the right of all peoples to independence and self-government, are really imperialists at heart. They believe in the right and manifest destiny of the United States to expand by overrunning its weaker neighbors. They appeal to a spirit of patriotism that sees no object, holds no ideals, and acknowledges no rights or duties but the national welfare and aggrandize ment. In the name of that principle Germany sinned and fell. The ideas of these American imperialists are less grandiose, but at bottom they differ little from hers. According to that view Central and South America are a game preserve, from which poachers are excluded but where the proprietor may hunt as he pleases. Naturally the proprietor is anxious not only to keep away the poachers but to oppose game laws that would interfere with his own sport.'

During the last few years the United States has pursued a steady policy of eliminating European poachers. The first way is by American Government and American banks 'funding,' that is, combining together all the various international obligations of a nation, after which one big loan to care for it all is floated in the United States. The foreign creditors are then paid off and eliminated. Then the United States Government, in seeing that such a loan is paid, is protecting only its own citizens. This funding process was first carried out in Santo Domingo in 1905. It has been extended now to about half the Latin-American States. As the Department of Commerce has recently stated: "Our great interest in Latin America is largely a growth of the last ten years. Yet our investments now include $610,000,000 in public securities and $3,150,000,000 in industries.'

The next step in this elimination of Europe is in the matter of arbitrations. The president of Switzerland, the king

of England, the king of Spain, the president of France, and other distinguished Europeans have in the past been selected by Latin America as arbitrators in the many cases Latin America has settled by arbitration. But the United States Government is now using its great power to eliminate all this. At the Santiago Conference there was a steady drive by the NorthAmerican delegation to eliminate all European participation in arbitrations and all other American matters.

One of the first acts of Mr. Hughes as Secretary of State was to settle a dispute between Panama and Costa Rica, sending military forces to emphasize his settlement. Both these nations were members of the League of Nations, whose Covenant required that it extend its good offices to any members in controversy. But the League was not allowed to use its good offices. In the same way the Tacna and Arica dispute between Peru and Chile was first brought before the League of Nations for settlement. But the Monroe Doctrine did not allow the League to touch it, and it is now before the President of the United States.

The third way in which we are eliminating Europe from America is seen in the naval mission to Brazil. The principal reason for sending that mission was the one which is given for every imperialistic act from Santo Domingo to Honduras: 'If we don't, Europe will.' For a century England, France, Germany, Belgium, and Italy have sent military or naval missions to Latin America. But that policy must be stopped. So when England was about to send a naval mission to Brazil, we substituted our own. If the Government that called the Disarmament Conference in Washington had sought, when this matter of a mission came up, an agreement among all interested parties that no more mis

sions should be requested or sent; and if it had then lent its good offices in the Santiago Conference to bring about an agreement on disarmament instead of standing off, as a disinterested spectator, the terrible race for armament, now beginning in South America, could have been avoided. But to Argentina's appeal against the mission, as a movement that would generate suspicions and augment naval expenditures, the State Department replies: 'We play no favorites, we are ready to send you a mission also.' In fact, we have another mission in Peru.

In one of the recent proposals made by the State Department to Santo Domingo it put as one of the conditions of withdrawing the marines that we be requested to send them a military mission. In the last few years our government has sold arms to different Latin-American countries. Of course, our arms-manufacturers are continually in the business, one recent order being for ten submarines made for Brazil, another the reconditioning of the two dreadnoughts owned by Argentina. We have just established a further military precedent, which is likely to have a far-reaching influence, by our Government selling arms to the Mexican Government to suppress an armed revolution against it.

We have invited a number of LatinAmerican countries, as a special work of friendship, to send their officers to West Point for further training. Our Government has never sent an educational mission to Latin America, nor offered scholarships in her scientific or cultural institutions to Latin Americans. Where unofficial educational missions — like the one recently going to Peru - and official educational advisers, like the one that went to Nicaragua - have met with difficulties, it has let them go down in defeat and withdraw in ignominy. To do other

wise would have been 'interfering with the internal affairs of a sister nation'! Will not someone kindly explain why, when we are arranging to direct the financial and military affairs of these nations, we should not with equal propriety arrange to direct their educational systems? At least it might have the advantage of economy. For what the United States Government paid for the Pershing expedition into Mexico it could have built and equipped in every town of Mexico, of over four thousand population, a high school, a hospital, and a social centre, and in addition presented each one of these towns with an endowment of $700,000 with which to conduct these institutions. Yet a proposal for the establishment of a North American college in Mexico City, advocated by the most distinguished educators of the United States and Mexico for the last ten years, has languished because a beginning cannot be made on furnishing the five million dollars finally needed.

Here we have then, briefly stated, the programme of economic imperialism and isolation from Europe which the United States is fostering to-day in Latin America.

IV

What does the rest of the world think about this programme?

In no country has the military occupation of Santo Domingo and Haiti been more discussed than in Japan, where the Government has formed now its own Monroe Doctrine of the Orient, by which it justified its recent Twentyone Demands on China, and its imperialism in Korea.

The press of France is filled with comment on the matter, running from sarcastic slurs on the United States as the good Samaritan of the New World

to the defense of France's policy in financing the Little Entente, in buying arms, and in the occupation of the Ruhr for the alleged collection of debts.

The Manchester Guardian, in an article recently reprinted in more than a dozen different countries, has clearly told the story. The press of Spain, of course, finds here its favorite theme. Italy, Egypt, India, Ireland, and Russia find here proof texts, alike for preachments favoring radicalism and reaction.

As for Latin America, the situation is tragic. Since the Santiago Conference a resurgence of opposition against the United States has made the old campaigns of Ugarte and Blanco Fombona seem as nothing. During the last year at least two papers have been founded in Argentina and one in Honduras, backed by some of the most distinguished men of Latin America, whose whole purpose is opposition to the United States. In practically every one of the prominent Spanish-American magazines it is now the custom to carry in each issue one or more articles against the United States. Formerly friends of the United States in those countries combated such attacks. But scarcely ever do we find defenders now. Old friends have either changed or they do not care to oppose the tide. Latin-American government officials, of course, are still outwardly friendly. They have to be. This is probably why our State Department has recently expressed its opinion that never before have our relations with Latin America been so cordial. But if the Department thinks that, it is living in a fool's paradise.

La Prensa of Buenos Aires sharply challenged the optimistic report made to the Secretary of State by the United States delegation to the Santiago Conference, saying:

VOL. 134-NO. 1

E

What occurred in Santiago, and the inexact, the incomplete, exaggeratedly optimistic report made to the Government of the United States, demand a rectification in the interest of Pan Americanism which to-day is facing a profound crisis. The Conference has perturbed the tranquillity of the situation in general and especially among certain groups like the Rio de la Plata group (Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil). In the question of disarmament the part of the United States was scarcely welcome, since they, being the initiators of the movement for universal disarmament, and authors of that subject on the programme of the Santiago Conference, then abandoned this attitude at Santiago. know these things, which so profoundly Do the good people of the United States affect their interests? . . . The United States has a great mission in favor of PanAmerican friendship, but they must reorganize their work on another basis, taking into account the discontent which exists in the greater part of the Latin-American countries. The lack of diplomacy, of exact information, and of coördination among the various officials of the United States is blocking its development. Government, in regard to Pan-Americanism,

...

No one who visits these countries, mixes on equality with the people in general, reads their literature and attends their theatres and lecture halls, can fail to realize the truth of the following, written by an Argentina professor-a friend who laments the fact he describes as much as does any American:

As is well known, up until the present, whenever reference is made to closer relations between the two Americas the intensification of economic relations between them is the usual method advocated. This attitude, in which many eminent personalities have taken part, has not been able to accomplish the desired results. It is

certainly true that in Latin America the conviction seems to have grown largely that the egotistic motive is the one that guides the United States in its relations with these countries and the materialistic

conception of the North-American civilization has been more largely confirmed in recent time. The current of sympathy toward his country which Wilson succeeded in arousing during the war, and which caused Ricardo Rojas to say that the legend of a ruddy and cannibalistic Yankee had disappeared and that the United States was displaying a magnificent spirit, has gradually disappeared. For people in general once again the North-American civilization is considered as barbaric, and automatically moved only by a utilitarian objective.

We would even venture to say, at least in reference to Argentina, that she finds herself further removed from the United States to-day than she was in the sixth and seventh decade of the past century. At that time, at least, our people were influenced by the fervid enthusiasm for North-American democracy, felt by Sarmiento and Alberdi. Certainly with France and England the United States had captured our sympathy. To-day this has all been modified. While France continues captivating us by the excellencies of her literature, and Great Britain continues

attracting our thinkers as the country of free institutions and good political sense, the United States presents herself to us as principally concerned in the conquest of our markets.

Only in the United States do the press and the people ignore how our economic imperialism is eliminating friendships and fostering suspicions. With our accustomed optimism and assurance of our altruistic motives we continue as the trombonist, who claimed he was the greatest tromboneplayer in the world. When someone told him he would have to prove it, he replied, 'I don't have to prove it, I admit it.' And, should all the world. challenge our idealism in relation to Latin America, we might go serenely; for this is the greatest nation on the face of the earth, owning one third of the wealth of the world and possessing the largest force of efficient

man power humanity has ever seen. To quote Secretary Olney, 'Its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition.'

shall be strong enough to ignore the But can we be sure that always we feeling of Latin America and all other potential enemies seeking their alliance? Already there are three combinations forming which may some day become strong enough to challenge effectually this ever increasing dominance. These combinations are The League of Nations, the proposed LatinAmerican League and the Pan-Latin Movement.

Suppose the League of Nations already comprising three fourths of the population of the world should some day feel itself strong enough to accept the request of one or more of its LatinAmerican members and mediate between them, as its covenant provides that it shall. Can we look forward with complacency to the question of deciding as to whether we shall flatly oppose the moral consciousness of the world or whether we shall back down under pressure? Suppose that some day in the future we repeat in some Latin-American country, member of the League, a landing of marines and seizing of the sovereignty of the country as we did in Santo Domingo and Haiti, and the League feels itself strong enough to protest as it did in the case of Italy and Corfu? Can we look forward with pleasure to such a challenge?

Certainly we cannot be entirely sure that the League will not grow more powerful, and more disposed to carry out its agreements with its American members.

One of the outstanding opponents of the World Court in the United States Senate recently said to a friend that one strong reason for his opposition to our entering the Court was that some

of the Caribbean countries now under our control might then challenge this occupancy before the World Court.

Col. Roosevelt even before the formation of a League of Nations said of the proposed treaty with Colombia:

If succeeding administrations can act as Wilson's is now acting in reference to mine, then unquestionably there is far heavier claims for reparation against the United States... by Santo Domingo and Haiti for her invasion and overthrow of their government by armed forces without declaration of war, while Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, all have similar grievances and in the case of one (I think Costa Rica) the International Court of the Isthmus has actually decided we are to blame.

Certainly, so far as a combined Latin America is concerned, no one will question the fact that these nations are growing stronger every day, and at the end of this century will have come to be foes worthy of consideration. Our recent restrictive immigration law will be a considerable factor in the growth of these southern lands.

With the present policy continued, then we shall find ourselves more isolated than the fondest nationalist ever dared desire. Then we shall find that the profits on oil and bananas and sugar, which went into the pockets of a few, were not worth the price of enmities developed in our Southern neighbors against our whole nation.

V

This isolation forced on Latin America is already bringing its counter movements. While we are talking of how we are protecting Latin America from Europe, the Latin Americans are betaking themselves as fast as they can to Europe for protection against us. In the League of Nations they have found exactly the kind of international

understanding they have advocated for years. And the Europeans have not hesitated to give Latin America the leading honors in the League. Two of the four presidents of the annual assemblies of the League have been Latin Americans. Two out of the six elected members of the Council are Latin Americans. Two out of the eleven judges of the World Court, elected from all nations of the world, are Latin Americans. Some of the most important heads of committees come from Latin America, and the LatinAmerican section of the League at Geneva is a section of great influence.

While the Latin Americans are becoming more engrossed in the League, they are becoming more indifferent to the Pan-American Union. At the last Pan-American Conference at Santiago the United States told Latin America that the Monroe Doctrine was none of its affair; that we are interested in commercial agreements, but that we should have nothing to do with an American League of Nations where all American countries could sit at a Round Table to discuss their problems; and that we were opposed to a reorganization of the Pan-American Union, so that the dominance of the United States should be less apparent should be less apparent a dominance so marked at Santiago that even the Director of the Union figured as a member of the United States delegation. While the Conference did some useful things, the United States delegation pushed nothing but commercial and health questions, and fought every move which would put Latin America on an equal basis with the United States in determining inter-American questions. As a promoter of good feeling between the Americas, the Conference was a distinct disappointment.

On the adjournment of the Conference without effecting any agreement on disarmament, the Brazilian delega