No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Should the Monroe Policy be Modified or Abandoned?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Extract
There is probably no principle of American politics, which has exercised a more powerful influence or has impressed itself more forcibly upon the American imagination than the Monroe Policy. Throughout our diplomatic history it has set the standard by which our whole foreign policy has been tested. In its defense we have risked war with the most powerful of European nations. It has come to be regarded with a sort of religious veneration, and in the popular mind it ranks in importance with the Declaration of Independence.
But in these latter days irreverent scoffers have endeavored to prove that this principle that we have worshipped is unsound. There has been more discussion of the Monroe Policy in the last two years than ever before. Is the Monroe Policy an “obsolete shibboleth” as charged by Professor Bingham? Is our devotion to this cardinal principle of American diplomacy “mere slavery to rhetoric and sentiment”? Is this lamp which has guided our feet for almost a century nothing more than a will-of-the-wisp, an “ignis fatuus”? It is high time that we should settle this question, for if all these years we have based our foreign policy on a false principle, assuredly the day is at hand when we shall reap the results of our errors.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1916
References
1 Bingham, The Monroe Doctrine, an Obsolete Shibboleth.
2 Sydney Brooks, Fortn., 76:1021.
3 Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, p. 448.
4 Hershey, Annals, 11:365; Pollock, cited in Harp. W., 46:1978; Mahan, R. of R’s. .27:345.
5 Message of Dec. 2, 1823, cited in Moore’s Digest, sec. 936.
6 Root, , The Real Monroe Doctrine, Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 1914, p, 6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Moore’s Digest, sec. 968.
8 See Foster, John W. and Rowe, Leo S., Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 1914, pp. 119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, et seq.
9 Vattel, Law of Nations, Book I, sec. 16, p. 61.
10 Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 1914, p. 16.
11 Century of American Diplomacy, p. 477.
12 Monroedoktrin, p. 373: “Nach alledem wird den Kreis der mit dem ‘Selbsterhaltungsrecht’ zu begründenden Interventionen auf alle solche Massnahmen und nur solche zu beziehen haben, die zur Abwehr einer gegenwartigen Gefahr für den unverletzten Bestand des intervenierenden Staates notwendig erscheinen.”
Cf. Creasy, p. 291: “Clearly the danger in order to amount to a justification for a war of intervention must be a danger which directly affects the vital and substantial interests of the foreign state.”
Cf. Hershey, p. 150: “To justify intervention on this ground, the danger must be, of course, direct and immediate and not merely contingent and remote.”
13 Law of Nations, Preliminaries, sec. 18, p. 52.
14 In the case of the Antelope, cited 10 Wheaton, 66, 122.
15 Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 1914, p. 13.
16 Cf. Root, Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 1914, p. 17.
17 Roosevelt, Message of 1904: “ I t is a mere truism to say that any nation, whether in America or elsewhere, which desires to maintain its freedom, its independence, must ultimately realize that the right of such independence cannot be separated from the responsibility of making good use of it.” Moore’s Digest, sec. 968.
18 Prof. Paul S. Reinsch, now Minister to China, said: “Such a State answers in the last resort by its territorial sovereignty, which in the case of Latin America is declared inviolable. The United States, by shielding the southern republics in this manner, is itself assuming a certain responsibility for them.” Independent 55:10.
19 Hershey, Essentials, p. 150.
20 Conventions of the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907, Art. 3: “The exercise of this right can never be regarded by either of the parties at variance as an unfriendly act.”
21 Hershey, Essentials, p. 150.
22 Prof. Leo S. Rowe said: “* * * it is a matter of vital importance to our position among the nations that new principles of our foreign policy should not masquerade as integral parts of the doctrine, but should be formulated as positive principles supplementing its negative prohibitions.” Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 1914, p. 131.
23 See Hershey, Annals (1898), 11:362.
24 Refer to citations of diplomatic correspondence on these cases in Moore’s Digest.
25 Harper’s Weekly, editorial, 47:139: “In the 20th Century we have as much cause to fear a league for territorial aggression and for spheres of influence as in the 19th Century there was reason to fear the Holy Alliance.”
26 Independent, 61:1119.
27 Treaties and Topics, p. 423.
28 19th Century, 52:553. See also his book, The Monroe Doctrine.
29 Harp. W., 47:139. See also Edgington, p. 286. The Duke of Devonshire said in 1903: “Great Britain accepts the Monroe Doctrine unreservedly.” Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 1914, p. 9.
30 The best discussion of this subject is in Edgington, Ch. 17 and 18.
31 Edgington, p. 136.
32 Cited in the Outlook, 79:366. The italics are mine.
33 Cited in Edgington, p. 137.
34 Cited in Edgington, p. 137.
35 Harp. W. 47:140. Cf. Edgington, p. 141.
36 P. 277.
37 Senator Lodge in a speech in the Senate in May, 1900: “ I am by no means certain that some European nation, perhaps one whose navy is now receiving rapid increase, may not test the Monroe Doctrine, and we may be called upon to protect the doctrine in Brazil or in some other South American country. I am not conjuring up fancies.” Cf. Edgington, p. 285.
38 Cf. Secretary Olney’s note to the American Ambassador at London, July 20, 1895: “What one Power was permitted to do could not be denied to another, and it is not inconceivable that the struggle now going on for the acquisition of Africa might be transferred to South America.” Cited in Moore’s Digest, sec. 966.
39 Independent, 55:9.
40 Admiral, Mahan: “Such a condition if realized brings every European contest to this side of the Atlantic and the neighborhood of disputes as of fire is dangerous.” R. of R’s, 27:345 Google Scholar.
Prof. Reinsch: “Our peace is certainly dependent upon maintaining the territorial integrity of the South American states as against Europe.” Independent, 55:9.
Cf. Kraus in Annals, 54:107, also Harp. W. 47:772.
41 Speech at State convention of the Progressive Party, Hartford, Conn., August 15, 1914.
42 Sydney Brooks, Fortn., 76:1021.
43 See the Outlook, 79:366. See also Keasbey, The Nicaragua Canal and the Monroe Doctrine.
44 Annals, 11:362. See also W. H. Taft, Independent, 76:530, and F. Garcia Calderon, Atlantic, .113:301.
45 See Walter Wellman, No. Am. R., 173:838, and Sydney Brooks, Fortn., 76:102.
46 Roosevelt, Message of 1901: “The peoples of the Americas can prosper best if left to work out their own salvation in their own way.” Cited in Moore’s Digest, sec. .594. See also the Outlook, 74:372, and Harp. W., 47:771.
47 See the Outlook, 72:871, 79:367 and 79:711.
48 Cleveland, Message to Congress of Dec. 17, 1895: “* * * when the United States is a suitor before the high tribunal that administers international law, the question to be determined is whether or not we present claims which the justice of that code of law can find to be right and valid.” Moore’s Digest, sec. 966.
Cf. note of Secretary Seward, June 2, 1866, cited in Moore’s Digest, sec. 948.
49 “Respecting this so-called right of conquest, it would seem that modern international law neither denies nor affirms.” Hershey, p. 181, note 8.
50 It is an interference with that nation’s sovereignty, which is illegal, as already cited in Chapter I.
51 “Intervention may be said to be legally justifiable * * * to prevent or terminate an illegal intervention on the part of another State.” Hershey, p. 150.
52 For discussion and citation of cases on Claims, see Moore’s Digest, sees. 986 et seq.
53 This is true without exception. See Moore’s Digest, sees. 927–969.
54 As in the case of France in Mexico 1863-65. Moore’s Digest, sec. 957.
55 Sovereignty is limited by: “The rules, principles and customs of international Saw. For a violation of those rules, which are binding upon all nations, a state is internationally responsible.” Hershey, p. 100. Dr. Hershey says elsewhere that the right of sovereignty is relative, depending upon the circumstances. In the most severe cases it would seem that extinction of the sovereignty that fails to perform its international obligations is defensible.
Roosevelt, Message of 1904: “ I t is a mere truism to say that every nation, whether in America or elsewhere, that desires to maintain its freedom, its independence, must ultimately realize that the right of such independence cannot be separated from the responsibility of making good use of it.” Moore’s Digest, sec. 968. See Message of 1905, Moore’s Digest, sec. 962.
56 See Calvo’s work, Vol. 3, sec. 1280 et seq.
57 Dec. 29, 1902. Text of the note is cited in Moore’s Digest, sec. 967.
58 See Hershey’s Essentials and Moore’s Digest as to justifiable grounds for intervention. The Porter Resolution (see infra, note 66) was not considered as an adoption of the ideas of these doctrines, inasmuch as the provisos reduced it simply to a rule requiring arbitration first. The Porter Resolution was unsatisfactory to Dr. Drago himself, and he opposed its ratification.
59 Roosevelt, Message of 1905: “ As a method of solution of the complicated problem arbitration has become nugatory inasmuch as in the condition of its finances an award against the republic is worthless unless its payment is secured by the pledge of at least some portion of the customs revenues. This pledge is ineffectual without actual delivery over of the customs-houses * * *” Moore’s Digest, sec. 965.
Lord Salisbury, Note to the British Ambassador at Washington in 1895: “* * * but it is not free from defects which often operate as a serious drawback on its value. it is not always easy to find an arbitrator who * * * is wholly free from bias, iiiid the task of insuring compliance with the award is not exempt from difficulty.” Moore’s Digest, sec. 966.
60 Cited in Moore’s Digest, sec. 962. See also message of 1904: “In the western hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.” Moore’s Digest, sec. 968.
Premier Balfour in a speech at Liverpool, Feb. 1903: “ I t would be a great gain to civilization if the United States were more actively to interest itself in making arrangements by which these constantly recurring difficulties between European Powers and certain states in South America could be avoided.” Lord Salisbury in note already cited: “The United States have a right, like any other nation, to interfere in any controversy by which their own interests are affected, and they are the judge whether those interests are touched and in what measure they should be sustained.” Moore’s Digest, sec. 966.
61 Moore’s Digest, sec. 960.
62 Moore’s Digest, sec. 956.
63 Moore’s Digest, sees. 967 and 995.
64 Moore’s Digest, sees. 955 and 956.
65 See text of message and other data in Moore’s Digest, see. 962. The recent attitude of the United States toward Haiti is a case in point.
66 The Porter Resolution adopted by the Hague Conference of 1907 and ratified by most of the important Powers reads: “The Contracting Powers agree not to have recourse to armed force for the recovery of contract debts claimed from the government of one country by the government of another country as being due to its nationals. This undertaking is, however, not applicable when the debtor state refuses or neglects to reply to an offer of arbitration, or, after accepting the offer, renders a compromis impossible, or after the arbitration, fails to submit to the award.” 2 H. C. (1907) Art. I.
67 Message of 1904. Moore’s Digest, sec. 968.
68 Outlook, 105:747.
69 Dr. Hershey, in discussing the rule of non-intervention (p. 154), says that it is limited to nations possessing a certain degree of stability and order. “Whether such states as those of Central America, with all their boasted sovereignty, are capable of affording such a degree of order and protection, is, to say the least, very doubtful.”
70 This subject is very fully treated in the Annals for July, 1914. Mr. Taft approves the general principle. Independent, 76:542, See also the report of the Clark University Conference, summarized by President Blakeslee in No. Am. R., 198:779, and in the Outlook, 105:740.
71 Annals, 54:81. As to precedents for joint action, the United States and Mexico intervened jointly in Central America in 1907, and the United States, Argentina and Brazil mediated between Peru, Ecuador and Chile in 1911.
72 Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 1914, p. 131.