File No. 710.11/371
This outspoken article, while well received to-day, would have caused the
death of the editor had it appeared a few years ago in Ecuador, clearly
showing the great change in sentiment by the Ecuadorans toward the
United States and its people.
That the changed feelings occurred during my incumbency at this post is a
source of great satisfaction to me; and I feel justified in assuming
that at least a part of it is due to the efforts made at this
office.
[Enclosure—Translation]
Editorial from “El Telegrafo” Guayaquil, Ecuador,
June 13, 1918
AMERICA FOR THE AMERICANS
One of the results of the World’s War is going to be the commendation
of the Monroe Doctrine; America for the Americans; for justified
selfishness and in defense of the people of the new continent.
Yet the most beneficent doctrines of this diplomacy are in disfavor;
it is indispensable to protect the union, because no other method is
going to save the weaker nations from the outrages of the stronger
ones.
In South America, where her vast riches and her enormous extensions
of fertile lands must be an ample reward that compensates the
privations undertaken, the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine
should be in force as a protector so as to block in time the
aspirations of the conqueror, who would desire to chain these
smaller nations into his larger political unit.
America for the Americans. We should proclaim it—we should publish
it—we should untiringly herald such a doctrine.
And the nations of South America will give a worthy example of
prudence and sagacity by attaching themselves to the Americans of
the other continent, uniting themselves to them, binding themselves
in a loyal fraternity to form a solid unit, invulnerable by the
solidity of their brotherhood, without stopping to regard the
jingoism of the so-called Yankee peril.
Candidly we do not believe that such a danger exists. United States
of America maintains commercial relations on a large scale with
Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Peru, among other nations, yet Peru,
Chile, Argentina, and Brazil have not lost their self-government;
not even is there the remotest idea that such a danger threatens
them, and above all, it is incredible that such a danger should come
from the Grand Nation of the North; but to the contrary we should
note how much the banks, the commerce, the agriculture and the
industries of these nations have benefited by the reciprocal trade
relations.
In opposition to our assertion you might cite the cases of Mexico,
Cuba, Philippines, Panama, Puerto Rico and Haiti, but these facts do
not bring a loss of prestige to the Grand Republic, because one must
know the conditions of prosperity, of ease, and even independence
that these countries enjoy in order to judge if they have or have
not received the benefit of the paternal protection in the
propitious hours of their civilization, and from whence these
advantages were obtained.
Furthermore, this is not the point in question, since as with Texas
and California, Philippines and Haiti, Cuba and Panama, the United
States had to take the attitude with which it is now reproached; and
we must consider the various conditions that entered into the
situation—conditions absolutely distinct from those that apply to
the nations of South America.
The United States, in its international relations with the countries
of the southern continent, can not be lured by other than sentiments
of mutual commercial expansion; and we think in this respect that
its greater inducement would be to see these nations prosperous,
because that which concerns the Monroe Doctrine is to remotely
remove the danger of a European invasion and conquest, and to
promote a mutual increase of her industries and commerce. We believe
that there is no doubt but that one of the best aspirations of the
United States must be to convert South America into her best import
and export market. This policy would favor one continent as much as
the other.
Why doubt? Why fear?
These mere digressions also occurred to us, and surely they have no
more repetition than that of the morbid patriotism of the political
chauvinists,
[Page 583]
for the
reason of the invitation made to the countries of the American
Continent to celebrate the classic date of July 4, as a symbol of
the union that ought to prevail among the free countries of America;
perhaps it will serve as wholesome information to the ambitions
which arise in Europe; but surely it will serve as a challenge to
the pretensions of those who desire to compensate their losses in
the easy fields of this marvellous continent.
It is well that the people should know that America is not a land of
conquest; that here the union is eulogized as the only means to
reject the attacks of the powers; that America will be, as at
present, only for Americans in the purest and most virtuous of its
acceptations.
Matters being thus, why not celebrate the Fourth of July? Why not
adopt this date, which commemorates the independence of our eldest
sister of the North, as a classic date of liberty, under shelter of
the starred Hag and under authority of the rulers of the Republic at
Washington? Even to-day let us renew constantly the oath of freedom
and of self-sacrifice in order to preserve the inestimable pledge of
liberty that the Fathers of the Fatherland bequeathed to us.
All for one, one for all.
This should be the motto that America should impose, thereby
profiting by the peril that the European conflict brings with
it.
