In the partition of the earth, one-half was left under the control of the United States. Among the great nations, parties to the war and the peace, the United States alone asked for nothing—save the acceptance by the world of the Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine, as generally understood, makes her mistress of the Western Hemisphere.

The Monroe Doctrine originated in the efforts of Latin America to establish its independence of imperial Europe, and the counter efforts of imperial Europe to fasten its authority on the newly created Latin American Republics. President Monroe, aroused by the European crusade against popular government, wrote a message to Congress (1823) in which he stated the position of the United States as follows:

"The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers."

Monroe continues by pointing out that the United States must view any act which aims to establish European authority in the Americas as "dangerous to our peace and safety."

"The United States will keep her hands off Europe; she will expect Europe to keep her hands off America," was the essence of the doctrine, which has been popularly expressed in the phrase "America for the Americans." The Doctrine was thus a statement of international aloofness,—a declaration of American independence of the remainder of the world.

The Monroe Doctrine soon lost its political character. The southern statesmen who were then guiding the destinies of the United States were looking with longing eyes into Texas, Mexico, Cuba and other potential slave-holding territory. Later, the economic necessities of the northern capitalists led them in the same direction. Professor Roland G. Usher, in his "Pan-Americanism" (New York, The Century Company, 1915, pp. 391-392) insists that the Monroe Doctrine stands "First, for our incontrovertible right of self-defense. In the second place the Monroe Doctrine has stood for the equally undoubted right of the United States to champion and protect its primary economic interest against Europe or America."

Through the course of a century this statement of defensive policy has been converted into a doctrine of economic pseudo-sovereignty. It is no longer a case of keeping Europe out of Latin America but of getting the United States into Latin America.

The United States does not fear political aggression by Europe against the Western Hemisphere. On the contrary, the aggression to-day is largely economic, and the struggle for the markets and the investment opportunities of Latin America is being waged by the capitalists of every great industrial nation, including the United States.

2. Latin America

Four of the Latin American countries, viewed from the standpoint of population and of immediately available assets, rank far ahead of the remainder of Latin America. Mexico, with a population in 1914-1915 of 15,502,000, had an annual government revenue of $72,687,000. The population of Brazil is 27,474,000. The annual revenue (1919) is $183,615,000. Argentine, with a population of 8,284,000, reported annual revenues of $159,000,000 (1918); and Chile, with a population of 3,870,000, had an annual revenue of $77,964,000 (1917). These four states rank in political and economic importance close to Canada.

Great Britain holds a number of strategic positions in the West Indies. Other nations have minor possessions in Latin America. None of these possessions, however, is of considerable economic or political importance. There remain Bolivia, Uruguay, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela, and the Central American states. The most populous of these countries is Peru (5,800,000 persons). All of the Central American states combined have a population of less than 6,000,000. The annual revenues of Uruguay (population 1,407,000) are $30,453,000 (1918-19). The combined government revenues of all Central America are less than twenty-five millions. (Statistical Abstract of the U. S., 1919, p. 826ff.)

Compared with the hundred million population of the United States; its estimated wealth (1918) of 250 billions; and its federal revenues of a billion and a half in 1916, the Latin American republics cut a very small figure indeed. The United States, bristling with economic surplus and armed with the Monroe Doctrine, as accepted and interpreted in the League Covenant, is free to turn her attention to the rich opportunities offered by the undeveloped territory stretching from the Rio Grande to Cape Horn. What is there to hinder her movements in this direction? Nothing but the limitation on her own needs and the adherence to her own public policies. This vast area, containing approximately nine million square miles (three times the area of continental United States), has a population of only a little over seventy millions. The entire government revenues of the territory are in the neighborhood of six hundred million, but so widely scattered are the people, so sharp are their nationalistic differences, and so completely have they failed to build up anything like an effective league to protect their common interests, that skillful maneuvering on the part of American economic and political interests should meet with no effectual or thoroughgoing opposition.

The "hands off America" doctrine which the United States has enunciated, and which Europe has accepted, means first that none of the Latin American Republics is permitted to enter into any entangling alliances without the approval of the United States. In the second place it means that the United States is free to treat all Latin American countries in the same way that she has treated Cuba, Hayti and Nicaragua during the past twenty years.

3. Economic "Latin America"

The United States is the chief producer—in the Western Hemisphere—of the manufactured supplies needed by the relatively undeveloped countries of Latin America. At the same time, the undeveloped countries of Latin America contain great supplies of ores, minerals, timber and other raw materials that are needed by the expanding manufacturing interests of the United States. The United States is a country with an investible surplus. Latin America offers ample opportunity for the investment of that surplus. Surrounding the entire territory is a Chinese wall in the form of the Monroe Doctrine—intangible but none the less effective.

Before the outbreak of the Great War, European capitalists dominated the Latin American investment market. The five years of struggle did much to eliminate European influence in Latin America.

The situation was reviewed at length in a publication of the United States Department of Commerce "Investments in Latin America and the British West Indies," by Frederick M. Halsey (Washington Government Printing Office, 1918):

"Concerning the undeveloped wealth of various South American countries," writes Mr. Halsey, "it may be said that minerals exist in all the Republics, that the forest resources of all (except possibly Uruguay) are very extensive, that oil deposits have been found in almost every country and are worked commercially in Argentine, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, and that there are lands available for the raising of live stock and for agricultural purposes" (p. 20).

As to the pre-war investments, Mr. Halsey points out that "Great Britain has long been the largest investor in Latin America" (p. 20). The total of British investments he places at 5,250 millions of dollars. A third of this was invested in Argentine, a fifth in Brazil and nearly a sixth in Mexico. French investments are placed at about one and a half billions of dollars. The German investments were extensive, particularly in financial and trading institutions. United States investments in Latin America before the war "were negligible" (p. 19) outside of the investments in the mining industry and in the packing business.

Just how much of a shift the war has occasioned in the ownership of Latin American railways, public utilities, mines, etc., it is impossible to say. Some such change has occurred, however, and it is wholly in the interest of the United States.

Generalizations which apply to Latin America have no force in respect to Canada. The capitalism of Canada is closely akin to the capitalism of the United States.

Canada possesses certain important resources which are highly essential to the United States. Chief among them are agricultural land and timber. There are two methods by which the industrial interests of the United States might normally proceed with relations to the Canadian resources. One is to attack the situation politically, the other is to absorb it economically. The latter method is being pursued at the present time. To be sure there is a large annual emigration from the United States into Canada (approximately 50,000 in 1919) but capital is migrating faster than human beings.

The Canadian Bureau of Statistics reports (letter of May 20, 1920) on "Stocks, Bonds and other Securities held by incorporated and joint stock Companies engaged in manufacturing industries in Canada, 1918," as owned by 8,130,368 individual holders, distributed geographically as follows: Canada, $945,444,000; Great Britain, $153,758,000; United States, $555,943,000, and other countries, $17,221,322. Thus one-third of this form of Canadian investment is held in the United States.

4. American Protectorates

The close economic inter-relations that are developing in the Americas, naturally have their counter-part in the political field. As the business interests reach southward for oil, iron, sugar, and tobacco they are accompanied or followed by the protecting arm of the State Department in Washington. Few citizens of the United States realize how thoroughly the conduct of the government, particularly in the Caribbean, reflects the conduct of the bankers and the traders.

Professor Hart in his "New American History" (American Book Co., 1917, p. 634) writes, "In addition the United States between 1906 and 1916 obtained a protectorate over the neighboring Latin American States of Cuba, Hayti, Panama, Santo Domingo and Nicaragua. All together these five states include 157,000 square miles and 6,000,000 people." Professor Hart makes this statement under the general topic, "What America Has Done for the World."

The Monroe Doctrine, logically applied to Latin America, can have but one possible outcome. Professor Chester Lloyd Jones characterizes that outcome in the following words, "Steadily, quietly, almost unconsciously the extension of international responsibility southward has become practically a fixed policy with the State Department. It is a policy which the record of the last sixteen years shows is followed, not without protest from influential factions, it is true, but none the less followed, by administrations of both parties and decidedly different shades within one of the parties.... Protests will continue but the logic of events is too strong to be overthrown by traditional argument or prejudice." ("Caribbean Interests." New York, Appleton, 1916, p. 125.)

Latin America is in the grip of the Monroe Doctrine. Whether the individual states wish it or not they are the victims of a principle that has already shorn them of political sovereignty by making their foreign policy subject to veto by the United States, and that will eventually deprive them of control over their own internal affairs by placing the management of their economic activities under the direction of business interests centering in the United States. The protectorate which the United States will ultimately establish over Latin America was forecast in the treaty which "liberated" Cuba. The resolution declaring war upon Spain was prefaced by a preamble which demanded the independence of Cuba. Presumably this independence meant the right of self-government. Actually the sovereignty of Cuba is annihilated by the treaty of July 1, 1904, which provides:

"Article I. The Government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or compact with any foreign power or powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba, nor in any matter authorize or permit any foreign power or powers to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes, or otherwise, lodgement in, or control over any portion of said island."

The most drastic limitations upon Cuba's sovereignty are contained in Article 3 which reads, "the Government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligation with respect to Cuba imposed by the Treaty of Paris on the United States now to be assumed and undertaken by the Government of Cuba." Under this article, the United States, at her discretion, may intervene in Cuba's internal affairs.

Under these treaty provisions the Cuban Government is not only prevented from exercising normal governmental functions in international matters, but if a change of internal government should take place which in the opinion of the United States jeopardized "life, property and individual liberty" such a government could be suppressed by the armed forces of the United States and a government established in conformity with her wishes. Theoretically, Cuba is an independent nation. Practically, Cuba has signed away in her treaty with the United States every important attribute of sovereignty.

The fact that Cuba was a war-prize of the United States might be advanced as an explanation of her anomalous position, were it not for the relations now existing between the Dominican Republic, Hayti and Nicaragua on the one hand and the United States on the other. The United States has never been at war with any of these countries, yet her authority over them is complete.

The Convention between the United States and the Dominican Republic, proclaimed July 25, 1907, gave the United States the right to appoint a receiver of Dominican customs in order that the financial affairs of the Republic might be placed on a sound basis. This appointment was followed in 1916 by the landing of the armed forces of the United States in the territory of the Dominican Republic. On November 29, 1916, a military government was set up by the United States Marine Corps under a proclamation approved by the President. "This military government at present conducts the administration of the government" (Letter from State Department, September 29, 1919).

The proclamation issued by the Commander of the United States Marine Corps and approved by the President, cited the failure of the Dominican government to live up to its treaty obligations because of internal dissensions and stated that the Republic is made subject to military government and to the exercise of military law applicable to such occupation. Dominican statutes "will continue in effect insofar as they do not conflict with the objects of the Occupation or necessary relations established thereunder, and their lawful administration will continue in the hands of such duly authorized Dominican officials as may be necessary, all under the oversight and control of the United States forces exercising Military Government." The proclamation further announces that the Military Government will collect the revenues and hold them in trust for the Republic.

Following this proclamation Captain H. S. Knapp issued a drastic order providing for a press censorship. "Any comment which is intended to be published on the attitude of the United States Government, or upon anything connected with the Occupation and Military Government of Santo Domingo must first be submitted to the local censor for approval. In case of any violation of this rule the publication of any newspaper or periodical will be suspended; and responsible persons,—owners, editors, or others—will further be liable to punishment by the Military Government. The printing and distribution of posters, handbills, or similar means of propaganda in order to disseminate views unfavorable to the United States Government or to the Military Government in Santo Domingo is forbidden." (Order secured from the Navy Department and published by The American Union against Militarism, Dec. 13, 1916.)

A similar situation exists in Hayti. The treaty of May 3, 1916, provides that "The Government of the United States will, by its good officers, aid the Haitian Government in the proper and efficient development of its agricultural, mineral and commercial resources and in the establishment of the finances of Hayti on a firm and solid basis." (Article I) "The President of Hayti shall appoint upon nomination by the President of the United States a general receiver and such aids and employees as may be necessary to manage the customs. The President of Hayti shall also appoint a nominee of the President of the United States as 'financial adviser' who shall 'devise an adequate system of public accounting, aid in increasing revenues' and take such other steps 'as may be deemed necessary for the welfare and prosperity of Hayti.'" (Article II.) Article III guarantees "aid and protection of both countries to the General Receiver and the Financial Adviser." Under Article X "The Haitian Government obligates itself ... to create without delay an efficient constabulary, urban and rural, composed of native Haitians. This constabulary shall be organized and officered by Americans." The Haitian Government under Article XI, agrees not to "surrender any of the territory of the Republic by sale, lease or otherwise, or jurisdiction over such territory, to any foreign government or power" nor to enter into any treaty or contract that "will impair or tend to impair the independence of Hayti." Finally, to complete the subjugation of the Republic, Article XIV provides that "should the necessity occur, the United States will lend an efficient aid for the preservation of Haitian independence and the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property and individual liberty."

A year later, on August 20, 1917, the New York Globe carried the following advertisement:—

Fortune in Sugar

"The price of labor in practically all the cane sugar growing countries has gone steadily up for years, except in Hayti, where costs are lowest in the world.

"Hayti now is under U. S. Control.

"The Haitian-American corporation owns the best sugar lands in Hayti, owns railroads, wharf, light and power-plants, and is building sugar mills of the most modern design. There is assured income in the public utilities and large profits in the sugar business. We recommend the purchase of the stock of this corporation. Proceedings are being taken to list this stock on the New York Stock Exchange.

"Interesting story 'Sugar in Hayti' mailed on request.

"P. W. Chapman & Co., 53 William St., N. Y. C."

Hayti remained "under United States control" until the revelations of the summer of 1920 (see The Nation, July 10 and August 28, 1920), when it was shown that the natives were being compelled, by the American forces of occupation, to perform enforced labor on the roads and to accept a rule so tyrannous that thousands had refused to obey the orders of the military authorities, and had been shot for their pains. On October 14, 1920, the New York Times printed a statement from Brigadier General George Barnett, formerly Commandant General of the Marine Corps, covering the conditions in Hayti between the time the marines landed (July, 1915) and June, 1920. General Barnett alleges in his report that there was evidence of "indiscriminate" killing of the natives by the American Marines; that "shocking conditions" had been revealed in the trial of two members of the army of occupation, and that the enforced labor system should be abolished forthwith. The report shows that, during the five years of the occupation, 3,250 Haytians had been killed by the Americans. During the same period, the losses to the army of occupation were 1 officer and 12 men killed and 2 officers and 26 men wounded.

The attitude of the United States authorities toward the Haytians is well illustrated by the following telegram which the United States Acting Secretary of the Navy sent on October 2, 1915, to Admiral Caperton, in charge of the forces in Hayti: "Whenever the Haytians wish, you may permit the election of a president to take place. The election of Dartiguenave is preferred by the United States."

The Cuban Treaty established the precedent; the Great War provided the occasion, and while Great Britain was clinching her hold in Persia, and Japan was strengthening her grip on Korea, the United States was engaged in establishing protectorates over the smaller and weaker Latin-American peoples, who have been subjected, one after another, to the omnipotence of their "Sister Republic" of the North.

5. The Appropriation of Territory

Protectorates have been established by the United States, where such action seemed necessary, over some of the weaker Latin-American states. Their customs have been seized, their governments supplanted by military law and the "preservation of law and order" has been delegated to the Army and Navy of the United States. The United States has gone farther, and in Porto Rico and Panama has appropriated particular pieces of territory.

The Porto Ricans, during the Spanish-American War, welcomed the Americans as deliverers. The Americans, once in possession, held the Island of Porto Rico as securely as Great Britain holds India or Japan holds Korea. The Porto Ricans were not consulted. They had no opportunity for "self-determination." They were spoils of war and are held to-day as a part of the United States.

The Panama episode furnishes an even more striking instance of the policy that the United States has adopted toward Latin-American properties that seemed particularly necessary to her welfare.

Efforts to build a Panama Canal had covered centuries. When President Roosevelt took the matter in hand he found that the Government of Colombia was not inclined to grant the United States sovereignty over any portion of its territory. The treaty signed in 1846 and ratified in 1848 placed the good faith of the United States behind the guarantee that Colombia should enjoy her sovereign rights over the Isthmus. During November 1902 the United States ejected the representatives of Colombia from what is now the Panama Canal Zone and recognized a revolutionary government which immediately made the concessions necessary to enable the United States to begin its work of constructing the canal.

The issue is made clear by a statement of Mr. Roosevelt frequently reiterated by him (see The Outlook, October 7, 1911) and appearing in the Washington Post of March 24, 1911, as follows:—"I am interested in the Panama Canal because I started it. If I had followed the traditional conservative methods I would have submitted a dignified state paper of probably two hundred pages to the Congress and the debate would have been going on yet. But I took the Canal Zone and let the Congress debate, and while the debate goes on, the Canal does also."

Article 35 of the Treaty of 1846 between the United States and Colombia (then New Grenada) reads as follows,—"The United States guarantees, positively and efficaciously to New Grenada, by the present stipulation, the perfect neutrality of the before mentioned Isthmus ... and the rights of sovereignty which New Grenada has and possesses over said territory."

In 1869 another treaty was negotiated between the United States and Colombia which provided for the building of a ship canal across the Isthmus. This treaty was signed by the presidents of both republics and ratified by the Colombian Congress. The United States Senate refused its assent to the treaty. Another treaty negotiated early in 1902 was ratified by the United States Senate but rejected by the Colombian Congress. The Congress of the United States had passed an act (June 28, 1902) "To provide for the construction of a canal connecting the waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans." Under this act the President was authorized to negotiate for the building of the canal across the Isthmus of Panama. If that proved impossible within a reasonable time, the President was to turn to the Nicaragua route. The treaty prepared in accordance with this act provided that the United States would pay Colombia ten millions of dollars in exchange for the sovereignty over the Canal Zone. The Colombian Congress after a lengthy debate rejected the treaty and adjourned on the last day of October, 1902.

Rumor had been general that if the treaty was not ratified by the Colombian Government, the State of Panama would secede from Colombia, sign the treaty, and thus secure the ten millions. In consequence of these rumors, which threatened transportation across the Isthmus, American war vessels were dispatched to Panama and to Colon.

On November 3, 1902, the Republic of Panama was established. On November 13 it was recognized by the United States. Immediately thereafter a treaty was prepared and ratified by both governments and the ten millions were paid to the Government of Panama.

Early in the day of November 3, the Department of State was informed that an uprising had occurred. Mr. Loomis wired, "Uprising on Isthmus reported. Keep Department promptly and fully informed." In reply to this the American consul replied, "The uprising has not occurred yet; it is announced that it will take place this evening. The situation is critical." Later the same official advised the Department that (in the words of the Presidential message, 1904) "the uprising had occurred and had been successful with no bloodshed."

The Colombian Government had sent troops to put down the insurrection but the Commander of the United States forces, acting under instructions sent from Washington on November 2, prevented the transportation of the troops. His instructions were as follows,—"Maintain free and uninterrupted transit if interruption is threatened by armed force with hostile intent, either governmental or insurgent, at any point within fifty miles of Panama. Government forces reported approaching the Isthmus in vessels. Prevent their landing, if, in your judgment, the landing would precipitate a conflict."

Thus a revolution was consummated under the watchful eye of the United States forces; the home government at Bogota was prevented from taking any steps to secure the return of the seceding state of Panama to her lawful sovereignty, and within ten days of the revolution, the new Republic was recognized by the United States Government.[57] (Ten days was the length of time necessary to transmit a letter from Panama to Washington. Greater speed would have been impossible unless the new state had been recognized by telegraph.)

6. The Logical Exploiters

The people of the United States are the logical exploiters of the Western Hemisphere—the children of destiny for one half the world. They are pressed by economic necessity. They need the oil of Mexico, the coffee of Brazil, the beef of Argentine, the iron of Chile, the sugar of Cuba, the tobacco of Porto Rico, the hemp of Yucatan, the wheat and timber of Canada. In exchange for these commodities the United States is prepared to ship manufactured products. Furthermore, the masters of the United States have an immense and growing surplus that must be invested in some paying field, such as that provided by the mines, agricultural projects, timber, oil deposits, railroad and other industrial activities of Latin-America.

The rulers of the United States are the victims of an economic necessity that compels them to seek and to find raw materials, markets and investment opportunities. They are also the possessors of sufficient economic, financial, military and naval power to make these needs good at their discretion.

The rapidly increasing funds of United States capital invested in Latin-America and Canada, will demand more and more protection. There is but one way for the United States to afford that protection—that is to see that these countries preserve law and order, respect property, and follow the wishes of United States diplomacy. Wherever a government fails in this respect, it will be necessary for the State Department in coÖperation with the Navy, to see that a government is established that will "make good."

Under the Monroe Doctrine, as it has long been interpreted, no Latin-American Government will be permitted to enter into entangling alliances with Europe or Asia. Under the Monroe Doctrine, as it is now being interpreted, no Latin-American people will be permitted to organize a revolutionary government that abolishes the right of private interests to own the oil, coal, timber and other resources. The mere threat of such action by the Carranza Government was enough to show what the policy of the United States must be in such an emergency.

The United States need not dominate politically her weaker sister republics. It is not necessary for her to interfere with their "independence." So long as their resources may be exploited by American capitalists; so long as the investments are reasonably safe; so long as markets are open, and so long as the other necessities of United States capitalism are fulfilled, the smaller states of the Western Hemisphere will be left free to pursue their various ways in prosperity and peace.

[57] For further details see "The Panama Canal" Papers presented to the Senate by Mr. Lodge, Senate Document 471, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session.