A PEACE CENTENARY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16558, 23 May 1914, Page 15

A PEACE CENTENARY.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE. . IH. (By Paranaki.) j The period from the close of the war in 1814 to 1824 is known in United States history as tho “ Era of Good Feeling,” because in all that time there was little political controversy. It was a time of silent growth and unbounded prosperity, and instead of wrangling over politics the people were busy developing manufactures and carrying civilisation farther and farther west. In 1816 Monroe had been elected President by a, large majority, and at the Presidential elections in 1820 he was again returned, this time un-, opposed. Britain and the Continent of Europe at this time were not nearly as prosperous and settled as was the case in the United States. The harsh economic conditions that follow a great war were stirring tho working classes in Britain almost to the point of revolution,, while the unsettled and chaotic situation in Europe was the despair of rulers and statesmen. Worst of all, the acknowledged leader of the European Powers, Alexander of Russia, a dreamer and an enthusiast, was devoid of those qualities of steadfastness and imagination that see the sacrifices that are to be made and count their cost. Instead ho had an almost fanatical belief that he was the instrument of Providence and that to him had fallen the task of bringing light to the shattered and fallen nations of Europe. It was at Alexander’s instigation that the “ Holy Alliance ” was formed. By tliis instrument, which Castlereagh characterised as “a piece of sublime nonsense,” tho sovereigns of Europe were to regard themselves as brothers and to base their common actions on i the noble precepts of the Christian religion. The King of Prussia and the Austrian Emperor gave a tardy assent to this high-sounding but indefinite pronouncement, and at a review on the plain of Vertus in September, 1815, the terms of the “Holy Alliance’ , were duly proclaimed. It was soon evident, however, that the “ Alliance,” i far from being a power for uplifting and regenerating the peoples of Europe, , was a force for the repression of liberty : and the upholding of despotism. It : strenuously opposed popular movements and even went as far as curtailing liberal government in European colo- . nies outside of Europe. . ! In 1820 the movement for constitutional government broke out into revolt in Spain. Portugal and the two Sicilies. The Spanish colonies in South America at this time were also in revolt against Spain itself. The. Kings and Emperors of the “ Holy Alliance ” joined together to put down these rebellions. Constitutional government was not desired by them, and they inform- ; ed the world that the administration of States must come from the free will of monarchs. President Monroe had some years before this moved in tho direction of getting the United States to recognise the independence of the rebelling Spanish colonies and the independent States. He now renewed his attempts, for he feared that the European Powers would make an . attempt to conquer the Spnnish-American colonies. In 1822 the United States recognised the revolutionary Governments. Matters by this time had reached a crisis in Spain. The Powers demanded that certain changes should be made in the government of Spain towards absolutism, and threatened that if these changes were not carried out French armies would he authorised to cross the Pyrenees. In April, 1823, ■ France invaded Spain. Canning was British Foreign Secretary at this time, and though ho consistently pursued a i policy of non-intervention—“ Evcrv na- ' tion for itself, and God for us all ” was his motto—he cotdd not but view with j susnicion tho trend of events in Europe, and when Alexander of Russia onenlv dkeus«-ed lend’ng aid to Spain in subduing her revolting colonies be felt that Britain’s attitude towards such a contingency should he defined. He proposed, therefore, to the United States Ambnssator in . London a joint expression of opinion, embodying the j assertions that reconquest was impos- j siblo and adding a declaration that while the two countries offered no onposition to reconciliation between the Spanish and the Mother Country, sought no advantages themselves, they would not permit interference from elsewhere. Tho American Minister had no instructions in tlie matter hut said that the United , States would not favour intervention | and that tlie United States would join : Great Britain provided that country recognised at once the independence of the Latin American Republics. Can-, ning was not prepared to do this and tho proposal was rejected. The in- 1 tense jealousy the United States enter- i tainod of Britain, and too close an adherence on the part of Canning to his policy of non-intervention, prevented the joint declaration from being made, and the credit of an act origin- 1 ally suggested by a British Minister i fell to the United States.

’Monroo, realising the gravity of the situation, and guided by John Quincy Adams, his secretary, took ex-Presi- j dents Jefferson and Maddison into his j confidence. Urged by them he enunei- j nted, with the approval of Cabinet, in j his annual message to Congress on j December 2, 1523, the famous Monroe ] Doctrine. In it ho stated the policy i of tho United States as follows(1) America is closed to colonisation by any European Power. “ The Aroeri- | can continents,” so runs the Note, ) “ by the free and independent condition j which they hav.* assumed and mam- *

tain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonisation bv any European Power.” (2) The United States have not interfered and will not interfere in European affairs. (3) The United States regard the ex-,; tension of the principles of the “ Holy Alliance” to America as dangerous. “We owe it, therefore, to'candour and to tho 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 Governments who hnvo. declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and 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 sis the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States.” Many of the ideas contained in the Monroe Doctrine were .not original. They may be found in Washington's Neutrality Proclamation, in Washington’s Farewell Address, in Jefferson’s Inaugural Address, and in other documents. What was new was the statement that any interference in American affairs by a European Power would bo looked upon as “an unfriendly' act.” No legislative sanction was given to Monroe’s policy at the time, nor has it since been incorporated into International Law. Its mere an- ' nouncement, however, had tho effect of preventing European interference in the affairs of the Latin American re- . publics. . 1 On several occasions since its coiu; ception the Monroe Doctrine has beeS enforced. “ Its spirit,” says one writer, “ permeated the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty (1850) in which Great Britain and the United States mutually renounced the right of fortifying. or occupying any portion of Central America.” When Napoleon 111. trie, co, place Maximilian on the Mexican throne, Congress declined to recognise him and formally ordered France to evacuate Mexico in the name of the Monroe Doctrine. Napoleon dared not refuse; ho was not in a position to offer effective resistance to the veteran armies of the Secession War which had just concluded. . In 1895, owing to boundary disputes with Venezuela, Britain had to listen to an uncompromising assertion of the Doctrine on the part of President Cleveland, Who threatened war if a Commission was not appointed. The Commission never reported, and the countries agreed to arbitrate, with the results that the British claims were in the main upheld. From 1823 to 1895 the development and enlargement of this policy was very striking, but since the Spanish American War the tendency has been in the opposite direction. The Monroe Doctrine never having been formulated in the exact language of a lawy has meant different things to different Presidents, and similarly its interpretation has varied. Its fixed principle theoretically is that every portion of tho American Continent must bo free from European control. With all such “doctrines” and “bulls” their life and efficacy depend on the strength of the nation issuing them. President Roosevelt recognised this in a speech at Procter, Vermont, In 1902 :—“ The * Doctrine,’ ” he said, “ will be respected as long as we have a first-class efficient nary—not very much longer. . . . When we take up a position, let us remember that our holding it depends on ourselves; depends- on our showing that we have the ability to bold it.” An English historian, writing of the Doctrine also says:—“England’s interests are .a! little bound up in that doctrine as in the famous ‘Bull’ of Alexander VI. t which in the fifteenth century assign* ed tho • '•••' regions to Spain. ‘ Doe. trine ’ : - ‘ Bull "’ alike are legal fit* tions 'which dilute for diplomatic cow sumption the potency of a pointerthreat.'” ■ . From the point of view of morality the Monroe Doctrine calls for some notice. Tho United States has not hesitated to enrich itself at the expense of the republics it professed to defend. In the middle of last century she despoiled Mexico of 600,000 square miles of territory, and she has not hesitated to assume control of large tracts of lands in Central America. The Panama district of Colombia was instigated to rebel and formed a separate republic under the wing of the United States, enabling the latter thereby to gain control of the Canal territory. Moreover the United States has sought expansion beyond America. Porte Rico was seized in 1897-1898; the Philippines were annexed in 1898; and Cuba and Hawaii came under the Stars and Stripes in the same year. United States citizens have acted repeatedly as mercenaries in the internal, conflicts of the South American Republics whose peace and good government the Monroe Doctrine undertook to safeguard. The weakness of the Doctrine at the present day is due (1) to the failure of the United States Government to protect the lives and property .of foreigners in other parts of America such as Mexico; (2) the territorial expansion of tho United States beyond the American Continent, giving rise to the question that if the United States interferes in the affairs of Europe and Asia why should European countries be prevented from taking an active part in American. affairs; (3) th© growing sense of responsibility and nationality on the part) of the South American republics, who no longer desire the protection of the United States; and (4) the growing feeling everywhere that no part of the world should be regarded as a preserve for any particular race. The day o( “chosen peoples” has passed and “doctrines” and “ultimatums” aiy useless unless backed by strong mili? tary and naval forces. (To be continued.)