That the end of this development has come is highly unlikely. Political parties may differ as to national policies, internal and external, but they will bend before the natural cause of economic and political development. Our latest three administrations, those of Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson, have represented widely divergent political views, but the general policy of all toward the Caribbean countries has been fundamentally the same, and the Harding administration has not yet departed therefrom. All have been willing to "assume increasing responsibilities toward our weaker neighbors" to secure economic advantage. It has been a development which is the response of the nation to its larger economic and political interests in the Larger Canal Zone.
Whilst this government disclaims any desire for conquest, yet the great advantage in the world movement and in the vital commercial affairs of the globe, the commercial world says, demand that the peace and safety of this hemisphere shall not be needlessly and wickedly broken, and that the peace, happiness and safety of this nation and the commerce of the world within the bounds of our governmental life shall not be imperiled in the future as they have been in the past. The tremendous impetus, which under the world movement of today has been so potent and plain, demands order in all the affairs and details of life. The conditions of the time and the dependence of one part of the globe upon the other, brought about by the easy interchange between the nations, mean that no disorder in that great world commerce can be tolerated. Unstable governments are unwelcome to a diplomacy which has as one of its controlling motives the creation of an extensive international exchange, especially when these governments are of races despised by the Teuton. Weakness of government may lead in the future, as it has in the past, to the rise of acute international questions. In recent years there have been many examples of the complications which may rise out of such conditions.
The areas referred to as the Larger Canal Zone have received great attention from this country. In fact our latest Latin-American diplomacy, which has as one of its controlling motives the creation of an extensive international exchange, is for these areas. Our economic interests have made demands upon our political life, the Monroe Doctrine has lighted the way and we have come forward with new policies. Haiti, it has been said, is not to be set apart and dealt with particularly in this new diplomatic program; it is but a factor in our "American Seas" interest, a vital economic and political part of our present-day American life. The subsequent questions of impaired sovereignty and overthrown independence, say the aggressors, should not obscure the real policies. Nor is it fair to accuse the United States of a lack of appreciation and respect for the governments of peoples of this section of the world.
Finally we are told: America stands at the dividing of the ways. Are we to pursue the ideals of "All men are created free and equal" with the equally idealistic form of government, or are we to keep pace with our commercial and economic expansion and accept the complementary program of economic imperialism? We are informed that the trend of our political policies is one of colonization; that colonization with respect to Western European Civilization is contradictory to democracy; and that a program of colonization at a time when racial and national antipathy exceed even individual expression, are all demonstrated by the refusal of our government to acknowledge and commit itself to any definite political program in these island republics. Our government, the defenders say, has occupied these republics apparently fearful of European intervention. Entering upon this policy committed to no program, with a lack of centralization of authority into one of the many departments of the government, it has caused much confusion. Obviously the position in which we find ourselves in Haiti is one of embarrassment and one which has affected the prestige of our country detrimentally. American statesmen are put to task. Shall our government admit and support its economic imperialistic policy inseparably from the added political burden accompanying our Panama Canal enterprise, profiting, thereby, upon the commercial importance of the canal; or shall it long continue the dexterous fête of keeping eyes and hands on democratic ideals with both feet in the path of imperialism? Our new policy is an economic imperialistic policy. The world wishes to know if we will admit it and announce our intentions in these regions, or whether we shall continue our imperialistic policy under the veil of the Monroe Doctrine held in position by the idealistic principles of democracy.
George W. Brown.
FOOTNOTES:
[A] This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate School of Western Reserve University in 1922 in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.
[1] Current History, Vol. XV, No. 6, March, 1922.
[2] Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. C, No. 189, March, 1922.
[3] Treaties and Conventions between the United States and other Powers.