The Dominion. SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 1917. TORTURING THE MONROE DOCTRINE

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2988, 27 January 1917, Page 8

The Dominion. SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 1917. TORTURING THE MONROE DOCTRINE

A curious ambiguousness' marked the solutions of political problems furnished by. the Delphic Oracle to inquiring. Greeks'; more than 2000 years ago. A curious ambiguousness marks part of President Wilson's statement to tho United States Senate.' He asked his hearers, and he asked a listening world, to find in the Monroe Doctrine the explanation of the principles and workings of his proposed International •League of Peace. Such a League, he ' said, would simply mean' "tho exten- | sion of tho Monroe Doctrine to tho i whole world." But such an explanation is by no means luminous. Tho explanation itself needs to be explained, for the Monroe Doctrine has meant different things at various stages in the history of the United States, and there is no clear authoritative statement of what the Doctrine is to-day. The Doctrine ■is, an truth, veiled'in mystery, and this fact led a clever and caustic writer the other year in'tho Goritcmrorary Review to speak about it thus: '

To the American the Monroe Doctrine is like God or religion to a email child: 6omexliiug fearful, something to inspire awe, something if necessary to fight for. &ut the one , no more'th'an the : other'lias any real understanding. It is sufficient, to the American, that lie has the Monroe Doctrine to cherish, which will in turn protect him. Protect him from what? That lie does not know exactly, nor is it necessary' that he should be too explicit. Men can make a religion of a political dogma, nnd bring, themselves to believe it is their salvation. .

If James Monroe, the fifth President of the United States, were living to-day, ho would be no doubt mush surprised to find the statement he made to Congress on December 2, 1823, extolled as a kind of "tree of life whose leaves were for the healing of the nations." Dr. Emil Eeich, who reproduces President Monroe's statement .in his Select Documents, illustrating Medieval and Modern History, explains that he made the declaration as a protest against the menace of Russia, who sought to annex and close the Pacific Coast north of the 51st parallel, and as a protest against the menace of Spain, who sought to rob her former colonies of their independ-. ence. This European aggression, Mr: -Monroe ■ -said, the United States .'would resent, as- ib endan* gered-'hei" own : peace 'arrd happiness, as well-as the peace and hapi piness of the smaller-Powers' on the "American Continent whose independence she'recognised; 'He declared the policy' of friendly relations with European Powers, and neutrality as regards their wars; and he maintained that the European Powers should allow the Governments in the American . Continent/to work out their own destiny without interferencefrom them either in the way of poltical control or in attempts to turn them ' into colonies. Monroe maintained- that tho American Continent was already fully occupied, and there was no room "for the introduction of European sovereignty. Mr. Monroe's statement was' largely made in the interest of the protection of the United States in the face of threatened aggression, .arid she had only a secondary interest in the other young and struggling Powers on the continent. .One thing President. Monroe .. never dreamt .of claiming for the United States, viz.: that she was the sove-. - reign Power in the American Continent who had the force : and the•will.- to protect-the smaller Powers. •He did not a,sk that legislative sancshould be given to the policy of his statement, dnd he did not suggest that an alliance should be enered into with the other Powers in the American Continent in' defence against European aggression. There is very little in the statement of President Monroe as it camo from his lips to furnish guidance -for an International Leaguo of Peace. The statement answered a good purpose in. warning the aggressors that then- attacks would mean war with the United States. But the statement was endorsed by Britain, and backed up by her warships. "It is no secret that the Monroe Doctrino for many years after it was.first put forward really meant that a European aggressor would find his way to the shores of the American Continent barred by the British Fleet" (Quarterly Review ' October, 1910). Thc_ success of the Monroe Doctrine in its early days was due in part to the support it got from British gunpowder and guns as regards the defence of ■ smaller Powers. Tho Monroe Doctrine has been applied more- than once in the history of the United States in tho interest of tho -big Republic and ' at the expense of a small one.' The

• "Mo'tikif: Doctrin? p.s ' it came . iVnm . the. lips of Mr. Mokkoe pledged the United States not to in-

i.erfcre, save in the way of protection, with the smaller Powers in the American Continent.. It can hardly be said that this pledge has been kepi. The MosKoti Doctrine reads very strangely in:-the'light of th'j United States dealing with Colombia over the. Panama. Canal. The Colombian Congress, inspired by greed, refused to ratify the sale of a'fivermile strip of.land from Panama, to Colon,, with the result that the Panama- part of Colombia, revolted. This revolt, like other similar revolts,- was engineered' bv United States citizens, and tho American warships prevented Colombia from suppressing the revolt! The new little Panama Republic was duly recognised by the United States, the necessary land and concessions were granted by it. The United States made and acquired the Panama Canal by turning two deaf cars to the Monroe Doctrine ! The one clear intelligible part of the Monroe Doctrine is that the United States, should stand separate and apart from all things political in Europe. There was a measure of reason for such an attitude in 1823 when there was a great gjilf between the Old World and the New. A policy of .isolation and separation jn' politics might be carried out' then without. much hurt. But .to-day, 'everything: is' changed! There is only one world to-day, and not two. It is curious to see a man like President Wilson, controlled by the dead hand of the political world of 1823, trying to find, in the American ■ Continent, the whole universe in which he is called upon to fight against wrong; outside of that region he has no responsibility ! The other year, when the dwellers in Cuba were wronged by Spanish misgovernment, the United States drew the sword to end tho injustice. To-day, thousands in Belgium and hundreds of thousands in Armenia, are plundered and massscred, but their cries make no more appeal to President Wilson than if they were dwellers in Mars. Tho piercing shrieks from the Calvaries in Belgium and Armenia ring round the world, but tho American President is deaf to those cries. The words retribution, punishment, expiation are not in his vocabulary. All the response he makes is to ignore the present situation and propound for the future a League of Peace, with its extension of the Monroe Doctrine- to-the- world