UNHAPPY MEXICO

New Zealand Tablet, 4 November 1915, Page 19

UNHAPPY MEXICO

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

Interesting comments on the state of anarchy in Mexico, and the reasons why it is being allowed to continue, were made by his Grace Archbishop O’Shea in an interview with a Dominion reporter. His Grace has just returned from a visit to America, and in the course of his journeyings in the States he passed through the town of El Paso, on the American frontier, in which town Huerta, an ex-President of the Republic, is held as a prisoner by the United States Government. At El Paso American soldiers were patrolling the frontier. ‘ There is a very strong feeling among large sections of the American people that it is a disgrace to the United States that things should have been allowed to get into the state they now are in Mexico,’ said the Archbishop. America made a show of interfering in the beginning, but the plain truth is that she is not even yet prepared-to intervene seriously, . She has no soldiers. She is utterly unprepared for war, even with Mexico. Of course, in time America could beat Mexico, but it might take two or three years, and the sacrifice might be very heavy. That is the real reason why the Americans backed out of the business. They have beentrying by diplomatic means to bring about a settlement, and they have called in the help of the South American Republics. The other day I read a cablegram which stated that the Pan-American Congress had agreed to recognise Carranza. That seemed to me altogether an unlikely possibility when I was there, because the general opinion was that neither Carranza nor Villa was fit to rule any decent country. The aim of the Congress was to have elections conducted in a constitutional way, in order that a president might be elected who would keep some sort of order.

‘ The mistake America made was to allow arms and munitions to go into Mexico to the different rebel leaders. If America slopped this, as they seemed to be on the point of doing when I left, the troubles in Mexico would fizzle out. But as long as America allows arms to go into Mexico for any scoundrel who gets up against, the Government, there will be trouble. Until this trade in arms is stopped no Government can rule in Mexico. There are so many of these rebelsbandits and highwaymen they are in fact— if they can get arms, will get a following, and will fight any Government. The trade in arms is the result in the first place of the greed of the American manufacturers, and Americans admitted to me that the illicit trade was the crux of the whole matter. Had these scoundrels who are disturbing Mexico to-day not been helped, Huerta, so I was informed, would have been able to maintain a stable Government. It is true that Huerta was no saint, but he was better than these others — Villa and Carranza. I was informed, also, that he was not so black as he was painted, and that, especially in regard to the report that he was implicated in the murder of President Madero, he was unjustly charged. ‘ Mexico is a most difficult country to govern. I met several Mexicans and they told me a lot of things. They all agreed that the Americans were to blame for exporting arms into the country. Many of the Mexican people are only half civilised, and in all of them there is a strong infusion of Indian blood. Americans now see that what Mexico really needs is a strong man, a dictator, to set up a Government and to maintain it, and to keep down insurrection. They want another President like Porfirio Diaz. Many unkind things were written about him, but he was the only man who could maintain law and order there. He is the sort of ruler that would not suit us or the Americans, because we do not need such a ruler, but he is the only sort of man who can save Mexico. It is nonsense to talk,of representative government for Mexico for a long time yet.’