Although the novel is a work of fiction, it is set in a very real world and actual events. Shibboleth is not just a good read it contains an important message. The first round funders were the heavy lifters. They got the book over that important line during its development, when no-one knew if I could pull this off or not. The delivery date for the second round funders is much safer, and if there ever was a risk about the book falling over, there isnt any now. Please share with your friends and help a new author. This project has taken over 4 years of my life, and the risks of working so long without income are very real.
I have never received a grant in a career spanning 4 decades, and with what is happening to the Arts Council at the moment might never get one. I am offering good value rewards, but I want to tell everyone who suscibes to this campaign, that I appreciate each and every one of you. Will Oakley begins his journey with a restless existential romp through an extraordinary period in human history. Along the way he meets a collection of unlikely mentors, and is initiated into an ancient culture misunderstood as an outmoded shibboleth. This vast pool of spirituality and knowledge explains the genesis of mankind and the truth of our nature.
It also holds clues to the fate of humanity. Increasingly Will is drawn into violent acts, including kidnapping, and even murder. He is wounded in love and war, imprisoned and tortured and, in turn, enlightened. Wills dark gifts as a spiritual warrior are gradually revealed to him. Shibboleth is breathtaking in its scope. It has all the makings of a page turning adventure story, complete with lashings of satire, humour, pathos, love, sex, drugs, rocknroll, violence, politics, mystery, philosophy, creation, international cities, complexcharacters and no less than the meaning of life.
Ive had a blast reading and working on Shibboleth. Books by Language. Cloth binding. Leather label. In I learned how strongly and with how much reason the people of Argentina and Chile detested the Monroe Doctrine. Two years ago, in "Across South America," I ven- tured to say: "On mature consideration it does seem as though the justification for the Monroe Doctrine both in its original and its present form had passed.
When the Editor of the ' 'Atlantic Monthly' ' asked me to put my ideas into the form of an essay I welcomed the opportunity. The cordial response to that article is so C vii ] PREFACE significant of a decided change in public opinion that it has seemed worth while to present herewith, in more extended form than has been hitherto possible, the reasons for my belief. Naturally, this is not the place for an exhaustive treatise. The historical aspect alone might fill several volumes. What has been attempted is to sketch the growth of the Doctrine, to indicate the obligations and disadvantages it entails, and, more particularly, to portray the atti- tude toward it, and toward us, of our neigh- bors to the south.
I have also suggested, very briefly, the outlines of a new foreign policy. It is evident that the problems which are likely to arise in the future will require something more than the mere negation of outgrown doctrines. We should consider any at- tempt on their part to extend their system " to any portion of this hemisphere as dan- " gerous to our peace and safety. With the ' ' existing colonies or dependencies of any " European power, we have not interfered " and shall not interfere.
No one questions the fact that the enunciation of this policy of "America for Americans," and our firm adherence to it for so many years, has had a very decided effect upon the history of the western hemisphere. In the trenchant words of Mr. It responded to the instinct of self-preservation in an intensely practical people. As early as January 13, , an Austrian counsellor of state com- mented on the Doctrine as follows : ' ' The message of the President of the United States is an epoch-making act in the history of our times.
Every line of it deserves to be con- sidered with the most earnest attention. Not only the present attitude of that mighty and productive federation towards Europe, but also the relation of both American continents to the Old World are here enunciated with a clarity and a precision which end all doubts and duplicities. If the re-conquest of the colonies on the continent or their voluntary return to the old rule had not already become impossible, this oppo- sition of the North American people, which has so long been developed and which has only now been openly declared would alone c 6 : THE MONROE DOCTRINE be sufficient to banish all thoughts of it.
When the Doctrine was ori- ginated, the Holy Alliance in Europe was contemplating the overthrow of republican government in Spain, and unquestionably looked with extreme aversion at the new republics in South and Central America, whose independence we were then engaged in recognizing. Russia was reaching out be- yond Alaska. The firm declaration of this policy of exclusion, backed up by England's attitude toward the Holy Alliance, undoubt- edly operated to give the American repub- lics sufficient breathing-space to enable them to get on their feet and begin the difficult process of working out their own salva- tion, a process which was rendered all the more difficult by reason of Hispanic racial tendencies, of centuries of autocratic colo- nial government, and of geographical condi- tions which made transportation and social intercourse extremely arduous.
It still takes longer to go from Lima, the capital of Peru, to Iqui- tos, the capital of Peru's largest province, and one which the Putumayo atrocities have recendy brought vividly to our notice, than it does to go from London to Honolulu. Had it not been for the Monroe Doctrine, the American republics would have found it very much more difficult to maintain their independence during the first three-quarters of a century of their career.
In , without mentioning this shib- boleth by name, President Polk declared that the United States would not permit any European intervention on the North Ameri- can continent. Scarcely had we recovered, however, from the throes of our great conflict, when Mr.
Seward took up with the French govern- ment the necessity for the withdrawal of the French troops from Maximilian's support. Here we were acting strongly in accordance with the best traditions of the Monroe Doc- trine, and yet the mysterious words were not employed in the correspondence. In , when Chile was at war with Spain, Secretary Seward wrote to our min- ister in Chile: "The policy of the United States in regard to the several Spanish- American States is, or ought to be, well known now, after the exposition it has re- ceived during the last five years.
We thus give to those republics the moral support of a sincere, liberal, and we think it will appear a useful friendship. We could claim from foreign states no concession to our own political, moral, and material principles, if we should not conform, in our own proceedings in the needful intercourse with foreign states, to the just rules of the laws of nations. Seward's words and no attempt to assume any arbi- trary right to interfere in American matters. At the same time, owing probably to the necessity of paying strict attention to our own internal affairs, following the ravages of the Civil War, it was not until the late part of the 80 's and the beginning of the 90 's that we began to assume an aggressive attitude in our foreign policy.
While it was generally understood that we would not countenance any European aggressiveness or land hunger so far as the states of the western hemisphere were con- C ioj THE MONROE DOCTRINE earned, nor any political interference in the affairs of North and South America, it was not until , during the second adminis- tration of President Cleveland, that a Secre- tary of State thought it expedient or neces- sary to restate the Monroe Doctrine and to bring us to the verge of a European war by backing it up with an absolutely uncom- promising attitude.
Venezuela had had a long-standing boundary dispute with Brit- ish Guiana. Nobody cared very much either way until it was discovered that in the dis- puted territory were rich gold fields. In the excitement that ensued, the Venezuelans appealed to the United States, and Secre- tary Olney, invoking the Monroe Doctrine, brought matters to a crisis. Our defiant attitude toward Great Britain astonished the world, and greatly pleased the majority of American citizens. The very fact that we had not the slightest personal interest in the paltry sixty thousand square miles of jungle south-east of the Orinoco added to our self-esteem.
In- stead of standing, in the proverbial British manner, strictly for his honor and his rights, he politely ignored the Boundary Commis- sion which we had impetuously called into existence, and, dealing directly with his neighbor Venezuela, arranged for an inter- national court of arbitration. We fairly shouted with joy. Even thirteen years later, one of our most widely read "syndicate journalists," writing in a fine frenzy of jingoism, summed up the Vene- zuela episode as follows: "Lord Salisbury and the British Government came down from their high horse, the British lion slunk away with its much twisted tail between its legs, and England agreed to arbitrate the boun- dary dispute.
From the day that President Cleve- land sent that message to Congress the na- tions of Europe have looked upon the United States in a different light. The Monroe Doc- trine, which is the foremost positive feature of our foreign policy, is no longer a toy with which we are graciously permitted to amuse ourselves, but it is an accepted factor in international polity which commands the respect of all the world.
Olney's bold and unselfish enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine we failed to realize several aspects of this question. In the first place, we had proudly declared the Monroe Doctrine to be a part of international law, failing todistinguish between law and policy. It may not have been admitted in so many words to the code of international law, butsince in international councils every nation is entitled to the rights belonging to I IS] THE MONROE DOCTRINE it, if the enforcement of the Monroe Doc- trine is something we may justly claim, it has its place in the code of international law as certainly and as securely as if it were spe- cifically mentioned, and where the United States is a suitor before the high tribunal that administers international law, the ques- tion to be determined is whether or not we present claims which the justice of that code of law can find to be right and valid.
Those who re- fused to accept it were later criticised by Mr. Phelps and Professor Theodore S.
- Naked Sonata!
- Trump isn’t Orwell’s nightmare. He’s the kind of politician Orwell thought would save us.;
- More TV Shows & Movies;
- A Perfect Murder?
- A Theological Shibboleth about the Violence of God;
- Full text of "The Monroe doctrine, an obsolete shibboleth;".
- Clausewitzs Puzzle: The Political Theory of War!
The lat- ter wrote as follows concerning the fine rhe- toric of the sentences quoted above : ' ' There is no 'high tribunal, 7 no 'code of interna- tional law,' except in a metaphorical sense. If the passage means anything which is uncertain it means that the Monroe Doc- trine is a part of the body of international law because it is in harmony with its ideas of justice.
A Murder 2 Die 4 by Marcia Slow-Sandler, Paperback | Barnes & Noble®
This is an error. The rules of in- ternational law are founded upon the prin- ciples of natural justice, but everything con- sonant with its ideas of justice is not a rule of international law. Cleveland's ingenuous statement "the principles of international law are based upon the theory that every nation shall have its rights protected and its just claims enforced" has no legal basis.
It has the right to defend itself, but, as Pro- fessor Woolsey says : ". To say that every state has a right to be protected and to nave its just claims enforced by some other state is simply ridiculous. No ; it is more it is monstrous. In our efforts to meet this we forgot that the Doctrine had no standing as law, and was merely an exposition of our foreign pol- icy, which, like any other policy, could be changed at our own behest if we so chose. Before leaving this aspect of the discus- sion it ought to be said that there were writ- ers who even ventured to deny that the Mon- roe Doctrine was involved at that time.
It was felt by some that where a boundary dis- pute arises between a European colony and an American state which the state is will- ing to have settled by arbitration but the mother country of the colony is not, we have no right to com pel her to do so. These writers felt that to use the full extent of our power in order to force such arbitration was a view of the Monroe Doctrine ' ' of extensive obli- gation, and fraught with widespread con- sequences.
The fact remains that the whole epi- sode disclosed how widespread throughout the United States was the determination of the American people to uphold the Doctrine. We had assumed a new theorem. In the words of Mr. Olney 's words recognized this doc- trine. But when he gave "geographical proximity ' ' as one of the reasons for this Pan-American alliance, he overlooked the fact that the largest cities of South Amer- ica are geographically nearer to Spain and Portugal than to New York and New Eng- land. Most of our statesmen studied geography when they were in the grammar school, and have rarely looked at a world-atlas since.
In other words, we began the new develop- ment of the Monroe Doctrine with a false idea of the geographical basis of the Pan- American alliance. A recent visitor, whose ability to make careful and significant observations no one will deny, Mr. James Bryce, in summing up the question of South American affinities, writes as follows : ' ' French literature has a double attraction for the South Americans, including the Brazilians. It gratifies their fondness for graceful and pointed and rhe- torical expression.
Spaniards, like French- men, love style, and French style has for them a peculiar charm. With a great liking for what they call 'general ideas,' they set less store by an accumulation of facts and an elaborate examination of them than do the Germans and the English, and prefer what may be called the French way of treating a subject. In short, they have an intellectual affinity for France, for the brightness of her ideas, the gaiety of her spirit, the finish of her literary methods, the quality of her senti- ment.
The Unimaginable Reality of American Concentration Camps
Many a wealthy Argentine landowner, many a Brazilian coffee planter, every dic- tator of a Caribbean republic, who, like Guz- man Blanco of Venezuela, has drawn from the public revenues funds to invest in Eu- ropean securities, goes to the metropolis of fashion and amusement to spend his fortune there.
All the young literary men, all the young artists who can afford the journey, flock thither. There is a large South Amer- ican colony in Paris, and through it, as well as through books and magazines, the French drama and art, French ideas and tastes, dominate both the fashionable and the intellectual world in the cities of South America. These may be readily seen in little things, straws which show the way the currents of feeling are tending.
How the Brazilians feel was seen a few years ago in Rio Janeiro, when Brazil was holding a national exposition. Each state of that great republic had a building of its own, but no foreign nations were represented, except Portugal, the mother country, which had her own building. How Spain feels was shown recently in the case of a distinguished Spanish pro- fessor, who was able to find time to make an extended journey through Latin America, urging Pan-Hispanism, but could find no time to make a lecture tour through the cities of the United States, although offered lavish hospitality and considerable honora- riums.
As has been well said by a recent Peruvian writer : ''Essential points of difference sepa- rate the two Americas. Differences of lan- guage, and therefore of spirit ; the differ- ence between Spanish Catholicism and the multiform Protestantism of the Anglo-Sax- ons ; between the Yankee individualism and the omnipotence of the State natural to the South. In their origin, as in their race, we find fundamental antagonisms; the evolu- tion of the North is slow and obedient to the lessons of time, to the influences of custom ; the history of the Southern peoples is full of revolution, rich with dreams of an unattain- able perfection.
In the United States a " half-white " counts as a negro. In South America he counts as a white. The difference in viewpoint is absolutely fun- damental. Such a state of affairs shows the difficulty of assuming that Pan-American- ism is axiomatic, and of basing the logical growth of the Monroe Doctrine on ' ' natural sympathy. First there was the Barrundia affair. General Barrundia, exiled from Guatemala in '85, had violated the neutrality laws of Mexico and taken passage on a United States merchantman which touched at the ports of his native land.
The authorities of Guatemala demanded his surrender, but the captain of the steamer declined. The Amer- ican minister and the commander of an American man-of-war in those waters were brought into the discussion. They decided that by the rules and precedents of inter- national law the United States could not object to the exercise of local police juris- diction over a merchantman while she was lying in the waters of another country. Guatemalan soldiers then attempted to ar- rest General Barrundia, who was killed in the scuffle that followed. In other words, we vir- tually denied the right of Guatemala to be treated with the respect due to a free and independent state.
In , during the war between Guate- mala and Salvador, the good offices of the United States were tendered in an effort to mediate between the warring Central Amer- ican powers. Our suggestion was not only refused, but resented ; our consulate at San Salvador was attacked, and as a result we sent two men-of-war to Salvador and forced a promise of reparation. In we again overstepped the rules of international law, and denied the right of one of the contestants in the civil war in Chile to purchase arms on the Pacific Coast.
It has always been considered lawful for merchants to sell arms to all the world, at peace or at war. Arms were sold and shipped by the steamer ' ' Itata. The case against her was eventually dismissed, for she had com- mitted no breach of international law in the judgment of our own courts. The seizure of the "Itata " was the cause of very bitter feeling arising in Chile. We did not like the dilatory tactics of Chilean law and procedure. We refused to respect the de- cision of the Chilean courts, and we issued an ultimatum which, although extremely distasteful to Chile, forced her to take our view of the case.
There is no question that the American people took an immense amount of satisfaction in riding rough-shod over Chile at that time, and did it without the slight- est notion that we had given the Chileans abundant cause to feel that with us might meant right. In commenting on this epi- sode in Professor Woolsey very justly said: ". It means courting rather than avoiding foreign entanglements.
It means one collision after another, each with its sul- phurous war-cloud about it. It means the violation of former precedents, setting up new ones in their stead which may prove awkward, even dangerous. It will encour- age aggressions upon weak neighbors. It will make this country hated and distrusted by its natural friends.
It will weaken its commercial position on this continent, throwing trade into other channels than our own. Years must pass before Chile can forget her bitter experiences at the hands of the United States and open her arms to our trade freely. International trade is largely based on sentiment. An American merchantman violated the paper blockade. Our consulate on the Orinoco River was attacked, and hard feelings were engendered on both sides. He had no intention of allowing the naval party in the civil war to inter- fere with American merchant shipping, nor of recognizing rules tacitly admitted by foreign vessels.
Two United States mer- chantmen entered the harbor and proposed to draw up to the docks to discharge. Ad- miral da Gama, in charge of the naval forces, notified the masters of these vessels that they could not moor to the wharves, as the district was within the fire zone. The ship- masters appealed to Admiral Benham, who immediately ordered the merchantmen to go up to the wharves, and notified the Bra- zilian admiral that he would open fire upon the insurgent squadron if any interference was attempted.
There were then five Amer- ican men-of-war in the harbor, and the Bra- zilian admiral could make no effective resist- ance in the face of this superior force. One of his cruisers did order the merchantmen to heave-to when on their way to the docks, but the U. Their strongest resource had been their ability to prevent the land forces from hav- ing communication by sea with the outside world.
Partly as a result of this, the naval party lost the cause for which they were fighting. The consequent anti- American at- titude of their friends and supporters may easily be imagined. In occurred the Bluefields incident in Nicaragua, when it was necessary for us to send two men-of-war in order to prevent the banishment of hated Americans who had interfered in a local revolution.
In came the Venezuela boundary dispute and the enunciation of the new Monroe Doctrine by Secretary Olney, al- ready described.
Why say ‘I will’ and not ‘I do’?
Our actions fitted in with his words. And we were soon to justify still further the fear and apprehension of our South American neighbors. Less than three years after the enunciation of the new Doctrine we were at war with Spain. How profoundly it would have sur- prised the great American public to real- ize that while we were spending blood and treasure to secure the independence of an- other American republic, our neighbors in Buenos Aires were indulging in the most severe and caustic criticism of our motives!
This attitude can be appreciated only by those who have compared the cartoons pub- lished week after week, during the progress of the war, in this country and in Argen- tina. In the one, Uncle Sam is pictured as a benevolent giant, saving the poor maid, Cuba, from the jaws of the ferocious dragon, General Weyler, and his cruel mistress in Spain. In the other, Uncle Sam in the guise of a fat hog is engaged in besmirching the fair garments of the Queen of Spain in his violent efforts to gobble up her few Ameri- can possessions. Representations of our ac- tions in the Philippines are in such disgust- ing form that it would not be desirable to attempt to describe some of the Argentine cartoons touching upon that subject.
In we had declared that "with the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere" so runs the origi- nal Monroe Doctrine. In we not only interfered, but actually took away all of Spain's colonies and dependencies, freeing Cuba, retaining for ourselves Porto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, and eventually securing a valuable naval station at Guan- tanamo on the island of Cuba.
Without for a moment wishing to enter into a discussion of the wisdom of our actions, I desire to emphasize the tremendous differ- ence between the old and the new Monroe Doctrine. This is not a case of theories and arguments, but of deeds. What are the facts? In we declare that we are practi- cally sovereign on this continent, and we follow up this declaration three years later, as a result of the Spanish War, by actually increasing the extent of our possessions and thoroughly j ustifyingthe alarm of our neigh- bors. The immediate result was to treble our difficulties throughout Latin America.
No won- der our neighbors felt worried. Our attitude caused actions which forced us to take unpleasant measures. In the wife of the American con- sul at La Guaira was attacked, and in the following year in the same port the sailors of an American warship were set upon by a mob. In the same year we intervened in Venezuelan affairs. But one of the worst blows came in , when we assisted in the establishment of the Republic of Panama, and then took con- trol of the Canal Zone. In other words, we went through the form of preventing a South American republic from subduing a revolution in one of her distant provinces, and eventually took a strip of that province because we believed we owed it to the world to build the Panama Canal.
Again, let it be clear that I am not interested at this point in defending or attacking our actions in any of these cases, I merely desire to state what has happened, and to show some of the fruits of the new Monroe Doctrine. In we decided that the celebrated Alsop claim, made on behalf of American citizens to whom Chile owed a certain amount of money, should be brought to the front after slumbering for many years, and an ultima- tum was presented to Chile that the matter be settled at once.
Chile replied by oifering to submit the whole case to the King of Eng- land as arbitrator. But the amount of irrita- tion caused by the method followed was out of all proportion to the amount of money involved. For years Santo Domingo had been the scene of frequent revolutions.
It was impossible for her creditors to find a satisfactory government with whom to deal for any length of time. At times, it is said, there were three "governments. The Dominican Republic was finding it impossible to defray the ordinary expenses of government and to meet its obligations. The repre- sentatives of the European governments concerned several times appealed to the Secretary of State, setting forth the wrongs and intolerable delays to which they had been subjected in the collection of their just claims, and intimating that, unless the Do- minican government should receive some assistance from the United States in the way of regulating its finances, the creditor gov- ernments in Europe would be forced to take more effective means of compulsion to secure the satisfaction of their claims.
An- other protocol, however, under which the United States accepted the control of the administration of the custom houses, but not giving us quite such extensive powers, was ratified in Thus one of the main incentives of revolution, i. There has been an occa- sional revolution since we took control of the custom houses, but the financial condition of the island is certainly better than it was. Thus we may seem to have been justified in our course, but the fact remains that al- though our intervention may have been an excellent thing for the people of Santo Do- mingo, it has undoubtedly interfered with their right to do as they please with their own money, and has acted as a sinister warning to other Latin-American states as to what they may expect of us if they fail to pay their debts.
We believed that the conditions were so bad as to justify us in carrying out the new Monroe Doctrine by aiding one side in a local revolution. Our policy toward the republics of Cen- tral America has undergone a startling de- velopment since the beginning of President Roosevelt's administration.
Such a result, from every point of view, whether of the United States, of the state immediately affected, or of other Spanish-American states, would be as la- mentable as it would appear unnecessary. Finally, in , the Senate of the United States, by an overwhelming majority, passed the Lodge resolution which enlarges the Monroe Doctrine by declaring that ' ' when any harbor or other place in the American continents is so situated that the occupation thereof for naval or military pur- poses might threaten the communication or the safety of the United States, the gov- ernment of the United States could not see, without grave concern, the possession of such harbor or other places by any corpo- ration or association which has such rela- tion to another government not American as to give that government practical power of control for naval or military purposes.
This resolution was precipitated by the rumored attempt of a Japanese fishing com- pany to secure certain privileges on Mag- dalena Bay. The fact that this enlargement of the Monroe Doctrine interferes with the natu- ral, desires of any American republic to deal with foreign corporations, and so clashes with the sovereign rights of independent states, seems hardly to have been taken into account by the Senate. President Taft, how- ever, did not approve of the resolution and it was not signed, but its passage by a vote of 51 to 4 is regarded in South America as evidence of our tendency to interfere in their affairs.
A recent American minister to Honduras, in a carefully prepared paper before the American Political Science Association, was obliged to admit that '' Historically, the Spanish- Americans have cherished in their hearts a marked aver- sion for the Yankee. The taking of Califor- nia from Mexico, the occupation of Porto Rico, the protectorate over Cuba, the re- ceivership in Santo Domingo, the coup d'etat in Panama, are all held to be palpable evidence of a lust for territory and warn- ings of the ultimate fate awaiting other countries on this continent.
Every interven- tion of the United States, while approved by the faction immediately favored, is viewed with apprehension by all other Spanish- Americans. And we have done enough of that sort of thing to make it evident to disinterested observers that the new Monroe Doctrine, our pres- ent policy, is to act as international police- man for the Latin part of the western hemi- sphere.
Is this Doctrine worth while? Let us see what it involves : first, from the European, second, from the Latin- Amer- ican point of view. As the ' ' Spectator ' ' recently pointed out, if France or Germany or Great Britain is offended by some act of a South American State the Monroe Doctrine offers a way out of these difficulties. But it does not do this without laying a very real burden on the United States. We have even gone further than this, we have declared in the words of Secretary Olney, that the United States is "practically sovereign on this continent, and that its fiat is law upon the subject to which it confines its interposition.
A curi- ous result of this is that some of the Amer- ican republics float loans in Europe , believ- ing that the United States will not allow the governments of their European creditors forcibly to collect these loans. They would not be willing to take the risks which they now take, and many unfor- tunate financial tangles would never have a beginning. It is natural for a republic which has great undeveloped resources, much opti- mism, and a disregard of existing human handicaps, to desire to borrow large amounts of money in order to build expensive railroads and carry out desirable public improvements.
It is equally natural that capitalists seeking good interest rates and secure investments should depend on the fact that if the debtor country attempts to default on its national loans, the government of the creditors will intervene with a strong arm. Millions of dollars of such loans have been made in the past. It is perfectly evident that many of these loans cannot be repaid ; that the time is coming when the creditor nations will look to us as the policeman, or "elder brother," of the western hemisphere, to see to it that the little boys pay for the candy and sweetmeats they have eaten.
The recent report of the British Corpo- ration of Foreign Bondholders, which looks after the interests of foreign capitalists, shows that while Ecuador and Nicaragua are on the boundary line, Guatemala and Hondu- ras are way over on the wrong side of the fence. The Council have requested His Majesty's Government to take such steps as they may deem fit to demand the resti- tution to the bondholders of the security of which they have been deprived. Hon- duras has succeeded in delaying the meet- ing of its foreign obligations for nearly forty years, and there are no indications at present that the Government has become convinced of the necessity of putting an end to its long- continued default, either by accepting the co-operation of American bankers in put- ting its finances in order, or by any other method.
It was reported in the English papers that Guatemala had appealed to Washing- ton and the Monroe Doctrine. It appears to be impossible to find out exactly what hap- pened. The worst of it is, the situation is bound to recur.
It is conceivable that the day may come when Mexico will default the interest on her bonds. The money is mostly owed abroad. Is it the duty of the United States to decide what the foreign bondhold- ers may or may not do? One cannot dodge the truth that the con- tinuation of our support of this Doctrine implies that we will undertake to be re- sponsible for the good behavior of all of the American nations. The nature of this responsibility was more fully realized and more frankly expressed by President Roosevelt than by any of his predecessors.
In a message to Congress in , he said: "It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards other nations of the western hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. Chronic wrong-doing, or an impo- tence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may, in Amer- ica as elsewhere, ultimately require inter- vention by some civilized nation, and in the western hemisphere, the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrong-doing or impo- tence to the exercise of an international police power.
They have great natural riches, and if within their bor- ders the reign of law and justice obtains, prosperity is sure to come to them. While they thus obey the primary laws of civilized nations they may rest assured that they will be treated by us in a spirit of cordial and helpful sympathy.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
In a message to Congress he said: "One of the most effective instru- ments for peace is the Monroe Doctrine as it has been and is being gradually developed by this nation and accepted by other nations. No other policy could have been as efficient in promoting peace in the western hemi- sphere and in giving to each nation thereon the chance to develop along its own lines.
If we had refused to apply the Doctrine to changing conditions it would now be com- pletely outworn, would not meet any of the needs of the present day, and indeed would probably by this time have sunk into com- plete oblivion. When -we announce a policy, such as the Monroe Doctrine, ive thereby commit our- selves to the consequences of the policy, and those consequences from time to time alter. It is out of the question to claim a right to shirk the responsibility for its exercise. Not only we, but all American Republics who are bene- fited by the existence of the Doctrine, must recognize the obligations each nation is under as regards foreign peoples no less than its duty to insist upon its own rights.
The case is more difficult when it refers to a contractual obligation. Our own government has always refused to enforce such contractual obligations on be- half of its citizens by an appeal to arms. It is much to be wished that all foreign gov- ernments would take the same view.
But they do not ; and in consequence we are lia- ble at any time to be brought face to face with disagreeable alternatives. On the one hand, this country would certainly decline to go to war to prevent a foreign government from collecting a just debt ; on the other hand, it is very inadvisable to permit any foreign power to take possession, even tem- porarily, of the custom houses of an Amer- ican republic in order to enforce the pay- ment of its obligations ; for such temporary occupation might turn into a permanent oc- cupation.
The only escape from these alter- natives may at any time be that we must ourselves undertake to bring about some arrangement by which so much as possible of a just obligation shall be paid. It is true they caused great alarm in South America, and in the follow- ing year President Roosevelt found it ne- cessary to say : " In many parts of South America there has been much misunder- standing of the attitude and purposes of the United States toward the other American republics.
An idea had become prevalent that our assertion of the Monroe Doctrine im- plied, or carried with it, an assumption of superiority, and of a right to exercise some kind of protectorate over the countries to whose territory that doctrine applies. Noth- ing could be farther from the truth. Yet that impression continued to be a serious barrier to good understanding, to friendly inter- course, to the introduction of American cap- ital and the extension of American trade.
The impression was so widespread that apparently it could not be reached by any ordinary means. If we are the big-brother-with-the-club who will not permit any outsider to spank our irritating or troublesome younger broth- ers, we must accept the natural corollary of keeping them in order ourselves, for we can- not allow the American family to become a nuisance. And some members of it have a decided tendency in that direction. Is this task worth while? Is there not a better way out of the difficulty?
Furthermore, Europe knows that in order to continue to execute our self-imposed and responsible mission we must run counter to the most approved principles of the law of nations. The Right of Independence is so funda- mental and so well established a principle of international law, and respect for it is so essential to the existence of national self-re- straint, that armed intervention, or any other action or policy tending to place that right Lss] THE MONROE DOCTRINE in a subordinate position, is properly looked upon with disfavor, not only in Latin Amer- ica, but by all the family of civilized nations.
The grounds upon which intervention is permitted in international law differ accord- ing to the authority one consults. But in general they are limited to the right of self- preservation, to averting danger to the in- tervening state, and to the duty of fulfilling engagements. When, however, the danger against which intervention is directed is the consequence of the prevalence of ideas which are opposed to views held by the interven- ing state, most authorities believe that inter- vention ceases to be legitimate.
To say that we have the right to intervene in order to modify another state's attitude toward revo- lutions is to ignore the fundamental princi- ple that the right of every state to live its life in a given way is precisely equal to that of another state to live its life in another way. In the last analysis, no intervention is legal except for the purpose of self-preserva- tion, unless a breach of international law has taken place, or unless the family of civilized states concur in authorizing it.
Why should the United States not abandon the Monroe Doctrine, and publicly disclaim any desire to interfere in the domestic quarrels of the American republics? Why should our gov- ernment not publicly state to Europe that this nation will not intervene except at the request of a Pan-American Congress, and then only in case we are one of the members which such a Congress selects for the spe- cific purpose of quieting a certain trouble- some neighbor? IV From the Latin- American point of view, the continuance of the Monroe Doctrine is in- sulting, and is bound to involve us in serious difficulties with our neighbors.
We seem to be blind to actual conditions in the largest and most important parts of Latin America, such as Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. Let him pon- der on the meaning of Brazil's one hundred million dollars of balance of trade in her favor. Let him realize the enormous extent of Argentina's recent growth, and her abil- ity to supply the world with wheat, corn, beef, and mutton. Let him examine Chile's political and economic stability.
Let him consider whether or not these nations are fit to take care of themselves, and are worthy of being included in an alliance to preserve America for the Americans, if that is worth while. Let him ask himself whether or not the Argentine, Brazilian, and Chilean gov- ernments deserve our patronizing, we-will- protect-you-from-Europe attitude. We are not an imaginative people. Un- like our Southern neighbors, it is difficult for us to visualize the meaning of printed state- ments about countries that we have never seen. We, on the other hand, really need to visit South America in order to get a vivid idea of present conditions in the leading repub- lics.
Fortunately, the number of those who travel southward is increasing every year. The Boston Chamber of Commerce took a long step in the right direction recently by making it possible for its members and friends to enjoy a comfortable tour through the leading South American cities. But in- dividual tourists have nothing to fear. The luxury-loving American traveller can even find four Ritz-Carl ton hotels on the east coast. The steamers that take him to them are as comfortable as any in the world. Condi- tions on the west coast will soon be equally good. Furthermore, our Southern neighbors are rather more fond of certain kinds of luxury than we are, and in their present prosperous condition they seem to be abundantly able to pay.
In fact, perhaps one of the best ways of getting an idea of Argentina's economic status is to look at the question of taxi-cabs. Chicago, with a popula- tion of over 2 million, has taxi-cabs. Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina, with a population of but one million three hun- dred thousand, has taxi-cabs ; or more than New York and Chicago combined. Do you believe she would have any less if we did away with the Monroe Doctrine? Let us look a few facts squarely in the face, even though we cannot visualize them as sharply as the South Americans do.
Our imports from China and Japan in amounted to 81 million dollars. Our imports from Argentina and Brazil amounted to million dollars. In the same year there were 57 million sheep in the United States. Ar- gentina had 67 million. In 1 we built over miles of railroad in the United States.
To be sure, Argentina did not build as much, but she did build over miles. During the past five years we have ex- ported thousand tons of meat. Argen- tina has exported thousand tons or nearly ten times as much. We have always considered ourselves great corn producers, and so we are, but last year while we were exporting 30 million bushels, Argentina was exporting mil- lion bushels. Argentina will soon be the world's greatest purveyor of food-stuffs ; in fact, she already leads in several lines. This enables her to be a great buyer.
Brazil has about the same favorable bal- ance, and yet she is only on the threshold of her development. Some of my readers will be thinking, ' ' But Argentina and Brazil are only two countries and there are eleven others in South America. Furthermore, we have said nothing about Chile, which is by nature a small country, but has a very active popu- lation and an excellent government.
Her political upheavals have been no more fre- quent than our own, and her record for cour- age and daring in time of war has not been excelled in any part of the world. Another reason why we should focus our attention on Argentina, Brazil, and Chile is that the volume of their foreign commerce is four-fifths of the total for South America. While Chile has not the great agricul- tural possibilities of her neighbors, she is nevertheless in a strong financial position.
There is no evidence that Chile is a weakling, even if her territory is not very broad. One thing more. The amount of British capital invested in the countries of Latin America is a fair criterion of their impor- tance. But even if the tops of the mountains are in the clouds, we can at least realize that we are confronted by mountains and not molehills. Although the average American does know far more about South America than he did a few years ago, when I heard a mem- ber of one of the larger University Clubs in the East admit that he did not know whether Venezuela was in Central or South Amer- ica, and cared less, we are many of us ac- tually groping in the dark, and undoubtedly it is difficult to grasp present conditions in the three largest states of South America.
We know that they are not the hot-beds of revolutions and fevers that we once sup- posed them to be, and that there is some- thing there besides earthquakes, jungles, and generals. Yet very few of us actually appreciate the present state of affairs. How many people realize, for instance, that there are twelve steamers a month sailing from New York, which carry freight, passengers, and mails to the ports of Brazil, or that there are fifty mail steamers a month between Europe and Argentina? Is it not time that we began to realize why it is that to the inhabitants of those countries the very idea of the existence of the Monroe Doctrine is not only distaste- ful, but positively insulting?
It seems to many of them as gratuitous as it would to us if Chile were to enunciate a similar doctrine as a result of the Japan- ese troubles in California, and should declare that she could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing the Californians, or contemplate their destruction by any Asi- atic power, "in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition " toward Chile, and "dangerous to her peace and safety.
But it is no more uncalled for nor any stranger than that as a people we should regard the Monroe Doc- trine as applying to Chile or Argentina or Brazil. If these powers dislike and despise our maintenance of the old Monroe Doctrine, it is not difficult to conceive how much more they must resent the new one. The very thought that we, proud in the consciousness of our own self-righteousness, sit here with a smile on our faces and a big stick in our hands, ready to chastise any of the Amer- ican republics that do not behave, fairly makes their blood boil.
It may be denied that this is our attitude. Grant that it is not ; still our neighbors believe that it is, and if we desire to convince them of the contrary, we must definitely and publicly abandon the Monroe Doctrine and enunciate a new kind of foreign policy. These are the sentiments of a learned Argentine judge, writing in one of the most important periodicals of the southern hemi- sphere.
In an article filled with paragraphs of vigorous protest, which breathes the 'es- sence of the Southern feeling toward the Monroe Doctrine, he enlarges on this theme : "It is both convenient and necessary that we should declare in virile and dignified language to the United States that we are not disposed to admit her right of tutelage.
It is too imperialistic, too degrading to our- selves and our neighbors, who are worthy of being respected by the United States as well as by the cultivated powers of Europe. To be sure in our territories there still exist, in distant provinces, tribes of savages, just as in the United States. Nevertheless, we respect the right of the individual and his property, and our generous laws contain ample guarantees and offer full privileges to aliens who desire to establish themselves on our rich lands.
They themselves will be better for coming in contact with our culture, and their children are welcome in the numerous free public schools which maybe found through- out South America. Any act of any foreign power which savors of intervention is to be regarded in no other light than as the manifestation of an un- friendly disposition toward the whole of Latin America, and he urges the states of Latin America to unite in declaring that they will refuse to recognize or grant belligerent rights to any foreign nation engaging in such in- tervention.
His book, 'The Future of Latin-America," which has had a considerable vogue, consists largely of quotations from the bombastic utterances of imperialistic politicians in the United States. Our jingoistic editors give him abundant material with which to work on the sensitive feelings of the Latin Ameri- cans. Unfortunately, he is able to quote sentences from the speeches of our leading statesmen which lend color to his thesis. In , when Mr. Taft was in President Roosevelt's Cabinet, he said, in the course of a speech: "The frontiers of the United States virtually extend to Tierra del Fuego.
The more thoughtful Argentines politely but firmly decline to admit that the Mon- roe Doctrine is applicable to their country. In its es- sence the Monroe Doctrine is tutelage. No such policy of tutelage could be carried out without gravely offending the very strong national feeling of this people.
A recent cartoon depicts Uncle Sam disguised as a hideous spider, in whose web the sun-loving flies the tropical American republics are caught. Another, from the leading illus- trated weekly of Buenos Aires, shows Uncle Sam as a hook-nosed cook with bony claw- like hands bending over a range on which he is cooking the fat fowl ' ' Mexico " in a frying-pan of ' ' Revolucion ' ' and muttering with a saturnine grimace, ' ' I think this bird will soon be done. Brazil, largely on account of its size in area it is larger than the continental area of the United States , has always been more kindly in its criticism of us than many of the other countries.