But in speaking of Latin America, one has to draw a line, or rather a note of interrogation, round Mexico. The history of that unfortunate country has been profoundly affected by her geographical position within the North American continent. The path which she has followed in recent years—a path not entirely of her own choosing—seems rather to lead outside the ring-fence of Latin America. It is an interesting speculation whether that path may not eventually lead her into another fold, the fold whose shepherd resides in the White House at Washington, whether that shepherd desires to undertake the responsibility or not.
The present position is an anomalous one. The political frontier of the United States is the Rio Grande, but the geographical frontier of North America is the Isthmus of Panamá, and that geographical frontier has been occupied—merely as an outpost so far—-by the United States. The Republics of Nicaragua and of Panamá have been drawn under American tutelage. The question arises whether after the great war the United States may not be led on by the logic of events so to extend the struggle on behalf of democracy against autocracy that the frontier, dividing Latin America from the region under Anglo-Saxon control, shall be the geographical boundary between the two continents. President Wilson indeed has assured the Mexicans, with obvious conviction and sincerity, that no aggression is intended against their territory, and that he desires a common guarantee of all the American republics to protect the "political independence and territorial integrity" of all. But no statesman can shape the future or absolutely bind his successors. It may be pointed out that there are various degrees and methods of control, some of which may be found not quite incompatible with the spirit of President Wilson's assurances. The precedents of Cuba, Panamá and Nicaragua are suggestive.
This leads us to our last topic. We have discussed Americanismo, the sentiment or system which aims at uniting the Latin-American republics. What about Pan-Americanism, the sentiment or system which aims at uniting all the American republics?
CHAPTER VI
PAN-AMERICANISM
The relations of Latin America with the United States are chiefly connected with those tendencies of United States policy which are associated with the name of Monroe. A survey of the Monroe Doctrine would here be out of place: but the main points bearing on the present situation may be indicated. The injunction imposed in 1823 by President Monroe upon European interference in America was intended to meet certain European designs which at that time seemed to endanger the "peace and safety" of the United States. But Monroe's declaration, although its immediate purpose was self-defence, involved a permanent protest against any European aggression in Latin America, and thus set up the United States as self-constituted champion of those countries. Such a position involves a certain superiority of attitude and cannot be very clearly distinguished from protection; and protection is apt to merge by gradual steps, often only half perceived and not deliberately intended, into Protectorate. Thus, the development of the Monroe Doctrine has followed two parallel lines of policy, protection against Europe and national self-assertion. This latter more positive aspect has impressed itself upon the public mind. The advances in the Caribbean region, which have been mentioned in the first chapter, were undertaken not in order to satisfy any doctrine or theory, but to satisfy the irresistible needs of a vigorous growing Power. But since, for a generation past, it has been expected of American statesmen that they should justify their orthodoxy as adherents of this doctrine, these steps towards protectorate or dominion have been explained in a series of public pronouncements as developments or examples of the doctrine. Naturally, therefore, the term "Monroe Doctrine" is popularly understood as connoting an imperial policy, a movement towards supremacy or hegemony.
In any case, the obvious comment on the Monroe Doctrine is that it has indeed protected the American republics from European aggression, but has not protected them from American aggression. It has not protected Peru from Chile nor Mexico and Colombia from the United States. Again, it is a uni-lateral arrangement announced by one Power alone, on the assumption that this action would be taken for granted by the other American republics. This attitude does not entirely commend itself to those states, especially as they grow stronger and more conscious of their strength. American business men plainly assert that the Monroe Doctrine is bad for business[4], and warn their countrymen against straining after a fictitious inter-American sentiment—an attitude which "is often a cause for resentment, the more felt because seldom expressed by the courteous Latin[5]." An article in the Pan-American Bulletin for December 1917 deserves particular attention. It cleaves through the difficulty by declaring, on the authority of Mr Root, that the Monroe Doctrine today means no more than what President Monroe meant a century ago: "The Monroe Doctrine is an assertion of the right of self-defence, that and nothing more. France and Britain are in the field to protect their Monroe Doctrine, the sovereignty and independence of Belgium ... there is nothing here ... in any way derogatory to the full sovereignty and independence of even the smallest of the Latin-American countries. It is true that the first proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine carried with it an implied offer of aid to the newly liberated Spanish-American colonies against proposed aggressions by the Holy Alliance. Self-protection was the motive ... it counts for nothing against a set purpose to defend one's own house that in so doing one performs an act by which one's neighbour is likewise defended." The article concludes by declaring that the Monroe Doctrine still prevails, strictly limited to its original sense, and that Pan-Americanism is an entirely distinct policy, which must not be confused with it.
This re-statement of the Monroe Doctrine in its original terms, this declaration that United States policy is just like that of other nations, was probably prompted by the sense that the later developments of the Monroe Doctrine hindered the economic propaganda which is the main business of the Pan-American Union. But it has been further argued that the great war has exposed the weakness of Monroism, since, in the event of a German victory, nothing but superior force could prevent German invasion and occupation in Canada or in any trans-Atlantic country which might be at war with Germany. The arming of the United States has in some degree answered this objection, which is perhaps as contingent and theoretical as the doctrine itself. But the war has certainly emphasised the fact that emergencies must be met and settled as they arise, and that, since they cannot be foreseen, they cannot be covered by pre-conceived theories. At any rate a sentiment has for some time been gaining force that the inter-American policy of the United States calls for some kind of revision or re-statement; and the solution is sought in "Pan-Americanism."
In seeking a definition of that phrase, European analogies will scarcely help us. The word "Pan-Germanism" usually implies some common action or interest among all those who speak the German language, and suggests some kind of racial bond or sense of kindred. The word "Pan-Slavism" appears to mean common action or interest among all who speak the Slav tongues, and similarly suggests some ethnological bond of kinship. Obviously Pan-Americanism must mean something quite different, for the American differs from his nearest southern neighbour, the Mexican, more widely than the Norwegian differs from the Greek. Moreover, "Pan-American" is a term of recent origin and still somewhat fluid in its application. It has sometimes been used merely as the equivalent of "European" or "Asiatic"; for the word "American" commonly bears a national sense and there is no convenient and accepted term covering the two Americas. For example, Mr Taft in his Presidential message of 1909 spoke of "our Pan-American policy" much as a British Prime Minister might speak of "our European policy."