PAN-AMERICANISM AND PAN-HISPANISM

BY DAVID Y. THOMAS

THE fifth Pan-American Conference has been called to meet in Santiago, Chile, in March. As it promises to be one of unusual importance, it will be interesting to consider what is meant by "Pan-Americanism" and to note what has already been accomplished in its name.

While the term "Pan-American" is comparatively new, the idea is not. Before the Monroe policy was proclaimed, Simon Bolivar and other patriots were working for the unification of Spanish America in the struggle for liberty. It is a mistake to assume, however, that Bolivar was an ardent Pan-American. While he took a prominent part in calling the Panama Conference of 1826, he does not seem to have manifested any desire that the United States should be represented there. He was for Pan-Hispanic Americanism. However, Colombia and Mexico invited the United States, and she finally appointed delegates, but they failed to reach Panama in time. Only a few delegates arrived, and they adjourned without accomplishing anything. Though that first attempt at a Pan-American Conference failed, the idea back of it did not perish. Several efforts were made in the years immediately following to hold another such conference, but none succeeded. Much later, in 1881, James G. Blaine, Secretary of State, called one to meet in Washington, but it was abandoned on account of the war between Chile and Peru. However, eight years later he had the satisfaction of welcoming such a conference to Washington and of being elected to preside over it. Among the topics discussed were a customs union, uniform customs regulations, uniformity of weights and measures, a common silver coin, extradition, and the protection of patents and copyrights. Blaine's proposal for obligatory arbitration was rejected, but a treaty was signed accepting "arbitration as a principle of American international law for the settlement of all

differences save those which, in the judgment of any one of the nations involved in the controversy, may imperil its independence". Unfortunately none of the treaties was ratified.

The secord conference met in Mexico in 1901, the third in Rio de Janeiro in 1906, and the fourth in Buenos Aires in 1910. Compulsory arbitration came up again in 1901 and 1906 and was disposed of in the latter year by a recommendation that the delegates to the second Hague Conference be instructed to promote general arbitration. The question of the forcible collection of contractual debts was also referred to The Hague, which adopted a modified form of the Drago Doctrine against forcible collection. The fourth conference resulted in the change of name to Pan-American Union, with a Board of Governors composed of the Secretary of State of the United States and the Latin American Ministers resident in Washington; the renewal of the treaty for the arbitration of pecuniary claims; and provision for the exchange of university professors.

To the optimist the achievements of these conferences look large; to the pessimist they look small. In concrete results the achievements are confessedly small; in spiritual achievements they have been worth while. They did not remake the Western Hemisphere in a quarter of a century; the delegates were too wise to attempt this. But they have made a start toward the realization of Pan-Americanism. We have seen what were some of the difficulties standing in the way of this realization. A concrete illustration is found in the Monroe Doctrine. There has been little objection to the original Doctrine, but the twentieth century unilateral application of it has implanted fear and hate. In consequence there has grown up-indeed, it has always existed in the more advanced South American States a conviction that they should be treated as equals and should share in the responsibility of carrying out the principles of the Doctrine. ExPresident Roosevelt once said: "Every such nation should itself become the sponsor and guarantor of the Doctrine; and its relations with those of the other guarantors of the Doctrine should be those of equality." When in his Mobile address President Wilson promised the Latin Americans to deal with them on terms of equality, he said that it was "a spiritual union which we seek”.

Under such auspices, it seemed, the fifth conference, called to meet in 1914, was to assemble, but it was put off on account of the Great War. Besides, there was the trouble with Huerta, military dictator of Mexico, and the proffered mediation of the A B C Powers. In accepting the offer the State Department expressed the hope that it might "prove feasible and prophetic of a new day of mutual coöperation and confidence in America". This was followed by a joint appeal to the contending factions in Mexico. While it had no effect there, it did have influence on the development of the Pan-American spirit, especially when coupled with President Wilson's recognition of the Carranza Government on the advice of the Latin American States. Unfortunately, he left two flies in the ointment, the failure to follow their lead in recognizing the Obregon Government, and his attitude toward the Gomez Government in Venezuela.

The meeting of the Pan-American Scientific Congress in Washington (1916) gave President Wilson an opportunity to state his Pan-American programme. In this address he made some statements which appear to be contradictory, yet he undoubtedly intended the later one to stand. "The Monroe Doctrine," he said, "was proclaimed by the United States on her own authority. It has always been maintained, and always will be maintained, upon her own authority" (italics mine). He then spoke of the fear and distrust in the minds of Latin Americans because of their uncertainty as to what the United States would do with her power. This must be removed and relations established on "foundations of amity". Two things were necessary for this. First, the United States of America and Latin American countries must unite "in guaranteeing to each other absolute political independence and territorial integrity". Second, the settlement of all disputes among themselves by arbitration, and, strange combination, the prohibition of the fitting out of revolutionary expeditions within their bounds against another State and the prohibition of the exportation of arms for. revolutionists. His words were not without effect in Latin American States. It would not be fair to say that they determined the attitude of these nations when we entered the Great War,-some declared war and others maintained a more or less

benevolent neutrality, Mexico alone maintaining a hostile neutrality, but the head of at least one of these States, President Brum of Uruguay, was very enthusiastic in his admiration of America under Mr. Wilson's leadership.

In 1918 President Wilson used words more significant than any previously uttered. In his address to the Mexican editors (June 10) it did not look as if he thought the Monroe Doctrine would always be maintained by the United States by her own power. He defined the Doctrine as signifying: "We are going to be your big brother whether you want us to be or not." This was all very well once, but was to be no longer. Instead he proposed:

Let us have a common guaranty that all of us will sign a declaration of political independence and territorial integrity. Let us agree that if any of us, the United States included, violates the political independence or territorial integrity of any of the others, all the others will jump on her.

Now, that is the kind of agreement that will have to be the foundation of the future life of the nations of the world. The whole family of nations will have to guarantee to each nation that no nation shall violate its political independence or its territorial integrity.

Dr. Baltasar Brum, of Uruguay, had visited the United States and was undoubtedly the most ardent admirer of our institutions and of President Wilson south of the Gulf of Mexico. Shortly after he became President of Uruguay (March 1, 1920), in an address at the University of Montevideo, he formulated what some have dignified with the title "Brum Doctrine", wherein he proposed that each Latin American nation should formulate a declaration similar to that of Monroe, in which they would engage to intervene in behalf of any of them, including the United States, if, in the defense of her rights, she should find herself involved in a war with an extra-continental nation. This was to apply against the United States also, should she ever become aggressor upon a sister republic.

Mention has been made of the fact that the fifth conference was postponed indefinitely in 1914. Before adjourning the fourth conference voted that the next one should be held at Santiago and Chile was to send out the invitations, though the date of meeting is set by the Governing Board. For more than three years after the war the League of Nations and the Confer

ence on Limitation of Armament so monopolized the attention of the United States that the time did not seem opportune for calling the fifth conference. Besides, Chile, remembering her embarrassment at a previous conference because of a boundary dispute with Argentina, did not feel inclined to call the conference after Peru revived the long standing dispute about TacnaArica. However, after the mediation of Secretary Hughes and the agreement to confer in Washington, the call was issued for the assembling of the fifth conference in March, 1923.

It is the business of the Governing Board to formulate the agenda for the conference. Our old friend arbitration undoubtedly will come up, but the greater part of the time of the conference probably will be taken up with new questions, such as the relation of Latin America to the conclusions of the Washington Conference on Armaments and Pacific problems; the problem of joint action in the recognition of de facto and revolutionary governments, such as comes up occasionally in Mexico and the Caribbean; coöperation of the Pan-American High Commission with the Pan-American Union; the relation of Latin America to the League of Nations, and possibly the consideration of some existing disputes, such as those between Chile and Peru and between the United States and Haiti.

The Brum Doctrine also is slated for consideration by Uruguay, which proposes that an American League of Nations be formed based on the principle that encroachment by any non-American Power should "give rise to a common and uniform attitude of all the nations of America". According to President Brum, the league is to be "based upon equality of all associated countries" and is to settle all American controversies not settled by diplomacy. President Harding is thought to have given a qualified approval to such a scheme in his campaign address of August 25, 1920, when he said that "the international policy of the United States should be directed toward solidarity in international affairs with the American republics, rather than with Europe”.

While the fifth Pan-American Conference promises to be one of great interest, the future of Pan-Americanism is not absolutely assured. American readers are familiar with the long drawn out controversy between the United States and Mexico over the