THE NEW MONROE DOCTRINE.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14886, 28 January 1914, Page 8

THE NEW MONROE DOCTRINE.

Recent utterances on the Monroo Doctrino by the President of the United States and tho American Ambassador to Great Britain nro fraueht ■with, important possibilities. Speaking in October President Wilson hinted that

the United States felt it its duty to checl: the oi>eration of European capitalists in Latin-American Republics. In December Dr. Page, the American Ambassador in London, made —before tho Savage Club of all places—a more specilic announcement. Tho original Monroe Doctrine was simply an assertion that the United States would not permit the further colonisation oi any part of the Americas by European tries, or tho extension there of any European Government's jurisdiction. Dr. Page added to this the following:— (1) that the United States did not -wish to add "a single foot" to its territoriea under any conditions; (-) that it could commit itself to helping that kind of Government only which existed with the consent and for the benefit of the governed; (3) that no financial or industrial control of the States in America by foreign concession-holdere could ever be exercised with the consent of the United States. These threo propositions Dr. Page described as "fundamental, self-evident, " and exceedingly simple," but at least two of these qualities will be questioned by many people. The "Standard" points out that tho Monroe Doctrine is practically inverted by this declaration. Tho original doctrine was designed to give American States liberty to govern, or misgovern, themselves as they liked, free from European autocracy. But now the United States contemplates what is practically the right to intervene in the government of these States. It is true that if the United States intervened it would-be in the interests of good government and democracy, but " to intervene in favour of democratic " rule is as much a derogation from the "independence of nations as interven- " tion to support absolutism." Tho President has stated that tho Government will recognise as tho constitutional head of a Stato only a man who "enjoys the " support, properly expressed and regis- " tered, of a majority of his fetlow-citi- " zens." This is virtually a claim that Washington will exorcise a general superintendence over the intornal tics of Latin-American States. Further, the Governments of these States, evon if they represent tho people, are not to be allowed to deal as they please with the resources of the country, for the United States is apparently to judge of the effect of a concession on -the government of the country. This is a very startling development iv international relationship, and should bo fully explained. It is significant that the Cowdray contract, freely entered into by the Colombian, Government with an English firm, was condemned by the State Department at Washington, and abandoned in deference to its objections. European (governments and business men may fairly ask the United States to state definitely how fat this new policy is to apply. Practically it has obvious limitations. Even. Mr Bryan would not make himself so ridiculous as to object to a concession in Chili or the Argentine. But tho policy might be applied to the smaller Republics about the Caribbean Sea, and at any rate the principle is so important that other nations should know exactly Avhere they stand. European capitalists will want to know whether American financiers are to be permitted to operate where Europeans are barred. Finally, ono is struck by the paradox of an antiImperialist, peace-loving party adopting a policy which can only be thoroughly applied if the United States maintains a huge army and a big navy, and is prepared to use them. It is more than ever doubtful whether President Wilson, so clear-headed in most things, {has clear ideas on foreign policy.