Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

In this sense the Monroe Doctrine is received in South America with sentiments of the most friendly and cordial concurrence. But there is another

sense in which the other independent nations, and especially such powerful states as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, find themselves unable to accept it. This sense, which is said to represent the view of the "man in the street," has been editorially expressed in these terms: "Whatever its interest at stake or wrong suffered in Latin America, we sternly enjoin every European power to keep its hands off of what we make our international business and what we decree must be the business of nobody else." In other words, the United States is said in effect to have decreed that other American countries are so far subject to its control that non-American powers cannot even demand from them the redress of grievances.

Of this view it is to be observed that it must, in the first place, arouse resentment in the independent countries of America, since it places them all in the subordinate position of protectorates, subject to external dictation. And it must, in the second place, provoke the opposition of non-American powers, since they find it difficult to admit that they cannot conduct their affairs directly with states which are professedly, and in law and in fact, independent.

Considered in its practical aspects, the conception appears to be equally superficial and extravagant. The area of the United States embraces less than

three million square miles; and within these limits the national and local governments combined often have difficulty in preserving order and insuring the protection of foreigners, although the territory is within their exclusive legal control. The countries of Latin America comprise an area of more than eight million square miles, or almost three times as much; and over these more than eight million square miles the United States exercises no governmental control. And yet, within this vast area, it is asserted that the protection of aliens and the redress of their grievances is a matter that concerns the United States alone, to the exclusion of any and all of the governments on whose diplomatic protection such aliens would normally rely. The responsibility thus proposed to be thrust upon the United States is unexampled.

Examined historically, the assumption that the American nations are in effect protectorates, with which non-American powers have been denied the right to conduct relations directly, is equally unjustified. In numerous instances, indeed, force has been employed-a contingency to which even the United States might itself be exposed. In the fourth decade of the nineteenth century France and Great Britain blockaded the ports of Buenos Aires and Uruguay. France resorted to reprisals against Mexico in the same decade. From 1846 to 1848 the United States was at war with Mexico for the redress of its own grievances. In 1861, France, Great

Britain, and Spain resorted to reprisals against Mexico without protest. Later, when France (Great Britain and Spain having withdrawn) essayed to set up and maintain a monarchy in Mexico, the United States protested and eventually brought the attempt to an end. The war between Spain and the republics on the west coast of South America has heretofore been mentioned. In 1894 Great Britain seized the port of Corinto, in Nicaragua, to collect an indemnity. In 1903 Germany, Great Britain, and Italy blockaded the ports of Venezuela, with the acquiescence of the United States, it being expressly understood that there should be no permanent occupation or acquisition of Venezuelan territory. These incidents are recalled not for the purpose of advocating or justifying the employment of force in any particular instance, or of intimating that the United States is not justified in exhibiting special concern in regard to what may tend to jeopardize the independence of states for whose preservation it has assumed a contingent responsibility. They are cited only for the purpose of demonstrating that the Monroe Doctrine has not been understood to involve the denial by the United States to other American nations of the primary rights and liabilities of independent states.

The establishment of the relations between independent American states on the basis of mutual confidence, respect, and co-operation is, as has been seen, an aspiration long cherished by generous minds.

But, although this aspiration forms the central thought of Pan Americanism, it is not easily realized. On the contrary, its realization is a highly difficult task beset with complicated problems and intricate obstructions. Nor will the time ever come when it will not afford ample opportunity for the exercise of an informed and discriminating judgment, of welldirected and intelligent helpfulness, and of consideration for the opinions and feelings of others, to say nothing of the reciprocal recognition of rights and occasional forbearance. These qualities, so vital to the preservation of amity and confidence elsewhere, are no less essential in the Western Hemisphere.

References:

Reports of the four International American Conferences, and particularly the Historical Appendix (Vol. IV) to the report of the first conference; the works of Bolivar; Henry Clay and Pan Americanism, Columbia University Quarterly, Sept., 1915; Latané's Diplomatic Relations of the United States and Spanish America.

The relations between the United States and the other American countries are comprehensively presented in Moore's Digest of International Law.

XI

INFLUENCE and tendENCIES

NOTHING Could have been further from the thoughts of the wise statesmen who guided the United States through the struggle for independence and laid the foundations of the government's foreign policy than the institution of a philosophical propagandism for the dissemination of political principles of a certain type in foreign lands. Although the Declaration of Independence loudly proclaimed the theory of the natural rights of man, they gave to this theory, in its application to their own concerns, a qualified interpretation, and, as practical men, forbore to push it at once to all its logical consequences. On the continent of Europe, the apostles of reform, directing their shafts against absolutism and class privileges, spoke in terms of philosophical idealism, while the patriots of America, though they did not eschew philosophy, debated concrete questions of constitutional law and commonplace problems of taxation. In Europe, the revolution meant first of all a destructive upheaval; in America, where the ground was clear, it meant a constructive de

« AnteriorContinuar »