analysis determined either the
support or the neglect Of the famous
doctrine by Monroe's successors.
Whenever European designs threat
ened the safety or the interests OF the
United States, the Monroe doctrine
was hoisted to the top Of the mast
and the aggressors or the would-be
aggressors made to retreat. But when
the violations of the Monroe doctrine
by European power occurred the l.
sands Of miles away, on the southern
most parts Of Latin -America-or even
nearer, when the United States had its
hands full with its own internal prob
lems-they were carried out and per-
fected without any resistance from,
and at times with the support OF, the
United States. 1t was always the in
terests of the United States which de-
cided the issue.
Inconsistency Laid to Britain.
Not long ago a well-known author
ity on foreign affairs observed that
Britain's support Of the League Of Ma
tons in its dispute with Italy over
Ethiopia was inconsistent with its in
difference to the japanese conquest Of
Manchuria. also in defiance of the
League. The same writer compared
the two cases to the also inconsistent
attitudes OF Britain at the beginning
of the World War-more or less un-
concerned by the invasion OF Serbia
by the Austrians, yet going to war
Immediately afterward "on behalf Of
the rights Of small countries" because