MONROE DOCTRINE

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 130, 1 March 1928, Page 9

MONROE DOCTRINE

“NEVER BEEN EXPLICITLY APPROVED” DECLARATION BY ARGENTINE DELEGATE PROTEST AT SECURITY CONFERENCE An interesting feature of the resumed security debate at Geneva was a declaration by the Argentine delegate that the Monroe doctrine had never been explicitly approved by the other American nations; it was not, he claimed, a regional understanding in the sense now accepted. By Telegraph.—Phes : association. Copyright (Rec. February 29, 10.25 p.m.) Geneva, February 29. An outburst by the Argentine delegate, Senor Cantilo, on the Monroe doctr-ne was a feature of the resumed security debate, which Lord Cushendun described as the main effort of the measure. He said the Yugo-Slavian representative, M. Markovitch, argued it was because the Covenant was too vague that States turned their eyes to security pacts. They must arrive at some formula bv which the effect of the Articles of the Covenant in re•lation to security could be measured or determined. Lord Cushendun deprecated overloading the drafting committee, and said M. Markovitch wanted something he simplv could not have. The Chilean representative, Senor Valdes Mandeville, expressed the opinion that it was inadvisable to lay down rigid, rules of procedure for times of crisis. The Articles of the Covenant formed a connected system, therefore it was unnecessary to elaborate them. Senor Canilo supported this viewpoint. He said it was better to leave sufficient latitude on the subject of procedure to enable the League to meet all emergencies. Then followed the allusion which was afterwards described in the _ lobbies as a slap in the face for the United States. Article 21 of the Covenant refers to regional understandings like the Monroe doctrine for securing the maintenance of peace. Senor Cantilo, in the interests of historical accuracy, has protested against this wording, and said: “As far as I know, the Monroe doctrine has never been explicitly approved by the toher American nations This political principle owes its origin to the days when the Holy Alliance was enunciated as a means of opposing any attempts at pedatorv policy in the Western world. It is not a regional understanding in the sense now accepted. It is a purely unilateral declaration of principle having no application to the regional agreements being discussed here.” The upshot of the debate was that the committee decided that it was inadvisable to establish a fixed rule by which the Council of the League will declare which is the aggressor or define what constitutes a resort to war. The Council was left to decide each case according to circumstances. It is unofficially stated that the topics much discussed include the prospects of Spain’s return to the League, which Sir Austen Chamberlain is anxious to facilitate. Secondly, will the Preparatory Disarmament Commission, due to meet on March 15, be postponed in view of the pending elections in France and Germany? Thirdly, what may be deduced from the reports when the Preparatory Commission meets? Mr. Hugh Gibson will be America’s representative.