The Daily News. FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1919. THE MONROE DOCTRINE.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 March 1919, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1919. THE MONROE DOCTRINE.

It is claimed that the main idea 'contained in the League of Nations scheme is nothing move hoiless than a world-wide application of the Monroe doctrine. The general scope of that doctrine is fairly well known, but it may be recalled that it was a declaration of policy made by President Monroe in 1323 on behalf of the United States, which has since formed thp cardinal maxim of the foreign policy of the American republic. Monroe declared (1) that '"'The American continents are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonisation by any European Powers"; and (2) that "the United States should consider any attempt on the part of Eui'opean Powers to extend their systems to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety," He went on to state that "with the existing colonies or dependencies of any European Power we have not interfered, and. shall not interfere. '' Polk, in 1845, claimed that this doctrine forbad tMg acquisi-

tion of all further territory by a European Power, arid the Congress of 1867 considered it justified a protest against the formation of the Dominion of Canada, while Roosevelt confined .it to the occupation of territory. Practically the doctrine is embodied in the two words "Hands off," or non-interference. For nearly a century the Monroe doctrine has been the sheet-anchor of American foreign policy, and it is the fear of its principle being vitally attacked that is now causing mueli trouble in the United States Senate, and strenuous opposition to the adoption of the League of Nations. President Wilson contends that the League does not adversely affect the doctrine, rather that it amplifies it and makes it world-wide in scope, but his opponent's foresee that under the League covenants the United States is pledged under certain j circumstances to send military expeditions to Europe and to intervene in disputes. Already America has taken part in a European war, in which a readjustment of territory is inevitable, in spite of President Wilson's dictum that there must be no annexations. Tfco truth is that ideals are all very well in theory, but are mostly unable to stand the test of practical application. Tt is natural for President Wilson to defend both the Monroe doctrine and the League, of Nations, but be will find it difficult o convince his political opponents that the two are identical. Many changes have taken place in the world since Monroe's declaration was made. It served its purpose In isolating j America from foreign disputes, j i but it was inevitable that a time would, come when it would no I longer avail. That time has arrived. arid the president recognises that either the Monroe doctrine must have a modified scope 01- the League of Nations must be sacrificed. Inasmuch as the latter is President Wilson's own foster child he is strong in its de-. fence, so much so that he has pro : claimed it unthinkable that the United States should not ratify the league, not because failure in this respect would adversely affect America, but for the reason that the victory oiver Germany would be robbed of its chief result —the securing of a lasting peace for the world in general. It will be noticed that an important pronouncement in Monroe's declaration states that "with the existing colonies or dependencies of any European Power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere." Under the League of Nations America is pledged to interfere if and when occasion demands. Circumstances have arisen which Monsoe did not contemplate, and those circumstances have to be dealt with. It may fairly be assumed that Monroe himself, in the light of present events, would have seen eye to eye with President Wilson, and there appears to he no doubt that apart from political opponents, the mass of the American people will be prepared to endorse the League of Nations scheme. <The stronger the combination to prevent aggressive warfare the less likely is it that peace will be broken, so that by the United States standing in with the Allies to preserve peace there will be an observance of the true spirit of the Monroe doctrine. Whatever criticism may be levelled at the League of Nations scheme it is founded on principles of world-wide benefit to the nations. Cardinal maxims of a nation's foreign policy are excellent in their way, tat great upheavals have to be dealt with on sane and safe lines, and whether it be by Monroe docti'ine or a League of Nations, so long as the end in view is directed to advancing the best interests of humanity there should be a consensus of effort to protect the weak and secure justice for all.