710.11/405
The Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) to
the Acting Secretary of State
Mexico, May 13,
1919.
[Received May
22.]
No. 2010
Sir: With reference to the Embassy’s telegram
No. 2082, May 9, 3 P.M.,28 and for the records of the Department, I have the
honor
[Page 546]
to send enclosed copies
of the telegram to the New York World by its
Mexico City correspondent, Mr. Robert H. Murray, reporting an interview
with President Carranza in explanation of his opposition to the Monroe
Doctrine.
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure—Telegram]
Mr. Robert H.
Murray to the New York
“World”
President Carranza this afternoon received me in national palace and
explained exclusive interview why his Government is opposed to
Monroe Doctrine in principle and practice. In his statements
regarding Mexico’s position with respect to Doctrine Carranza was
most unequivocal and explicit “Recent declaration of Mexican Foreign
Office” said he “to effect that in reply to interrogations from
various friendly governments as to Mexico’s attitude toward Monroe
Doctrine Mexico never has recognized or never will recognize this or
any other doctrine which attacks sovereignty or independence Mexico
exactly defined our position. It may be taken as official
proclamation of fixed and inalterable policy this government” “Why”
I asked “Principally for reason that Monroe doctrine is an arbitrary
measure which seeks to impose and does impose upon independent
nations a protectorate which they do not ask for and which they do
not require” replied President. [“]One of principal defects of
Doctrine aside from its manifest lack of utility as world present
constituted is that it is exceptional in its operation and is not
sought to be applied to all countries alike. It is not reciprocal in
its benefits and a doctrine which does not provide reciprocal
advantages is fundamentally unsound. It is a one-sided affair if it
is applied arbitrarily to the Spanish-American Republics it might
with equal excuse or lack of it be applied indiscriminately all over
the world” “In what manner does doctrine in your estimation
constitute disadvantage to Spanish-American countries” “Because it
virtually constitutes an unsought and undesired protectorate
whenever United States chooses to exercise it without consent of
those who are protected” President’s response “it is species of
tutelage which should not exist, and for existence of which no
excuse can be offered. President Wilson expressed himself in this
sense in his address to Mexican editors last year[”]29 “Has Monroe Doctrine in any manner
worked harm to Mexico or any other Spanish-American Republic” I
suggested. “It is not necessary to cite cases” answered President
“although probably they might be pointed out But aside from this
principle is not tenable. Doctrine is an anachronism
[Page 547]
and do not doubt that so regarded by
most men who are competent to judge it. One should not consider it
from standpoint of whether or not it is beneficent in its operation
but whether it is just the right thing to sustain and enforce. Here
is situation for example: man comes to you and says he wants to do
you a favor. You do not desire him to. You have no need of accepting
favors from his hands yet quite against your will he imposes his
favor upon you.” Carranza [sic] “assuming
that Monroe Doctrine might be abrogated what could be substituted
for it” was asked [sic] “Probably no specific
substitute is required” was President’s rejoinder “If we set up
principle of equality of all nations and adhere to it wisely justly
there would be no place for Monroe Doctrine even assuming for sake
argument that there is present necessity for it which I deny. This
principle of national equality would serve with possibly universal
acknowledgement of right of nations not concerned in threatened
aggressions which Monroe Doctrine is supposed to inhibit to mediate
and employ its good offices to prevent such aggressions. This
principle of equality among nations should comprehend mediation by
one or more nations to prevent armed conflicts or aggressions of
nature which usually lead to wars. This would not be a tutelage or
protectorate. As matter of fact mediation of this nature is
generally practiced or at least offered when conflicts are
threatened. There is no Monroe Doctrine for strong nations and there
would be no necessity for such doctrine for benefit of weak ones if
principle of equality is adhered to. Strong nations do not need a
Monroe Doctrine or anything of its nature because among strong
nations their might as a rule has been regarded as right.” “Isn’t
this mediation of which you speak embodied in covenant of league of
nations “was asked. “I believe so but it applies only to those
nations which are members of league” “But not to Mexico question”
“Mexico is not member of league” commented President who added to
next query that he asked to be excused from discussing league
nations Mexican exclusion from it or her interest as nation in
league, “Some of the Mexican newspapers have taken position that
United States in setting up Monroe Doctrine acted as much from
desire to protect herself and her own interests as to shield
Southern Republics from European aggression” I remarked. “How has
Doctrine ever benefited United States “queried President “Has
Doctrine ever been challenged by any European Power? When Doctrine
was first laid down would United States which then was far from
being as powerful as it later became been able to oppose
successfully any European Power which might have disputed it?” “But
did not the Doctrine operate to the benefit of Mexico during French
intervention?” I asked. “With or without Monroe Doctrine Mexico
eventually would have driven French away” answered President with
emphasis. President de
[Page 548]
clined to comment upon report from Buenos Aires that Mexican
Legation there been instructed by Foreign Office here to present to
Argentina and other South American countries project organization
league American nations in opposition to league nations.
