Слике страница
PDF
ePub

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AFTER THE WAR

253

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AFTER THE WAR*

By GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON,

Professor of International Law, Harvard University.

The President of the United States on January 22, 1917, addressing the Senate, said, “perhaps I am the only person in high authority amongst all the people of the world who is at liberty to speak and hold nothing back," and proposed "that the nations should with one accord adopt the doctrine of President Monroe as the doctrine of the world." The President, referring to the propositions as to "the foundations of peace among the nations," also said, "I feel confident that I have said what the people of the United States would wish me to say;" and later in the same address he asserted, "I would fain believe that I am speaking for the silent mass of mankind everywhere."

As President of the United States, Mr. Wilson's words may unquestionably and properly be regarded in foreign countries as expressing the policy of the United States Government. As the head of the Government of a neutral state occupying an important place in the world, when many other states were engaged in war, the claim to be speaking for the silent mass of mankind everywhere was not wholly presumption.

It can also certainly be claimed that a President of the United States in 1917 has an equal right with a President of the United States in 1823 to state what American policy is, and, if in 1917 the policy of 1823 is reaffirmed, then such policy would be worthy of even greater consideration in international affairs.

President Wilson on January 22, 1917, while proposing a concert of power, government by consent of the governed, freedom of

See also address National Conference on Foreign Relations of the United States, held under auspices American Academy of Political Science, Long Beach, New York, May 30, 1917, in Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York, VII, No. 2, 297–302.

the seas, limitation of armament, and advocating "that the nations should with one accord adopt the doctrine of President Monroe as the doctrine of the world," explained that, under this world doctrine, "no nation should seek to extend its polity overany other nation or people, but that every people should be left free to determine its own polity, its own way of development, unhindered, unthreatened, unafraid, the little along with the great and powerful."

Clearly, this recently announced American policy would for the period after the war enlarge the scope and operation of the Monroe Doctrine. The realization of this fact is evident in foreign opinion. On January 24 Bonar Law, chancellor of the exchequer, in a speech at Bristol, England, said of the address of President Wilson, "what President Wilson is longing for, we are fighting for." On January 26 it was announced from Petrograd, that Russia "can gladly indorse President Wilson's communication." The part relating to the freedom of the seas found partic

1"I have sought this opportunity to address you because I thought that I owed it to you, as the council associated with me in the final determination of our international obligations, to disclose to you without reserve the thought and purpose that have been taking form in my mind in regard to the duty of our Government in the days to come when it will be necessary to lay afresh and upon a new plan the foundations of peace among the nations.

"It is inconceivable that the people of the United States should play no part in that great enterprise. To take part in such a service will be the opportunity for which they have sought to prepare themselves by the very principles and purposes of their polity and the approved practices of their Government ever since the days when they set up a new nation in the high and honorable hope that it might in all that it was and did show mankind the way to liberty. They cannot in honor withhold the service to which they are now about to be challenged. They do not wish to withhold it. But they owe it to themselves and to the other nations of the world to state the conditions under which they will feel free to render it.

"That service is nothing less than this, to add their authority and their power to the authority and force of other nations to guarantee peace and justice throughout the world. Such a settlement cannot now be long postponed. It is right that before it comes this Government should frankly formulate the conditions upon which it would feel justified in asking our people to approve its formal and solemn adherence to a League for Peace. I am here to attempt to state those conditions.

The question upon which the whole future peace and policy of the world depends is this: Is the present war a struggle for a just and secure peace, or only for a new balance of power? If it be only a struggle for a new balance of power, who will guarantee, who can guarantee, the stable equilibrium of the new arrangement? Only a tranquil Europe can be a stable Europe. There must be,

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AFTER THE WAR

255

ular response in Russia. From other countries came statements that the ideals of the address were approved, but that the task involved was appalling, considering the condition of the world.

As the United States has been the supporter of the Monroe Doctrine in the past,' it must doubtless be its supporter after the not a balance of power, but a community of power; not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace.”—(Address of President Wilson, January 22, 1917.)

"So far as practicable, moreover, every great people now struggling towards a full development of its resources and of its powers should be assured a direct outlet to the great highways of the sea. Where this cannot be done by the cession of territory, it can no doubt be done by the neutralization of direct rights of way under the general guaranty which will assure the peace itself. With a right comity of arrangement no nation need be shut away from free access to the open paths of the world's commerce.

"And the paths of the sea must alike in law and in fact be free. The freedom of the seas is the sine qua non of peace, equality and co-operation. No doubt a somewhat radical reconsideration of many of the rules of international practice hitherto thought to be established may be necessary in order to make the seas indeed free and common in practically all circumstances for the use of mankind, but the motive for such changes is convincing and compelling. There can be no trust or intimacy between the peoples of the world without them. The free, constant, unthreatened intercourse of nations is an essential part of the process of peace and of development. It need not be difficult either to define or to secure the freedom of the seas if the governments of the world sincerely desire to come to an agreement concerning it."-(Address of President Wilson, January 22, 1917.)

"It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are, of necessity, more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments. And to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.

"Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers;

war.

It would be reasonable to conclude that the President, speaking on January 22, 1917, was speaking of the probable attitude of the Government of the United States toward the doctrine. The principles of the doctrine would therefore be involved in the American ideas for the settlement of world difficulties. After a test of nearly one hundred years it is but a natural tendency that the doctrine should cease to be narrowly American and should have a world basis. If it means merely that each state should be allowed unhampered opportunity for development and that 'good faith and justice toward all nations" should prevail, such an ideal would meet little formal opposition. If it means that the United States should be recognized as controlling the destinies of the American continents there would doubtless be opposition."

66

to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm and manly policy; meeting, in all instances, the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference."-(Message of President Monroe, December 2, 1823.)

For full statement see Appendix, pages 286–287.

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary_advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?"-(Washington's Farewell Address, September 17, 1796.) In 1895 Secretary of State Olney said:

"Is it true, then, that the safety and welfare of the United States are so concerned with the maintenance of the independence of every American state as against any European power as to justify and require the interposition of the United States whenever that independence is endangered? The question can be candidly answered in but one way. The States of America, South as well as North, by geographical proximity, by natural sympathy, by similarity of governmental constitutions, are friends and allies, commercially and politically of the United States. To allow the subjugation of any of them by an European power is, of course, to completely reverse that situation and signifies the loss of all the advantages incident to their natural relations to us. But that is not all. The

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AFTER THE WAR

257 Even if expanded into the doctrine of America for Americans or some form of Pan-Americanism' there might be question of worldwide approval. The doctrine may therefore be passing even now to a wider field of influence.

people of the United States have a vital interest in the cause of popular selfgovernment. They have secured the right for themselves and their posterity at the cost of infinite blood and treasure. They have realized and exemplified its beneficent operation by a career unexampled in point of natural greatness or individual felicity. They believe it to be for the healing of all nations, and that civilization must either advance or retrograde accordingly as its supremacy is extended or curtailed. Imbued with these sentiments, the people of the United States might not impossibly be wrought up to an active propaganda in favor of a cause so highly valued both for themselves and for mankind. But the age of the Crusades has passed, and they are content with such assertion and defense of the right of popular self-government as their own security and welfare demand. It is in that view more than in any other that they believe it not to be tolerated that the political control of an American state shall be forcibly assumed by an European power."-(Olney to Ambassador Bayard, July 20, 1895, Moore, Digest of International Law, VI, 552-553.)

President Roosevelt in 1904 declared:

"Our interests and those of our southern neighbors are in reality identical. They have great natural riches, and if within their borders the reign of law and justice obtains, prosperity is sure to come to them. While they thus obey the primary laws of civilized society they may rest assured that they will be treated by us in a spirit of cordial and helpful sympathy. We would interfere with them only in the last resort, and then only if it became evident that their inability or unwillingness to do justice at home and abroad had violated the rights of the United States or had invited foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations. It is a mere truism to say that every nation, whether in America or anywhere else, which desires to maintain its freedom, its independence, must ultimately realize that the right of such independence cannot be separated from the responsibility of making good use of it."-(Annual Message, December 6, 1904.)

[ocr errors]

For other passages from this message see Appendix, pages 296–297.

Secretary of State Hay in 1901 made the following statement:

"As respects controversies between the states of this hemisphere, the attitude of the United States has been repeatedly made clear. We wish to maintain equally friendly and close relations with all. We deplore any dissidences among them which may embarrass their common advancement. Our precept and example are before them to induce harmony and good will in all their mutual relations, but always in the line of the most absolute impartiality. While our good offices are at any time cheerfully at the disposal of our fellow republics to aid in composing their disputes, we hold that it is not our province to interfere in the adjustment of any questions involving their sovereign rights in their rela tions to one another. Although we may and do deeply regret whatever causes of division may arise between them, we abstain from forming a judgment on the merits of the difference, or espousing the cause of any one state against another, for to do so would impair the frank impartiality with which we stand ready to lend our friendly assistance toward a settlement whenever we have assurance that our counsels or our services will be acceptable to the parties concerned.

« ПретходнаНастави »