The Amazing Argentine: A New Land of Enterprise

by John Foster Fraser

Occasionally, United States Ministers of high position travel south, and beat the pan-American drum. They are received politely, but there is chilliness in the courtesy. In blunt truth these Republics—be they right or be they wrong in surmise—do not trust the United States. I think I am well within the facts when I state that there is an agreement between Argentina, Brazil, and Chili—known as the A.B.C. combination—to take common action if there is any step south of the Panama isthmus savouring of aggression on the part of the United States.

Both in Argentina and Brazil, when I conversed with public men, I was given clearly to understand how deep-seated is this dislike of the United States. There is annoyance at the manner in which President Woodrow Wilson has lectured the Latin Republics of America for granting concessions to European syndicates for the development of their countries. President Wilson laid it down that the growth of foreign interests in these Republics was unwholesome, because they were sure to influence the political life; therefore, he said, it was the duty of the United States to assist in emancipating them from such subordination. This was a considerable extension of the Monroe Doctrine. The much-preached creed that the United States will not tolerate any other Power acquiring territory in the Western hemisphere had been expanded to mean that the United States is going to use its influence to free the Latin Republics from being under obligation to European countries which have given their millions of gold towards making those Republics commercially prosperous which, so far as financial assistance from the United States counts, would have remained practically undeveloped. At the latter end of 1913 Mr. Page, United States Ambassador to Great Britain, stated at a public dinner that President Wilson was determined to assert the principle that no sort of European financial or industrial control could, with the consent of the United States, be got over the weak nations of America so far as this control affected political influence.

What European countries think about this attitude of the United States in practically warning off European financiers if the investments or concessions have an influence over politics—which, of course, they must have in all trading countries—it is not for me to discuss here. But this over-lordship, this placing of the Latin Republics in a position of tutelage to the great Republic of the north, is denounced and repudiated by every Latin American public man.

I quite agree that it would be better for countries like Argentina and Brazil if they were not so dependent on the foreign capitalist. That is a view held by probably the majority of South Americans themselves. But they are not going to accept dictation from the United States, especially as they know that United States financiers and syndicates are not only endeavouring to control the meat trade of Argentina, but within the last year or so have been engaged in gigantic negotiations to secure ultimately a controlling voice in many of the most important railway concerns.

In the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies in December of 1913, Señor Pedro Moacyr questioned whether, even should the United States spare Brazil the fate meted out to Colombia, in regard to setting up the baby Republic of Panama so that the North Americans could construct the Panama Canal, Brazil would accept the tutelage over Latin America which President Wilson, improving on the imperialism of Mr. Roosevelt himself, and yet further accentuating the disquieting deviations of the Monroe Doctrine, had proclaimed? What it came to was, said Señor Moacyr, "that the Latin Republics are no longer to have the right to grant to foreigners such concessions and privileges as it may suit them to grant, and, under pretext of preserving them from a problematical European imperialism, the United States will subject them to its own domination and control. What, in this case, becomes of the integrity and sovereignty of Latin America for which the great Republic displays so much solicitude? More and more the Monroe Doctrine, new style, displays this manifest tendency: America for the United States.... Will the great Latin Republics be willing to submit to this American control, and subordinate their foreign policy and their economic orientation to the views and interests of Washington? We do not believe it."

It is only right that United States financiers should receive privileges the same as are accorded to the financiers of other countries; but such a pronouncement as that of President Wilson only intensifies the distrust of South Americans, so that when looking beyond their own frontiers for money they are more disposed to direct their gaze across the Atlantic than to the people of the United States. What may be taken as quite certain is that the big Latin Republics have sufficient confidence in themselves to refuse to accept any lectures from North Americans.

Coming late into the field the United States is now making strenuous endeavours to increase its trade with Argentina. Operations in regard to railways, and creating a meat monopoly in the hands of Chicago firms, provide the most striking proof. In regard to the creation of a meat trust, there is now a Bill before the Argentine Parliament providing that any contract relating to commerce or transport affecting the price to the consumer of articles of prime necessity is illegal. Those who form the trust can, under this measure, be punished for misdemeanour, and directors of companies or associations will be held personally responsible, and on repetition of the offence their companies or associations dissolved and effects confiscated.

At the present time there is a great American railway scheme to link up the railway lines in Argentina and Brazil with a line running through the Republics right up to New York, making a track over 10,000 miles in length and involving the building of nearly 3,700 more miles of line. The British Consul-General at Buenos Aires, Mr. Mackie, one of the most distinguished men in the British Consular service, says, in regard to this pan-American railway enterprise: "It would seem that out of the 3,648 miles of railway over which it was sought to acquire control, only 1,906 miles needed for carrying out the scheme in Argentina have been acquired up to the present. This untoward circumstance must of necessity substantially increase the original estimates of the mileage needed for linking up the railway systems of the Republics lying between Buenos Aires and New York. The dominion of the American controlled enterprise is not apparently to be confined to the narrow limits of railway undertakings, but it would seem that a lengthy list of subsidiary companies has been grouped with the syndicate, in whose London offices appear to be centred a South American lumber company, three development and colonisation companies, a Para rubber company, a port company, two navigation companies, a tramway company, light and power company, and an hotel company."

With such endeavours on the part of the United States to extend its power in the south, it is the obvious commercial duty of Great Britain not only to take stock of what is happening, but to take steps to meet it. When I was in Buenos Aires I was glad to hear of the formation of a British Chamber of Commerce. Hitherto English people with interests in Argentina have worked independently and sometimes in rivalry. Of course, wholesome rivalry should continue; but there are occasions when the British commercial community should act in concert, and the creation of the British Chamber of Commerce, with Sir Reginald Tower, the British Minister, giving it his active patronage, should be of immense advantage.

But all foreigners, be they British, German, French, or belonging to the United States, must recognise the ambition of the Argentines ultimately to do without them and to "run the show" for themselves.