Slap in Face for U.S.A.

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 292, 1 March 1928, Page 1

Slap in Face for U.S.A.

MONROE DOCTRINE AND SECURITY Not Approved By Other American States By Cable.—Press Association. — Copyright. GENEVA, Wednesday. “ K SLAP in the face for the United States,” is how an outIA burst regarding the Monroe Doctrine on the part of the Argentine delegate to the Committee on Arbitration and Security, Senor Cantilo, is described. “As far as I know,” said Senor Cantilo, “the Monroe Doctrine has never been explicitly approved by the other American nations.”

'J’HE Yugoslavian delegate, M. Markovitch, said it was argued | that it was because the Covenant of j the League of Nations was too vague : the States turned their eyes to secur- j ity pacts. They must arrive at some formula by means of which the effect of the Articles of the Covenant in re- ! lation to security could be measured 1 or determined. Lord Cushendun (Britain) depre- | eated the overloading of the drafting committee. He said M. Markovitch j wanted something he simply could ; not have. The Chilean delegate, M. Valdes Mendeville, said he thought it would be inadvisable to lay down rigid rules of procedure for times of crises. The Articles of the Covenant formed a connected system. Therefore it was not necessary to elaborate them. Senor Cantilo supported the view that it would be better to leave sufficient latitude in regard to procedure to enable the League to meet all emergencies. Then followed his allusion to the Monroe Doctrine. Article 21 of the Covenant refers to regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine for securing a main- | tenance of peace. Senor Cantilo said that in the interests of historical accuracy he protested against this wording.

“This political principle owes it origin to the days when the Holy Alliance was enunciated as a means of opposing any attempts at a predatory policy in the Western world,” he said. “It is not a regional understanding in the sense now accepted. It is purely a unilateral declaration, and its principle has no application to the regional agreements which are being discussed here.” NAMING AN AGGRESSOR The upshot of the debate was that the committee decided it would be inadvisable to establish a fixed rule whore the Council of the League would declare which party was an aggressor, or define what constituted a resort to war. The Council was left to decide each case according to the circumstances. Unofficial topics which are much discussed at Geneva include the prospects of Spain’s return to the League, which Sir Austen Chamberlain is anxious to facilitate. Secondly, it i 3 being asked whether the sitting of the Preparatory Disarmament Commission fixed for March will be postponed in view of the pendling elections in Prance and Germany. A third topic is as to what jnay be deduced from the reports that when the Preparatory Commission meets Mr. Hugh Gibson will be America’s representative.—A. and N.Z^