"Owing to the state in which European countries remain after the struggle, it may be said that fear of invasion by them in America has been removed for many years. But is that sufficient reason for us to take no interest in the future and turn away from the Monroe Doctrine with the pretext that it is now unnecessary? I believe that today, more than ever, we should use foresight in searching for formulas that may assure forever the peace and full independence of American countries. "The principle of American solidarity, based on the constitution of a continental league, is more ample than the Monroe Doctrine, because it will not only defend the countries of America against foreign invaders but also against imperialistic tendencies which might arise among themselves. "The formation of this League, in my opinion, would be a logical consequence of the Treaty of Versailles, which, in recognizing and expressly accepting the Monroe Doctrine, seems to be desirous of limiting its field of action, so far as American affairs are concerned. On the other hand, the Supreme Council of the League of Nations is composed principally of the delegates of the Great Powers, nearly all the American countries having been excluded. These countries need, therefore, to create a powerful organization to look after their interests in the decisions arrived at by the League of Nations. Harmonious and joint action by the 'American League' would avoid European intervention in our affairs." Some have objected to this League of American Nations because they fear it would become a rival to the World League. But there seems to be no reason why such a League would not really strengthen the World League by assuring its unanimous support by all American nations. These nations would naturally discuss beforehand the questions to come before the League and decide upon the attitude of all the American nations. Indeed it could easily and profitably develop into a kind of sub-committee of the committee of the whole, to consider purely American matters. By such a relationship the American nations could settle their own questions, but with the double advantage that these smaller nations would have some final appeal in case of absolute injustice by the one American power that is easily able to impose its will on all the rest of the continent; also the transAtlantic nations would be enabled to have direct touch with the American nations in working toward the peace and prosperity of the world at large. We are today in the midst of one of those great world epochs when all relations with and inheritances from the past are in flux. The best of the past must be readjusted, reformed, redefined to contribute to the future-the new day, which, whether we like it or not, is different from the old. The Monroe Doctrine has been the greatest influence on the American continent for preserving the republican form of government. It is today neither an "obsolete shibboleth" nor an "international impertinence," if understood in the original and true sense. There is no question that the Doctrine has been made to cover a multitude of sins, political and commercial, and is abused by North American jingoes. The wrong appeal to and interpretation of the Doctrine has developed among the Hispanic American peoples a prejudice against it, and among the statesmen of the South an insistent demand for a definition of its present application. If we can be big enough to put ourselves in the place of our southern neighbors we must acknowledge that they have a right to a clear understanding of how far the Doctrine means "America for the Americans" and how far it means "America for the North Americans." If we are to retain our leadership in America and in the world in this new age when the rights of the small nation and the common man are the concern of all, and when a righteous peace in the world is the pearl of great price for which all else may be sacrificed, we will turn toward world friendship rather than shrivel into a Prussian nationalism. And if we are honest, as we believe we are, in our con- / tention that, as Secretary Root said, "We wish for no victories but those of peace, for no territory except our own," and as Roosevelt said, "This Doctrine has nothing to do with the commercial relations of any American powers save that it in truth allows each of them to form such as it desires," and, as President Wilson said, "Let us have a common guarantee that all of us will sign, an agreement of political independence and territorial integrity,”—if we really mean these things, let us make them so clear and so authoritative that our worst enemies cannot but admit that our relations with Latin America are guided, as John Hay said they were with China, by the open door and the Golden Rule, and that the Monroe Doctrine is the simple expression of our commitment to the principles of American democracy, developed without outside interference, and of our willingness to give the last drop of our blood for its defense. Sources of Further Information on the Monroe Doctrine and Latin America Articles on Present Status of Monroe Doctrine, Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 1914. Atlantic Monthly: Discussion between Hiram Bingham and F. García Calderón, 1914. BIGELOW: The American Policy. BRUM, BALTASAR : Solidaridad Americana. CALDERÓN, F. GARCÍA: Latin America, Its Rise and Progress. MOORE, J. B.: American Diplomacy, Chapter VI. POWERS, H. H.: America Among the Nations. Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1914. QUESADA, ERNESTO: La Doctrina Monroe, Su Evolución Histórica. RICHARDSON, JAMES DANIEL: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. SHEPHERD, WILLIAM R.: New Light on the Monroe Doctrine, Political Science Quarterly, 1916. SHERRILL, C. H.: Modernizing the Monroe Doctrine. WILSON, GEORGE GRAFTON: The Monroe Doctrine After the War. Zeballos, E. S.: La República Argentina en la Liga de Naciones (Reprint of Editorials in La Prensa). Chapter VI PAN AMERICAN CONFERENCES The movement for American unity may be divided into two periods. The first period embraces the first two-thirds of the nineteenth century, during which the movement was led by Hispanic America, especially by Colombia and Peru, fostered also by Mexico, Central America and Venezuela. The idea generally revolved around a plan for a congress, with more or less power, which should meet at regular periods. The emphasis was placed on unity among the Spanish-American countries, the United States and Brazil sometimes being included and sometimes left out. We have considered the first of these periods and noted that "the spirit was willing"-nay, anxious—“but the flesh was weak. The failure of the second Panama Congress called by Colombia in 1881 seemed to finally convince even the most utopian of the Spanish-Americans that they had too many problems in their own separate countries to actually get together. They were ready therefore to try some other way. Everything pointed to the new way consisting in new leadership and in working toward a less rigid unity with a freer course for each separate country. So the second period set in under the leadership of the United States and the loosely organized Pan American Congresses, the first of which met in Washington in 1889 and the last one in Buenos Aires in 1910. The Civil War in the United States brought about in this country a decided change toward Hispanic America. The bravado of Manifest Destiny and the depreciation of the southern republics because of their frequent internal troubles was greatly reduced by our own sad experience which almost disrupted our nation and left us considerably humbled. Lincoln, in direct contrast to the bluster of Polk and Pierce, sent a minister to the Mexican government with instructions to show an attitude of cordiality, frankness, friendship and even magnanimity. Napoleon was informed that he must get his troops out of Mexico, and Juarez was thus enabled to win his fight against a foreign invader, who had all but destroyed Mexican sovereignty. As the United States recovered a bit more from her awful struggle and lifted her eyes a little beyond Mexico, she found a bad situation in South America, which offered another opportunity to show this new sympathy. For five years a state of war had existed between Spain on the one hand and Chile, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia on the other. While the exhausted state of the United States Government did not seem to make it wise to invoke the Monroe Doctrine and make peremptory demands on Spain, Secretary of State Hamilton Fish did bring about a conference at Washington in 1870, at which a "perpetual armistice" was signed. THE FIRST PAN AMERICAN CONFERENCE The attention of the United States was again turned to South America by the War of the Pacific, with Chile on one side and Peru and Bolivia on the other, which continued from 1879 to 1881. In the latter year James G. Blaine became Secretary of State. He held to the same ideas of American Unity advocated by his distinguished predecessor, Henry Clay. Such a statesman had no trouble in realizing that the time had arrived for the United States to take the lead in the movement for continental solidarity. On November 29, 1881, the Secretary of State issued in the name of the President an invitation to all the American independent nations to take part in a conference "for the purpose of considering and discussing the methods of preventing war between the nations of America." Because of the continuance of the War of the Pacific, it was not possible for the Congress to be held at the date set. But the idea persisted. In 1888, largely through the efforts of James G. Blaine, who had again become Secretary of State, the first Pan American Conference was called under Act of Congress (May 24, 1888), to meet in Washington. |