Chapter V

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AND LATIN AMERICA

The Monroe Doctrine has been for the 'American continent at once the most powerful unifying force and the greatest cause of division and misunderstanding. From the standpoint of the United States it might be called "the American fetish." Along with the Washington doctrine of no entangling alliances it has been the cardinal principle of our foreign policy. As Jefferson said, "It is the offspring of the American Revolution and the most momentous question offered to my contemplation since the Independence.' Like many an important principle, it has through the passage of time come to be more of a sentiment than a principle. or a policy. And like every sentiment it has as many interpretations as there are kinds of persons who deal with it. To the average North American it means the divine right—as sacred and clear as was ever such right to any monarch-to act as the big brother of all the other American nations.. This means first to protect them from all outside interference, and, second, to help them in their own difficulties when they seem to have lost their way politically, financially or economically. It makes no difference what question concerning Latin America may arise in this country or what difficulty may arise in the South which affects the life of the United States, many immediately call out the Monroe' Doctrine as arbiter.

"Why has General Crowder gone to Cuba?" was the question appearing recently from a reader of one of our prominent dailies. "It is due to the Monroe Doctrine, which makes us responsible for fair elections in Cuba," answered the all-wise editor. And no doubt the questioner was entirely satisfied with this simple answer. Because we North Americans are so sure of our generous desire to help all whol

are in need, and so sure of our superiority to all the rest of America, many of us suppose that all Latin American governments must be highly appreciative of the help which the Monroe Doctrine makes us in honor bound to give. Of course, if the young sinner proves recalcitrant, we, as the unselfish and more experienced brother, desirous only of the other's improvement, must compel him to be good. If anyone questions at all whether this is the right procedure he is met with "We do not discuss the Monroe Doctrine, we enforce it."

It is this attitude of the North American toward the Doctrine, rather than the Doctrine itself, that explains why it has been such a cause of division and misunderstanding. In other words, it is a certain interpretation of the Doctrine, (a false interpretation, I believe) and not the Doctrine itself, that is so much opposed in Latin America. Indeed, the original Monroe Doctrine was well received in the South, and from that time until today the declaration in its original sense has been approved by the best minds of Hispanic America.

In these days when all international relations are in flux and when every principle of life is being stripped of its accretions and thoroughly examined, we need a fresh study of the original purposes of the Doctrine, which has been the basis of more discussion and more varied interpretation than any other document ever issued by the president of a republic.

ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE

The substance of this Doctrine, which calls for the exclusion of European colonization and interference in American affairs, had often been stated before the Monroe pronouncement both by North American and South American statesmen. But in 1822 it seemed probable that the efforts of the Holy Alliance to strangle all democratic development in Europe might be extended to the western hemisphere. So Monroe and his advisors felt it necessary to take steps to forestall any such movement. Great Britain was alsoopposed to the extension of the influence of the Holy Alli

ance to America, for with the reconquest of Spanish America large part of the conquered territory might be turned. over to France and the large commerce which had been diverted to Great Britain on account of the revolt of the colonies would be seriously affected.

At this time the British Foreign Secretary was the celebrated Canning, one of the most astute men that ever held that office, a man who exercised almost a charmed influence over Latin American statesmen of those days, as well as an exaggerated place in the judgments of later Latin American historians. His proposal to the United States of an agreement that would checkmate the influence of the Alliance (and incidentally that of the United States) in Hispanic America, has led many historians to erroneously credit him with originating the Monroe Doctrine. At least two strong proofs of the falsity of the "Canning myth," as it has rightly been called, are these: First, the doctrine that Europe must not meddle in American affairs had been stated many times, both in North and South America, before it was formally announced by Monroe. Second, the Doctrine had no more strenuous opponent than Canning himself. He later said, "It is not easy to say how much the previous British propositions influenced the message, but the doctrine, if such it can be called, of the presidential message prohibiting all future colonization on the American continent, is absolutely unacceptable to my government and to France. This extraordinary principle will be combated by my government with all its force." The private correspondence of Canning with some of his friends shows that he did everything possible to combat the doctrine. In fact, Great Britain has generally been its strong opponent, Lord Salisbury writing to Secretary Olney during the Venezuelan controversy that the Monroe Doctrine was not entitled to any-. one's respect.

When Canning was asked why he had not sought to prevent the French invasion of Spain, he said, "I sought for compensation in another hemisphere. *** I resolved that if France had Spain it should not be Spain with the Indies. I called the new world into existence to redress the balance of the old." This, of course, was nonsense, as the Spanish

American colonies had won their independence by their own efforts and had been recognized by the United States as independent governments two years before Great Britain took any action in the matter. Canning was so irritated by the Monroe Doctrine that he did not permit the United States to participate with Great Britain and Russia in the settlement of the Alaskan boundary question. As long as he remained in public life he opposed the Monroe Doctrine in every possible way, and continually impressed upon the Latin American republics the advantage to them of an alli-\ ance with Great Britain over an alliance with the United States.

And yet, with all this evidence to the contrary, great students like Alberdi have believed this Canning myth and attribute the success of the colonies' struggle for independence to the friendship of Great Britain. Many Latin Americans erroneously hold this to be a very important point in showing what they claim was the indifference of the United States to Hispanic America's struggle for independence.

Canning did send to Minister Rush of the United States, who was in London at the time, five proposals concerning. the recognition of the independence of the Spanish colonies and their protection from the schemes of the Holy Alliance, which he suggested the two governments might jointly announce. But Monroe, advised by his Secretary, Adams, . chose rather to announce a purely American doctrine that would be sustained by American authority. This is a most. important matter for Latin Americans to understand. And.. for North America it is imperative to realize that the cir cumstances surrounding the announcement of the Doctrine all point to the fact that our statesmen did not have the least idea that we were providing for ourselves any special privileges in America. As John Quincy Adams, the man who historians believe worded the Doctrine itself, wrote in his diary, "Considering the South Americans as independent nations, they themselves, and no other nation, had the right to dispose of their condition. We have no right to dispose of them, either alone or in conjunction with other nations. Neither have any other nations the right to dispose of them without their consent.'

ITS CONTENTS

The most salient features of the famous Doctrine, which was contained in President Monroe's annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823, are the following:

"The occasion has been judged proper for asserting as . a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American constituents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by an European power.

"The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European in matters relating to themselves we have never: taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced. that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense.. With the movements in this hemisphere we are, of neces-. sity, more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The. political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments. And to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and ma- . tured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor,. and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independ ence, and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of op