Panama as independent. To the people of the United States President Roosevelt rendered account in a special message dated January 4, 1904, in which he indignantly denied that he had arranged for or taken any responsibility for the Panama revolution. There has never been reason to doubt that statement; though both the President and Secretary Hay evidently thought such a rising was likely. The three main reasons that he stated for his decided action are as follows: Rights under the Treaty of 1846. That our wise and patriotic ancestors, with all their dread of entangling alliances, would have entered into a treaty with New Granada solely or even primarily for the purpose of enabling that remnant of the original Republic of Colombia, then resolved into the States of New Granada, Venezuela, and Ecuador, to continue from Bogota to rule over the Isthmus of Panama, is a conception that would in itself be incredible, even if the contrary did not clearly appear. . . The great design of the article was to assure the dedication of the Isthmus to the purposes of free and unobstructed interoceanic transit, the consummation of which would be found in an interoceanic canal. To the accomplishment of this object the Government of the United States had for years directed its diplomacy. . . National Interests and Safety "This recognition was, in the second place, further justified by the highest considerations of our national interests and safety. In all the range of our international relations, I do not hesitate to affirm that there is nothing of greater or more pressing importance than the construction of an interoceanic canal. . . . In the light of our present situation, the establishment of easy and speedy communication by sea between the Atlantic and the Pacific presents itself not simply as something to be desired, but as an object to be positively and promptly attained. Reasons of convenience have been superseded by reasons of vital necessity, which do not admit of indefinite delays. Interests of "In the third place, I confidently maintain that the recognition of the Republic of Panama was an act justified by the interests of collective civilization. If ever a government could be said to have received a mandate from civilization to effect an object the accomplishment of which was demanded by the interest of mankind, the United States holds that position with regard to the interoceanic canal. . . . That our position as the mandatory of civilization has been by no means misconceived is shown by the promptitude with which the powers have, one after another, followed our lead in recognizing Panama as an independent State." The essence of this defense is that the United States of America represents a higher kind of human interest than the Latin-American states; and that in case of a clash of interests those of the United States are paramount. Elsewhere, Roosevelt spoke of the right of international expropriation. He looked upon himself as a defender of the needs of the highest civilization against lower types of society and political organization. Throughout all his papers and discussions of the subject runs a note of rancor toward a state which tried to put its unrivalled geographical situation up at auction. The situation is that of a real estate owner who needs a right of way and finds that his neighbor demands an exorbitant figure. In private relations, the wealthy purchaser must pay the price or go without. In contests between nations, the stronger has often ousted the weaker out of an advantage which the aggressor would not itself give up except as the penalty of an unsuccessful war. The United States was rather hampered in her insistence on her own greater need as against the smaller advantage of a neighbor, for just at this time we refused to transfer a few ports on the Alaskan coast to Canada, that would have been of great advantage to the Canadians and would have little interfered with our interests. To Roosevelt's mind the question was not that of the interest of a great power against a weak one, but of all other nations against one selfish people the nation who could not build a canal and would not suffer another to build it. Roosevelt felt that the government of Colombia could not assert sovereign rights on a strip of land which was so significant to mankind. He felt that he was acting for all nations against a small, selfish, and badly governed nation, which had not the full privileges of a state in the international sense. Colombia took the transaction very hard; for not only the ready millions disappeared, but also the territory which surrounded and commanded the canal, and the whole state of Panama. The new independent Panama was visibly a puppet state, the satellite of the United States, a means of getting territorial control of the Canal without too much offending the susceptibilities of mankind. Twelve years later, Colombia was still furious over the episode, and the other Latin-American powers sympathized with her feeling of wrong and danger. THE NEW AMERICAN SITUATION (1903) What was the place of the American Doctrine in the great changes in the American world from 1898 to 1903, which have here been sketched? The original Monroe Doctrine could hardly be applied at all. Here was no danger of "intervention," because the only cases of intervention were in Cuba and Panama, and the United States was responsible for both. The principle of "colonization" could hardly be allowed to mean the right of the United States to create colonies in the West Indies or the Pacific. If the "political system" of Europe meant the use of superior force from without to compel American states to do what was disagreeable to them, then both Spain and Colombia had reason to claim that the American "political system" had been applied to their hurt. The Doctrine of the Two Spheres was weakened beyond repair. The status of the United States as the watchful defender of the interests of other American states was much disturbed, both by the annexation of Porto Rico and by the virtual annexation of the Canal Zone. The one piece of national self-restraint had been the refusal to annex Cuba, by honorable adherence to the Teller Resolution on that subject. No, the doctrine that was applied in 1903 to the status of England, the status of Spain, and the status of the Isthmus Powers was nothing other than that of "Paramount Interest." It was inconvenient and dangerous for the United States that the near-by island of Cuba should be paralyzed by civil war; and therefore the armies and navies of the Great Republic were called in, to take that magnificent province away from Spain. In this process Porto Rico was a kind of by-product, which dropped so aptly into the lap of the United States that it would have been an impiety to question the wisdom of Providence. For the convenience and safety of American commerce, and for the extension of American national influence, it was necessary to take the Philippine Islands: Spain could not make them the center of an eastern commerce, which the United States expected to do. To oust Great Britain from a share in the Isthmian Canal was the necessary step to a comfortable approach to the Canal. England was in a situation where it was better to give up something than to incur the hostile feeling of the United States. The fundamental contention of this Government that England had canals enough and must give other nations an opportunity to enjoy their control, was sound and sensible. The United States also was a great commercial nation with ambitions to extend trade and influence, not only in the Americas but in the Pacific and Asia; and England certainly had no title or presumptive right (outside of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty) which would justify standing in the way. In the Isthmus case, it was perfectly clear that the thing desired was far more important to the United States than to anybody else; and that it would add to rather than subtract from the wealth and political power of the state through which the canal was to be constructed. For engineering reasons the Nicaragua route was not looked upon by the experts or by the President as a real rival. They all felt in their hearts that the Panama route was the natural world route; and that if the United States put its capital into the Nicaragua Canal, somebody would complete the Panama Canal without the United States taking part. The difficulty in this point of view is obviously that it denies equal sovereignty to the American powers; that it puts Colombia into a second class of nations; that it gives warning to all Latin America that second-class powers must in case of need give way to first-class powers. Thus the three main relations with Latin America between 1898 and 1903, the Cuban War, the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, and the possession of the Canal Zone, all pointed to the ignoring of the old-fashioned Monroe Doctrine and even the American Doctrine as known to Seward and Fish and Blaine; and the substitution of a new political system in America in which the United States should be the leading figure. CHAPTER XIV THE ROOSEVELT DOCTRINE AND ITS SUCCESSORS 1901-1915 THE MONROE DOCTRINE ALWAYS WITH US THE Cuban war and the annexation of the Canal Zone have had great effect upon the American Doctrine, but at the time details were quickly settled. In 1902 the American troops were withdrawn from Cuba, and a nominally independent republic was then set up as an addition to the family of nations, which could not be restored to Spain, nor detached from its close relation with the United States, by anything short of European invasion. In the same way the Canal controversy was at an end; not only England but all the other powers of the world accepted the transaction and recognized the so-called state of Panama. The Hay-Varilla canal treaty was ratified once for all in February, 1904, and a few days earlier President Roosevelt pointedly said to Congress : "The question actually before this Government is not that of the recognition of Panama as an independent republic. That is already an accomplished fact. The question, and the only question, is whether or not we shall build an Isthmian canal." The elimination of these two vexing questions only seemed to leave room for another set of perplexities and dangers. From 1901 to 1915 there was a succession of incidents which showed that however satisfied the United States might be with her policy, neither Latin America nor Europe understood or accepted the findings of the United States with regard to her own interests, powers, or intentions. The name of Monroe confused the whole issue, for no foreign statesman could be brought to believe that Monroe, Polk, Buchanan, Grant, Cleveland, and McKinley |