FOREIGN RELATIONS
_The purpose of this chapter is to explain what international law
is, what obligations it imposes, and how the United States carries
on its relations with other countries._
[Sidenote: Trade has brought nations together.]
=The Contact of Nations.=—In all ages the nations of the world have been
brought into relations with one another. During the early centuries
their contact was not very close, as a rule, because differences in
race, religion, and language, together with the lack of facilities for
travel and transportation served to keep the people apart. But the
Phoenicians, the Greeks, and the Romans all traded with their neighbors,
and this trade, which began around the eastern shores of the
Mediterranean, gradually widened east and west. After the fall of the
Roman empire chaos reigned over the greater part of Europe; commerce
declined, and incessant warfare prevented the growth of friendly
intercourse among the people of different religions. These were the
so-called Dark Ages, in which travel was fraught with danger and trade
was at the mercy of bandits. Gradually, however, intercourse between
different regions revived and expanded. The highways and waterways
became safe again. Nations were once more brought into friendly
relationships. During the past three or four hundred years this
intercourse of nation with nation has been steadily becoming more
extensive, broken only from time to time by the waging of wars. The
steamship, the railroads, the automobile, the telegraph, and the
telephone have all served to reduce distances and bring the various
parts of the world closer together.
[Sidenote: The origin of international law.]
=International Rules and Customs.=—Just as social and economic
relations among men gave rise to customs and usages which everyone now
obeys for the common good, so the growth of intercourse among the
nations brought into existence, little by little, a body of usages and
rules which guide them in their relations with one another. Even the
Greeks and Romans recognized the necessity of some such rules to
prevent misunderstandings. Since ancient times these usages, rules,
and agreements have been gradually becoming more definite until they
now form that body of jurisprudence which is known as International
Law. In a strict sense international law is not law at all; its rules
have not emanated from any definite source such as parliament or a
legislature, and there are no courts with power to enforce its
provisions.[283] Some of its rules are of long standing custom; others
have come into effect as the result of agreements among nations. The
provision that the ambassador is exempt from the jurisdiction of the
state to which he goes is very old,—as old as the Achaean League. It
is an ancient custom, now called law. On the other hand the rule that
a blockade of enemy ports is not valid unless maintained by an
adequate force is a relatively modern rule and rests upon
international agreement.
[Sidenote: What international law includes.]
=International Law.=—International law may therefore be defined as that
body of usages and rules which the civilized nations of the world are
accustomed to observe in their dealings with one another. These rules
and usages relate to a great many things. [Sidenote: The laws of war.]
They provide for friendly communication between nations in time of peace
by means of ambassadors and other diplomatic envoys. International law
declares the high seas to be free to all, but stipulates that a country
may exercise jurisdiction over its adjacent seas for a distance of one
marine league from the shore. The usages and rules of international law
also provide for the protection of aliens, the collection of debts, the
carrying on of trade, and many other questions which arise between
nations at peace.
When nations are at war they are called _belligerents_, and the rules of
international law restrict the ways in which war may be carried on. They
forbid a belligerent to put poison in wells, or to bombard undefended
towns, or to kill prisoners of war. It is quite true that these
so-called “laws of war” are sometimes set at naught in the heat of
conflict, and it is also true that when a nation violates them there is
no regular redress; but the rules are well established and the public
opinion of the world always condemns any country which indulges in
barbarities contrary to the rules of war.
[Sidenote: The laws of neutrality.]
Nations which are not at war when war is going on are called _neutrals_.
Their rights as neutrals are defined and their duties as neutrals are
prescribed by the rules of international law. Neutrals are permitted to
carry on trade with belligerents subject to two limitations, namely that
their ships must not try to enter any blockaded port and must not carry
contraband of war. Contraband of war includes weapons, munitions,
military supplies, and any other merchandise which a belligerent can use
directly or indirectly in carrying on the war. The citizens of neutral
states are also debarred from serving in the armed forces of
belligerents.
International law, in short, deals with a great variety of matters which
arise in peace, including emigration and travel, trade, naturalization,
diplomatic intercourse, the extradition of criminals, treaties, and so
forth, as well as with questions which arise during war such as
blockades, captures at sea, the rules of land warfare, and the rights of
neutrals. It is considered by the United States to be a part of the law
of the land, and its rules are enforced within American territory by the
federal courts.
[Sidenote: The federal government alone controls foreign relations.]
=The Control of Foreign Relations.=—All relations with foreign countries
are under the control of the national government. No state of the Union
can make any treaty, or declare war, or enter into an alliance, or send
ambassadors abroad. No state, moreover, may maintain ships of war in
time of peace or armed forces except as provided in the constitution.
War can be declared by Congress alone. These provisions are wisely
inserted in the national constitution, for if every state were permitted
to deal independently with foreign countries, we should get into endless
complications and difficulties. But in spite of the fact that no state
can make a treaty or have any formal diplomatic negotiations with a
foreign country it is nevertheless true that a state can and sometimes
does create a situation which requires diplomatic action on the part of
the national government. Prolonged negotiations between the American and
Japanese governments have had to be carried on, for example, as the
result of California’s having restricted the privileges of Japanese
citizens in that state (see p. 32). So, also, although the constitution
gives Congress the sole power to declare war, the President through his
command of the army and navy can bring about a situation which leaves
Congress no choice whatsoever. On one occasion President Roosevelt
threatened that if German warships did not leave the coast of Venezuela
within forty-eight hours, he would send the American fleet there. Had
the German ships remained and a conflict ensued, the action of Congress
in declaring war would have become a mere formality.
=How Foreign Relations are Conducted.=—The conduct of foreign relations
rests with the President, whose right-hand man in such matters is the
Secretary of State. But the President’s discretion is limited by the
fact that all appointments require confirmation by the Senate and all
treaties must be approved in that body by a two-thirds vote before they
become valid. For this reason, the President usually finds it advisable
to keep in touch with the leaders of the Senate while he is handling
foreign affairs of importance. He is under no legal obligation to do
this, but it is politically expedient. Failure to do it has on occasions
led the Senate to reject agreements which the President has concluded
after prolonged negotiations.[284] [Sidenote: The Department of State.]
The Department of State is the President’s immediate agency in the
conduct of all diplomatic intercourse, and is so recognized by all
foreign governments. It is through this department that all official
correspondence with other governments is carried on. The Secretary of
State is often called the “premier” of the cabinet, but the function of
leadership and the ultimate responsibility for the cabinet’s work rests
with the President. In handling the details of foreign relations the
State Department is assisted by a body of officials who constitute the
diplomatic service.
=The Diplomatic Service.=—It is the custom of every civilized country to
send and receive diplomatic officials. The United States sends a
representative to every important foreign capital; in return, every
foreign country maintains a diplomatic agent in Washington. In the case
of the most important countries these representatives are given the rank
and title of ambassador. [Sidenote: Ambassadors and ministers.] There is
an American ambassador stationed at Paris; a French ambassador at
Washington. In the case of less important countries the diplomatic
representatives are usually given the rank and title of minister. There
is an American minister at Copenhagen; a Danish minister at Washington.
The difference between ambassadors and ministers is in rank, title, and
salary; there is no important difference in their functions. When an
ambassador or minister is absent, the diplomatic official who is left in
charge is called a _chargé d’affaires_. If some special negotiations are
to be carried on, a country may send an envoy, or an “envoy
extraordinary”, as he is called.[285] Each ambassador or minister is
assisted by one or more secretaries and a force of clerks.
[Sidenote: Duties of diplomats.]
Diplomatic officials, whether ambassadors or ministers, have the duty of
serving as channels of official communication between their own
government and the government to which they are accredited. They act
always in accordance with instructions sent to them from home. If a
foreign government has any communication to make to the government of
the United States, it addresses itself either to the American diplomatic
representative at its own capital, or to its own diplomatic
representative at Washington. In either case the diplomatic
representative presents the communication, orally or in writing, to the
Secretary of State. The heads of nations, whether presidents, kings, or
emperors, sometimes communicate with each other by personal letter; but
important matters are not usually handled in that way.[286]
In addition to forwarding communications the members of the diplomatic
service have various other duties. An ambassador or minister is expected
to keep his own government well informed concerning all that is going on
at the foreign capital where he is stationed. He renders any necessary
assistance to American citizens who may become involved in difficulties
or danger. He represents his own country on all occasions of ceremony
and has many social duties to perform. These duties are prescribed by
the usages of the diplomatic service and are the same at all national
capitals. Finally, he co-operates with the consuls of his own country
and does what he can to make their work more effective.[287]
[Sidenote: How members of the diplomatic service are chosen.]
All American ambassadors, ministers, and other diplomatic officials are
appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. In European
countries it is the custom for young and capable men to enter the lower
ranks of diplomatic service and work up, step by step, to the higher
posts. But although lower posts in the diplomatic service of the United
States are filled by competitive examination, the higher positions are
usually given to men who have had no previous diplomatic experience. Men
whom the President selects as ambassadors or ministers are, as a rule,
drawn from civil life, and their appointments are often looked upon as
rewards for political service. This does not mean, however, that they
fail to make capable ambassadors or ministers, despite the lack of
experience; on the contrary, the system has worked astonishingly well on
the whole. This is because men of marked ability and distinction in
civil life are usually selected by the President for the more important
diplomatic posts. Among the list of those who have served as American
ambassadors to Great Britain one finds the names of Charles Francis
Adams, James Russell Lowell, John Hay, and Joseph H. Choate. Among the
notable American diplomats during the earlier years of the World War
were James W. Gerard at Berlin, Henry Morgenthau at Constantinople,
Brand Whitlock at Brussels, and Paul S. Reinsch at Pekin.
The official establishment of an ambassador is called an embassy; that
of a minister is known as a legation. [Sidenote: The immunities of
diplomats.] An embassy or a legation is exempt from local jurisdiction;
it cannot be searched by the police, and the officials connected with it
are exempt from arrest except for very serious crimes. A country cannot,
according to international usages, decline to receive a diplomatic
official from any other country, but it can, and sometimes does, object
to receiving some particular individual as ambassador or minister on the
ground that he is _persona non grata_. Similarly a country may request
that any diplomatic official who has been sent to it shall be recalled
by his own government and such requests have occasionally been
made.[288]
[Sidenote: Consuls.]
In addition to diplomatic officials the United States sends and receives
consuls. The consular service is concerned with commercial rather than
diplomatic relations; hence the consuls are stationed, for the most
part, at ports of entry. The functions of consuls are closely related to
the development of American foreign trade and they have been described
in an earlier chapter (p. 373).
=Secret and Open Diplomacy.=—The traditional policy of the diplomatic
service in all countries has been to do its work in secret. To some
extent this has been necessary, because of the nature of the
negotiations carried on. [Sidenote: Why secrecy is deemed essential.]
There are times, of course, when the publication of what is going on in
the way of negotiations between different countries would lead to
serious misunderstandings and might cause the negotiations to be broken
off altogether. It is natural, for example, that each government, when
it begins negotiations on any question, should ask a good deal more than
it expects to obtain. Only as the discussion proceeds through the
channels of diplomacy does each country give way a little and in the end
they reach an agreement. Now, if these negotiations had to be carried on
before the eyes of the whole world an agreement would be very difficult
because no government likes to back down, even slightly, from its
original demands.
So secrecy is in some cases necessary. But there has been too much of it
in the past. Many important matters have been withheld from public
knowledge even after the negotiations have been finished, and pledges
have been made by rulers without informing their people. [Sidenote: The
experience of Europe.] It was because of secret diplomacy that the
various European countries, prior to 1914, became enmeshed in a maze of
intrigues and semi-secret alliances which drew them steadily toward the
brink of war.[289] The United States, happily, has had very little
experience with secret diplomacy. Every treaty or agreement must be
submitted to the Senate and when so submitted it cannot be kept secret.
Nothing can be kept secret after it is laid for discussion before a body
of ninety-six men, at least it cannot remain secret very long.
[Sidenote: The American tradition of open diplomacy.] The Senate,
moreover, has always insisted on making these agreements public,
although the discussions may be held behind closed doors. One of the
reasons why the government of the United States has acquired a good
reputation for frankness and sincerity in its relations with other
countries is to be found in this avoidance of secrecy in international
agreements. This policy should never be abandoned.
=Treaties.=—A treaty is a formal agreement made between two or more
countries and binding upon each. There are many kinds of treaties,
including treaties of peace, treaties of alliance, treaties providing
for reciprocity in trade, for the mutual surrender of fugitive
criminals, postal treaties, treaties of arbitration, and so on.
[Sidenote: How treaties are made.] There are three stages in the making
of a treaty, namely, the negotiation, the signature, and the
ratification. The negotiations are usually carried on through members of
the diplomatic service, but in the case of important treaties it is
customary to appoint special envoys for the purpose. When all details
have been agreed upon the treaty is engrossed on parchment and signed by
the official representatives of the respective countries. But it does
not go into effect until it is ratified and, so far as the United States
is concerned, this ratification cannot take place until the treaty has
been approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.[290]
Whenever a treaty has been concluded on behalf of the United States,
therefore, it is transmitted by the President to the presiding officer
of the Senate by whom it is referred to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs. This committee, in due course, makes its report to the Senate
whereupon a discussion takes place. [Sidenote: The power of the Senate
over treaties.] When the discussion is finished the Senate votes to give
or withhold its assent. If it acts favorably, the President notifies the
other government and the treaty becomes effective; if the Senate rejects
the treaty, it fails to go into force. The Senate, strictly speaking,
cannot amend any treaty, but it may ask the President, and through him
the other government, to accept certain changes. As a rule the Senate
has ratified treaties without amendment but it has sometimes insisted on
alterations, and on some notable occasions it has rejected treaties
altogether.[291]
[Sidenote: The roots of American diplomacy.]
=American Foreign Policy.=—When Washington finished his second term as
President in 1796, he delivered to his countrymen a Farewell Address in
which he gave them some sound advice. Among other things he pointed out
that the primary interests of America were very remote from those of
Europe and advised that the United States should “steer clear of
permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world”. Not long
afterwards Jefferson reiterated this principle and urged that the policy
of America should aim at “honest friendship with all nations, entangling
alliances with none”. This attitude of Washington and Jefferson embodied
the best interests of the United States in the early days of the
Republic and undoubtedly reflected the sentiment of the people. In
keeping with this principle of “political isolation” the United States
remained neutral during the European wars which followed the French
Revolution and strenuously endeavored to avoid taking sides in the
struggle between England and France. The United States government, in
1807, went so far as to shut off all trade with both these warring
countries. But in 1812, the continued violation of America’s rights as a
neutral exhausted the patience of the people. These rights were violated
by France and England alike; the English violations, however, were the
ones which stirred up the greatest amount of popular resentment. So the
United States engaged in war with England for the maintenance of the
principles of neutrality.
=The Monroe Doctrine.=—Being resolved not to meddle in the political
affairs of Europe so long as American rights were not infringed, the
United States felt in a position to insist, at the appropriate time,
that Europe should refrain from interference in the affairs of the
Western Hemisphere. [Sidenote: Origin of the doctrine.] The occasion for
announcing this principle of “hands off” came in 1823. During the years
preceding this date the Spanish colonies in Central and South America
had revolted. They declared their independence of Spain and drove out
the Spanish authorities, setting up in each case a republican form of
government. Spain naturally desired to retain her sovereignty over these
territories and sought assistance of other European countries for that
purpose. There appeared to be a possibility that France, Austria,
Prussia, and Russia—a combination known as the Holy Alliance—would join
with Spain in the subjugation of the revolted South American
territories. The government at Washington became alarmed over the
possibilities of large military and naval forces being sent across the
Atlantic by a coalition of monarchial countries, believing that this
would not only be a blow to the republican form of rule but a serious
danger to the United States as well. President James Monroe accordingly
authorized the issue of a declaration setting forth the interest of the
United States in the matter.[292]
The salient passages in this declaration are as follows:
“In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves we
have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do
so.... With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European
power we have not interfered and shall not interfere.... But with the
governments which have declared their independence and maintained it,
and whose independence we have on great consideration and on just
principles acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the
purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their
destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as a
manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United
States.... The American continents, by the free and independent
condition which they assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be
considered as subjects for future colonization by any European
powers.”
This doctrine has remained the cornerstone of American policy with
reference to the countries of Central and South America for one hundred
years. [Sidenote: Its application.] On several occasions it has been
invoked to protect these countries against armed pressure. During the
Civil War, for example, the French government sent an army to Mexico and
maintained an imperial administration there in defiance of the Mexican
people. While the conflict between North and South continued the
government of the United States was unable to take any firm action in
this matter, but in 1866 France was requested to withdraw her troops
from Mexico, which she did. Again, in 1895, President Cleveland informed
the government of Great Britain that the United States would support
Venezuela against any attempt to settle a boundary dispute otherwise
than by arbitration.
[Sidenote: Its status.]
The Monroe Doctrine is not a part of international law. It is not even a
law of the United States. It never received the approval of the Senate,
which is supposed to be a check upon the President in deciding the
permanent features of American foreign policy. Its validity has never
been formally recognized either by the countries of Europe or by the
states of South America whom the doctrine immediately concerns.[293] Its
maintenance rests upon the vigilance and strength of the United States.
In guarding the smaller states of the New World against European
aggression the United States is taking what the American people regard
as an essential measure of self-protection.
=Is the Monroe Doctrine Obsolete?=—We are sometimes told nowadays that
the Monroe Doctrine is behind the times, that we have outgrown it, and
ought to give it up.[294] When the doctrine was announced, a hundred
years ago, the states of South America were too weak to defend
themselves; the various countries of Continental Europe were governed
despotically and maintained large standing armies. The states of Central
and South America, likewise, were at that time glad to have American
protection. But now, we are told, all this is changed. The
Spanish-American states are strong and able to look out for themselves.
They do not want our guardianship. The nations of Continental Europe,
moreover, are no longer despotisms but republics and limited monarchies.
They have enough problems to keep them employed for the next generation
without interfering in the affairs of the New Hemisphere. So it has been
suggested that the doctrine be given up, particularly as no one knows
exactly what it means at the present day.[295] But the doctrine is
deeply imbedded in the diplomatic traditions of the American people and
there is nothing to be gained by giving it up unless the situation
becomes very different from what it is today.
=American Contributions to International Law.=—The United States has
rendered signal service in making the rules and usages of international
law more enlightened and more humane. [Sidenote: 1. Neutral rights.] At
all times the American government has been a champion of neutral rights
and particularly has insisted upon liberal rules concerning neutral
commerce on the high seas. [Sidenote: 2. Laws of war.] It has lent its
influence to the movement for making the laws of war more human and for
prohibiting all practices which needlessly endanger the lives of
non-combatants. It has stood for freedom of trade and the “open door”.
[Sidenote: 3. Arbitration.] Among the nations of the world the United
States has been foremost in the advocacy and use of arbitration as a
means of settling international disputes. In keeping with this policy
arbitration treaties have been concluded between the United States and
twenty other countries, each treaty providing that all disputed
questions, of whatsoever nature, shall be submitted to arbitration if
they cannot be adjusted by diplomatic negotiation, and that no resort to
war shall in any event take place until after the processes of
arbitration have been exhausted. [Sidenote: 4. Recent contributions.] At
the Peace Conference which assembled in 1919 after the close of the
World War, moreover, it was the United States that first put forward in
definite form the plan for a League of Nations. And in 1921 it was the
United States which took the initiative in calling the international
conference which arranged for a great reduction in naval armaments.
General References
CHARLES A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 315-341;
_Ibid._, _Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 291-307;
EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp.
540-573;
A. B. HART, _Actual Government_, pp. 430-445;
JOHN W. FOSTER, _The Practice of Diplomacy_, especially pp. 34-54;
P. S. REINSCH, _Readings in American Federal Government_, pp. 651-682;
E. S. CORWIN, _The President’s Control of Foreign Relations_, _passim_;
GAILLARD HUNT, _The Department of State_.
Group Problems
=1. The Monroe Doctrine. Is it obsolete?= The international situation
during the years 1815-1823. The Holy Alliance, its organization and
aims. Spain in America. The revolt of the Spanish Colonies.
Preliminaries of the declaration. Canning’s suggestion. Scope of the
doctrine as announced. Subsequent applications and extensions. The
French in Mexico. The Venezuela controversy. Present scope of the
doctrine. Attitude of Europe toward it. Attitude of the Spanish-American
states. Its value for the future. Conclusion. =References=: HIRAM
BINGHAM, _The Monroe Doctrine: An Obsolete Shibboleth_, pp. 3-55; A. B.
HART, _The Monroe Doctrine_, pp. 55-83, and _passim_; A. C. COOLIDGE,
_The United States as a World Power_, pp. 95-120; C. H. SHERRILL,
_Modernizing the Monroe Doctrine_, pp. 64-76; C. L. JONES, _Caribbean
Interests of the United States_, pp. 323-351; J. H. LATANÉ, _The United
States and Spanish America_, pp. 292-334; D. C. GILMAN, _James Monroe_
(American Statesmen Series, Standard Library Edition), pp. 156-174;
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, _American Ideals_, pp. 220-237; _Cyclopedia of
American Government_, Vol. II, pp. 456-468; DEXTER PERKINS, “Europe,
Spanish America, and the Monroe Doctrine” in _American Historical
Review_ (January, 1922).
=2. The diplomatic service and how it can be improved.= =References=: J.
W. FOSTER, _The Practice of Diplomacy_, pp. 34-54; JOHN A. FAIRLIE,
_National Administration_, pp. 77-91; E. VAN DYNE, _Our Foreign
Service_, pp. 45-113; _Cyclopedia of American Government_, Vol. I, pp.
593-595; P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American Federal Government_, pp.
651-658; 675-682.
=3. The chief rules of international law; how can their enforcement be
ensured?= =References=: G. B. DAVIS, _Elements of International Law_,
pp. 19-30; T. J. LAWRENCE, _Principles of International Law_, pp.
119-138; G. G. WILSON and G. F. TUCKER, _International Law_ (7th ed.),
pp. 44-60; A. S. HERSHEY, _The Essentials of International Public Law_,
pp. 143-169; A. H. SNOW, _The American Philosophy of Government_, pp.
113-154; 267-283. See also the General References to Chapter XXX.
Short Studies
1. =The rights and duties of neutrals.= G. B. DAVIS, _Elements of
International Law_, pp. 376-395 (Rights of Neutrals); pp. 396-445
(Duties of Neutrals).
2. =The privileges of diplomats.= J. W. FOSTER, _The Practice of
Diplomacy_, pp. 159-174.
3. =How treaties are made.= G. B. DAVIS, _Elements of International
Law_, pp. 223-249.
4. =The power of the Senate in relation to treaties.= RALSTON HAYDEN,
_The Senate and Treaties_, especially pp. 169-195; J. W. FOSTER, _The
Practice of Diplomacy_, pp. 262-283.
5. =The Venezuelan controversy.= GROVER CLEVELAND, _Presidential
Problems_, pp. 173-281.
6. =Arbitration as a method of settling International disputes.= R. L.
JONES, _International Arbitration as a Substitute for War between
Nations_, pp. 218-269; J. W. FOSTER, _Arbitration and The Hague Court_,
pp. 39-57; J. B. MOORE, _American Diplomacy_, pp. 200-222.
7. =The Hague Conferences.= G. B. DAVIS, _Elements of International
Law_, pp. 258-263; 519-524; 525.
8. =The proposed codification of international law.= A. H. SNOW, _The
American Philosophy of Government_, pp. 395-418.
Questions
1. What is international law? Is it properly a system of law? Explain
the sense in which you use the term _law_ in the following expressions:
law of gravitation; law of the land; law of supply and demand; law of
fashion.
2. Look up and explain the following terms: _belligerent_, _contraband_,
_unneutral service_, _filibustering_, _blockade_, _three-mile limit_,
_diplomatic immunity_.
3. Make a list of (_a_) the rights of neutrals; (_b_) the duties of
neutrals, and show how each right involves a duty.
4. Draw up, in the form of a diary, a day’s happenings in the American
embassy at Tokyo, putting down at least six things done by the
ambassador during the day.
5. Explain what is meant by secret diplomacy. To what extent has the
United States avoided it and why?
6. Give an account (from your studies in American History) of some
important treaty to which the United States was a party. Tell how it was
negotiated, signed, and ratified.
7. Is the principle set forth by Washington and Jefferson concerning the
true policy of the United States in foreign affairs applicable at the
present time?
8. Are the following statements true of the United States today:
(_a_) “In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves
we have never taken any part.”
(_b_) “With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power
we have not interfered”?
9. What is meant by the saying that “the covenant of the League of
Nations does not destroy the Monroe Doctrine but extends it to the whole
world”? Is that statement correct?
10. What seems to you to be the most important among American
contributions to international law?
Topics for Debate
1. All members of the diplomatic service, including ambassadors, should
be chosen under civil service rules.
2. A majority vote in the Senate should be made sufficient for the
ratification of treaties.
3. It would be a violation of the Monroe Doctrine if Great Britain were
to sell the island of Jamaica to Germany.
-----
Footnote 283:
This is a great and fundamental weakness of international law, that
there is no executive authority to apply it and there are no courts to
enforce its rules when nations disobey. During the World War the rules
of international law were violated on many occasions, for example, in
the use of poison gas, the bombing of hospitals, the sinking of
hospital ships, the forcing of prisoners to labor on military works,
and the illegal detention of neutral ships. Yet in spite of these
violations international law emerged from the war stronger than it was
before. The nations which violated international law most shamelessly
were the ones that lost the war, and their defeat was due in no small
measure to the resentment which was aroused throughout the world by
reason of these violations.
Footnote 284:
Illustrations are too fresh in everyone’s mind to require any extended
comment. In 1918 President Wilson took with him to the peace
negotiations at Paris no member of the Senate. He did not keep in
touch with the leaders of the majority party in this body. But in 1921
when President Harding appointed the four American delegates to the
Washington Conference he named two of them from the Senate.
Footnote 285:
In addition to regular envoys, it is sometimes customary for a country
to send an unofficial representative to conduct negotiations
informally. During the years before the United States entered the war,
Colonel Edward M. House, of Texas, was sent to Europe by President
Wilson on at least two occasions in order that certain confidential
discussions might be carried on without using the regular diplomatic
channels. When unofficial representatives are sent in this way no
public announcement is made.
Footnote 286:
Communications between diplomats and their own governments are not
usually sent by mail if the matters dealt with are of great
importance. They are sent by special couriers or messengers. When
diplomatic communications are sent by telegraph or cable they are
transmitted in cipher, that is, in a secret code of words which no
outsider can read. Nations occasionally get hold of one another’s
diplomatic codes and decipher communications which they are not
supposed to read. For example, the German government in the spring of
1917, before the United States declared war, sent a wireless message
to its official representative in Mexico, telling him in substance
that if America entered the war, he was to stir up Mexico against the
United States by promising that when the war was over Mexico would be
rewarded with some American territory. This message was in secret
code; but the American officials caught it from the air, deciphered
it, and at the appropriate time put the German government in an
embarrassing situation by publishing the message in plain English to
the whole world.
Footnote 287:
When two countries go to war they at once withdraw their diplomatic
representatives from one another’s capitals. The embassy or legation
and its archives are put under the care of some neutral ambassador
until the war is over. During the years 1914-1917 the American
ambassador in Berlin and the American minister in Brussels looked
after the interests of Great Britain at these two capitals. The work
of Mr. Brand Whitlock at Brussels was notable, and the services which
he rendered to the Belgian people during the years of their country’s
captivity will long be remembered in that heroic little land.
Footnote 288:
In 1915, for example, the Austro-Hungarian ambassador to the United
States, Dr. Dumba, endeavored to stir up trouble among certain
Hungarian immigrants who were working in American munition factories,
making weapons and military supplies for sale to Great Britain and
France. When the United States government discovered these intrigues,
Dr. Dumba was dismissed from the country.
Footnote 289:
The making of secret treaties continued, in fact, after the war began.
By secret treaties France and Great Britain promised that Italy should
have certain territories which were held by Austria and that Russia
should have Constantinople. When the war was over the new government
at Vienna permitted the publication of a whole volume of secret
treaties that had been made during the preceding fifty years. The
Bolsheviks in Russia also published all the secret treaties of the
Czar that they could find.
In the covenant of the League of Nations it is provided that every
treaty between nations which become members of the League must be
registered and published.
Footnote 290:
There are some cases in which the approval of the House of
Representatives is also needed before a treaty can go into effect. In
the treaty which provided for the purchase of Alaska in 1867 and in
the treaty which closed the war with Spain in 1898, provision was made
for the payment of money by the United States. Now no money can be
appropriated from the treasury without action on the part of the
House, and if the House had declined to appropriate the money, the
conditions of these treaties could not have been fulfilled. In both
cases, however, the House did actually vote the necessary funds.
Footnote 291:
In 1870, for example, President Grant concluded with the government of
San Domingo a treaty which provided for the annexation of that island
to the United States. The Senate, after a hard fight, rejected the
treaty altogether. Even more notable, of course, was the Senate’s
action in declining to ratify the treaty which President Wilson signed
at Paris in 1919.
Footnote 292:
The English government proposed that the United States and Great
Britain should issue the declaration jointly, but President Monroe and
his secretary of state, John Quincy Adams, thought it better that the
United States should make the declaration alone.
Footnote 293:
At the Peace Conference in 1919 the European countries were willing to
concede what was virtually a recognition of the Monroe Doctrine, and
the covenant of the League of Nations contains a provision that
nothing in that document shall affect the validity of “regional
understandings, like the Monroe Doctrine, for securing the maintenance
of peace” (Article XXI).
Footnote 294:
HIRAM BINGHAM, _The Monroe Doctrine: An Obsolete Shibboleth_ (New
Haven, 1913).
Footnote 295:
No one knows exactly what it means today because its scope has been
rather indefinitely extended at various times. No doubt it would be
further extended if the occasion should arise. For example, the
original doctrine was directed against European powers only. But if
Japan should attempt to acquire territory in Central or South America,
the Monroe Doctrine would unquestionably be invoked as applicable to
an Asiatic power as well.