Full download ebook at ebookgrade.

com

Thriving Adolescent Louise Hayes The

https://ebookgrade.com/product/thriving-
adolescent-louise-hayes-the/

Download more ebook from https://ebookgrade.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Round House A Novel The Louise Erdrich

https://ebookgrade.com/product/round-house-a-novel-the-louise-
erdrich/

Strategy Execution and Complexity Thriving in the Era

of Disruption

https://ebookgrade.com/product/strategy-execution-and-complexity-
thriving-in-the-era-of-disruption/

Stress health and well being Thriving in the 21st

century

https://ebookgrade.com/product/stress-health-and-well-being-
thriving-in-the-21st-century/

Intermediation and Beyond Louise Gullifer

https://ebookgrade.com/product/intermediation-and-beyond-louise-
gullifer/
Elements of Scrum The Chris Sims & Hillary Louise
Johnson

https://ebookgrade.com/product/elements-of-scrum-the-chris-sims-
hillary-louise-johnson/

Pulmonary Hypertension A Patient's Survival Guide 5th

Gail Boyer Hayes Gail Boyer Hayes

https://ebookgrade.com/product/pulmonary-hypertension-a-patients-
survival-guide-5th-gail-boyer-hayes-gail-boyer-hayes/

Adolescent Psychology Around the World Jeffrey Jensen

Arnett

https://ebookgrade.com/product/adolescent-psychology-around-the-
world-jeffrey-jensen-arnett/

Professional Restaurant Manager David K. Hayes Allisha

A. Mill David K. Hayes Allisha A. Mill

https://ebookgrade.com/product/professional-restaurant-manager-
david-k-hayes-allisha-a-mill-david-k-hayes-allisha-a-mill/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Questions
1. Classify the chief causes of war and indicate which class of causes
was mainly responsible for: the French and Indian Wars; the
Revolutionary War; the Napoleonic Wars; the War of 1812; the Mexican
War; the Civil War; the Spanish War; the Russo-Japanese War; and the
World War.
2. What did President Roosevelt mean when he said that a defenceless
nation is a temptation to injustice. Give some examples to illustrate this
proposition and also to illustrate the reverse.
3. Why would it not be better to abolish the national guard and have
only a regular army?
4. Explain the various steps by which civilians were taken into the
national army under the provisions of the Selective Service Law.
5. Is it right to use the armed forces of the nation in quelling labor
troubles? What are the objections to so doing?
6. Explain the system of trial by court-martial under the following
heads: (a) who may be tried; (b) on what charges; (c) how the court is
organized; (d) who prosecutes; (e) who defends; (f) what sentence may
be imposed; (g) who reviews the sentence.
7. What is the difference between proclaiming martial law in a district
and establishing a military government over it?
8. Outline the history of the United States navy. What are the
characteristics of (a) battleships; (b) battle cruisers; (c) gunboats?
9. What would be (a) the political and (b) the economic advantages of
disarmament? What difficulties stand in the way of an international
agreement to disarm?
10. Make a list of the special governmental agencies which were
established in the United States during the World War, and name the
functions performed by each.
Topics for Debate
1. The United States should adopt the system of universal military
training.
2. A declaration of war should require a two-thirds vote of Congress.
3. The national government should pay pensions to veterans of the
World War in the same way that it has provided pensions for veterans of
the Civil War.
 CHAPTER XXIX
FOREIGN RELATIONS

The purpose of this chapter is to explain what international law is, what
obligations it imposes, and how the United States carries on its relations with
other countries.

The Contact of Nations.—In all Trade has brought

ages the nations of the world have been nations together.
brought into relations with one another. During the early
centuries their contact was not very close, as a rule, because
differences in race, religion, and language, together with the
lack of facilities for travel and transportation served to keep
the people apart. But the Phoenicians, the Greeks, and the
Romans all traded with their neighbors, and this trade, which
began around the eastern shores of the Mediterranean,
gradually widened east and west. After the fall of the Roman
empire chaos reigned over the greater part of Europe;
commerce declined, and incessant warfare prevented the
growth of friendly intercourse among the people of different
religions. These were the so-called Dark Ages, in which travel
was fraught with danger and trade was at the mercy of
bandits. Gradually, however, intercourse between different
regions revived and expanded. The highways and waterways
became safe again. Nations were once more brought into
friendly relationships. During the past three or four hundred
years this intercourse of nation with nation has been steadily
becoming more extensive, broken only from time to time by
the waging of wars. The steamship, the railroads, the
automobile, the telegraph, and the telephone have all served
to reduce distances and bring the various parts of the world
closer together.
International Rules and Customs. The origin of
—Just as social and economic relations international law.
among men gave rise to customs and usages which
everyone now obeys for the common good, so the growth of
intercourse among the nations brought into existence, little
by little, a body of usages and rules which guide them in
their relations with one another. Even the Greeks and
Romans recognized the necessity of some such rules to
prevent misunderstandings. Since ancient times these
usages, rules, and agreements have been gradually
becoming more definite until they now form that body of
jurisprudence which is known as International Law. In a
strict sense international law is not law at all; its rules have
not emanated from any definite source such as parliament or
a legislature, and there are no courts with power to enforce
its provisions.[283] Some of its rules are of long standing
custom; others have come into effect as the result of
agreements among nations. The provision that the
ambassador is exempt from the jurisdiction of the state to
which he goes is very old,—as old as the Achaean League. It
is an ancient custom, now called law. On the other hand the
rule that a blockade of enemy ports is not valid unless
maintained by an adequate force is a relatively modern rule
and rests upon international agreement.
International Law.—International What international
law may therefore be defined as that law includes.
body of usages and rules which the civilized nations of the
world are accustomed to observe in their dealings with one
another. These rules and usages relate to a great many
things. They provide for friendly The laws of war.
communication between nations in time
of peace by means of ambassadors and other diplomatic
envoys. International law declares the high seas to be free to
all, but stipulates that a country may exercise jurisdiction
over its adjacent seas for a distance of one marine league
from the shore. The usages and rules of international law
also provide for the protection of aliens, the collection of
debts, the carrying on of trade, and many other questions
which arise between nations at peace.
When nations are at war they are called belligerents, and
the rules of international law restrict the ways in which war
may be carried on. They forbid a belligerent to put poison in
wells, or to bombard undefended towns, or to kill prisoners
of war. It is quite true that these so-called “laws of war” are
sometimes set at naught in the heat of conflict, and it is also
true that when a nation violates them there is no regular
redress; but the rules are well established and the public
opinion of the world always condemns any country which
indulges in barbarities contrary to the rules of war.
Nations which are not at war when The laws of
war is going on are called neutrals. Their neutrality.
rights as neutrals are defined and their duties as neutrals are
prescribed by the rules of international law. Neutrals are
permitted to carry on trade with belligerents subject to two
limitations, namely that their ships must not try to enter any
blockaded port and must not carry contraband of war.
Contraband of war includes weapons, munitions, military
supplies, and any other merchandise which a belligerent can
use directly or indirectly in carrying on the war. The citizens
of neutral states are also debarred from serving in the armed
forces of belligerents.
International law, in short, deals with a great variety of
matters which arise in peace, including emigration and
travel, trade, naturalization, diplomatic intercourse, the
extradition of criminals, treaties, and so forth, as well as with
questions which arise during war such as blockades,
captures at sea, the rules of land warfare, and the rights of
neutrals. It is considered by the United States to be a part of
the law of the land, and its rules are enforced within
American territory by the federal courts.
The Control of Foreign Relations. The federal
—All relations with foreign countries are government alone
under the control of the national controls foreign
relations.
government. No state of the Union can
make any treaty, or declare war, or enter into an alliance, or
send ambassadors abroad. No state, moreover, may maintain
ships of war in time of peace or armed forces except as
provided in the constitution. War can be declared by
Congress alone. These provisions are wisely inserted in the
national constitution, for if every state were permitted to
deal independently with foreign countries, we should get into
endless complications and difficulties. But in spite of the fact
that no state can make a treaty or have any formal
diplomatic negotiations with a foreign country it is
nevertheless true that a state can and sometimes does
create a situation which requires diplomatic action on the
part of the national government. Prolonged negotiations
between the American and Japanese governments have had
to be carried on, for example, as the result of California’s
having restricted the privileges of Japanese citizens in that
state (see p. 32). So, also, although the constitution gives
Congress the sole power to declare war, the President
through his command of the army and navy can bring about
a situation which leaves Congress no choice whatsoever. On
one occasion President Roosevelt threatened that if German
warships did not leave the coast of Venezuela within forty-
eight hours, he would send the American fleet there. Had the
German ships remained and a conflict ensued, the action of
Congress in declaring war would have become a mere
formality.
How Foreign Relations are Conducted.—The conduct
of foreign relations rests with the President, whose right-
hand man in such matters is the Secretary of State. But the
President’s discretion is limited by the fact that all
appointments require confirmation by the Senate and all
treaties must be approved in that body by a two-thirds vote
before they become valid. For this reason, the President
usually finds it advisable to keep in touch with the leaders of
the Senate while he is handling foreign affairs of importance.
He is under no legal obligation to do this, but it is politically
expedient. Failure to do it has on occasions led the Senate to
reject agreements which the President has concluded after
prolonged negotiations.[284] The The Department of
Department of State is the President’s State.
immediate agency in the conduct of all diplomatic
intercourse, and is so recognized by all foreign governments.
It is through this department that all official correspondence
with other governments is carried on. The Secretary of State
is often called the “premier” of the cabinet, but the function
of leadership and the ultimate responsibility for the cabinet’s
work rests with the President. In handling the details of
foreign relations the State Department is assisted by a body
of officials who constitute the diplomatic service.
The Diplomatic Service.—It is the custom of every
civilized country to send and receive diplomatic officials. The
United States sends a representative to every important
foreign capital; in return, every foreign country maintains a
diplomatic agent in Washington. In the case of the most
important countries these representatives are given the rank
and title of ambassador. There is an Ambassadors and
American ambassador stationed at Paris; ministers.
a French ambassador at Washington. In the case of less
important countries the diplomatic representatives are
usually given the rank and title of minister. There is an
American minister at Copenhagen; a Danish minister at
Washington. The difference between ambassadors and
ministers is in rank, title, and salary; there is no important
difference in their functions. When an ambassador or
minister is absent, the diplomatic official who is left in charge
is called a chargé d’affaires. If some special negotiations are
to be carried on, a country may send an envoy, or an “envoy
extraordinary”, as he is called.[285] Each ambassador or
minister is assisted by one or more secretaries and a force of
clerks.
Diplomatic officials, whether Duties of diplomats.
ambassadors or ministers, have the duty
of serving as channels of official communication between
their own government and the government to which they are
accredited. They act always in accordance with instructions
sent to them from home. If a foreign government has any
communication to make to the government of the United
States, it addresses itself either to the American diplomatic
representative at its own capital, or to its own diplomatic
representative at Washington. In either case the diplomatic
representative presents the communication, orally or in
writing, to the Secretary of State. The heads of nations,
whether presidents, kings, or emperors, sometimes
communicate with each other by personal letter; but
important matters are not usually handled in that way.[286]
In addition to forwarding communications the members of
the diplomatic service have various other duties. An
ambassador or minister is expected to keep his own
government well informed concerning all that is going on at
the foreign capital where he is stationed. He renders any
necessary assistance to American citizens who may become
involved in difficulties or danger. He represents his own
country on all occasions of ceremony and has many social
duties to perform. These duties are prescribed by the usages
of the diplomatic service and are the same at all national
capitals. Finally, he co-operates with the consuls of his own
country and does what he can to make their work more
effective.[287]
All American ambassadors, ministers, How members of
and other diplomatic officials are the diplomatic
appointed by the President with the service are chosen.
consent of the Senate. In European countries it is the custom
for young and capable men to enter the lower ranks of
diplomatic service and work up, step by step, to the higher
posts. But although lower posts in the diplomatic service of
the United States are filled by competitive examination, the
higher positions are usually given to men who have had no
previous diplomatic experience. Men whom the President
selects as ambassadors or ministers are, as a rule, drawn
from civil life, and their appointments are often looked upon
as rewards for political service. This does not mean,
however, that they fail to make capable ambassadors or
ministers, despite the lack of experience; on the contrary, the
system has worked astonishingly well on the whole. This is
because men of marked ability and distinction in civil life are
usually selected by the President for the more important
diplomatic posts. Among the list of those who have served as
American ambassadors to Great Britain one finds the names
of Charles Francis Adams, James Russell Lowell, John Hay,
and Joseph H. Choate. Among the notable American
diplomats during the earlier years of the World War were
James W. Gerard at Berlin, Henry Morgenthau at
Constantinople, Brand Whitlock at Brussels, and Paul S.
Reinsch at Pekin.
The official establishment of an ambassador is called an
embassy; that of a minister is known as a legation. An
embassy or a legation is exempt from The immunities of
local jurisdiction; it cannot be searched diplomats.
by the police, and the officials connected with it are exempt
from arrest except for very serious crimes. A country cannot,
according to international usages, decline to receive a
diplomatic official from any other country, but it can, and
sometimes does, object to receiving some particular
individual as ambassador or minister on the ground that he
is persona non grata. Similarly a country may request that
any diplomatic official who has been sent to it shall be
recalled by his own government and such requests have
occasionally been made.[288]
 In addition to diplomatic officials the Consuls.
United States sends and receives
consuls. The consular service is concerned with commercial
rather than diplomatic relations; hence the consuls are
stationed, for the most part, at ports of entry. The functions
of consuls are closely related to the development of
American foreign trade and they have been described in an
earlier chapter (p. 373).
Secret and Open Diplomacy.—The traditional policy of
the diplomatic service in all countries has been to do its work
in secret. To some extent this has been necessary, because
of the nature of the negotiations carried on. There are times,
of course, when the publication of what Why secrecy is
is going on in the way of negotiations deemed essential.
between different countries would lead to serious
misunderstandings and might cause the negotiations to be
broken off altogether. It is natural, for example, that each
government, when it begins negotiations on any question,
should ask a good deal more than it expects to obtain. Only
as the discussion proceeds through the channels of
diplomacy does each country give way a little and in the end
they reach an agreement. Now, if these negotiations had to
be carried on before the eyes of the whole world an
agreement would be very difficult because no government
likes to back down, even slightly, from its original demands.
So secrecy is in some cases necessary. But there has been
too much of it in the past. Many important matters have
been withheld from public knowledge even after the
negotiations have been finished, and pledges have been
made by rulers without informing their people. It was
because of secret diplomacy that the The experience of
various European countries, prior to Europe.
1914, became enmeshed in a maze of intrigues and semi-
secret alliances which drew them steadily toward the brink of
war.[289] The United States, happily, has had very little
experience with secret diplomacy. Every treaty or agreement
must be submitted to the Senate and when so submitted it
cannot be kept secret. Nothing can be kept secret after it is
laid for discussion before a body of ninety-six men, at least it
cannot remain secret very long. The The American
Senate, moreover, has always insisted on tradition of open
making these agreements public, diplomacy.
although the discussions may be held behind closed doors.
One of the reasons why the government of the United States
has acquired a good reputation for frankness and sincerity in
its relations with other countries is to be found in this
avoidance of secrecy in international agreements. This policy
should never be abandoned.
Treaties.—A treaty is a formal agreement made between
two or more countries and binding upon each. There are
many kinds of treaties, including treaties of peace, treaties of
alliance, treaties providing for reciprocity in trade, for the
mutual surrender of fugitive criminals, postal treaties,
treaties of arbitration, and so on. There How treaties are
are three stages in the making of a made.
treaty, namely, the negotiation, the signature, and the
ratification. The negotiations are usually carried on through
members of the diplomatic service, but in the case of
important treaties it is customary to appoint special envoys
for the purpose. When all details have been agreed upon the
treaty is engrossed on parchment and signed by the official
representatives of the respective countries. But it does not
go into effect until it is ratified and, so far as the United
States is concerned, this ratification cannot take place until
the treaty has been approved by a two-thirds majority of the
Senate.[290]
Whenever a treaty has been concluded on behalf of the
United States, therefore, it is transmitted by the President to
the presiding officer of the Senate by whom it is referred to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs. This committee, in due
course, makes its report to the Senate whereupon a
discussion takes place. When the discussion is finished the
Senate votes to give or withhold its The power of the
assent. If it acts favorably, the President Senate over
notifies the other government and the treaties.
treaty becomes effective; if the Senate rejects the treaty, it
fails to go into force. The Senate, strictly speaking, cannot
amend any treaty, but it may ask the President, and through
him the other government, to accept certain changes. As a
rule the Senate has ratified treaties without amendment but
it has sometimes insisted on alterations, and on some
notable occasions it has rejected treaties altogether.[291]
American Foreign Policy.—When The roots of
Washington finished his second term as American
President in 1796, he delivered to his diplomacy.
countrymen a Farewell Address in which he gave them some
sound advice. Among other things he pointed out that the
primary interests of America were very remote from those of
Europe and advised that the United States should “steer
clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign
world”. Not long afterwards Jefferson reiterated this principle
and urged that the policy of America should aim at “honest
friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”.
This attitude of Washington and Jefferson embodied the best
interests of the United States in the early days of the
Republic and undoubtedly reflected the sentiment of the
people. In keeping with this principle of “political isolation”
the United States remained neutral during the European
wars which followed the French Revolution and strenuously
endeavored to avoid taking sides in the struggle between
England and France. The United States government, in 1807,
went so far as to shut off all trade with both these warring
countries. But in 1812, the continued violation of America’s
rights as a neutral exhausted the patience of the people.
These rights were violated by France and England alike; the
English violations, however, were the ones which stirred up
the greatest amount of popular resentment. So the United
States engaged in war with England for the maintenance of
the principles of neutrality.
The Monroe Doctrine.—Being resolved not to meddle in
the political affairs of Europe so long as American rights were
not infringed, the United States felt in a position to insist, at
the appropriate time, that Europe should refrain from
interference in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. The
occasion for announcing this principle of Origin of the
“hands off” came in 1823. During the doctrine.
years preceding this date the Spanish colonies in Central and
South America had revolted. They declared their
independence of Spain and drove out the Spanish
authorities, setting up in each case a republican form of
government. Spain naturally desired to retain her sovereignty
over these territories and sought assistance of other
European countries for that purpose. There appeared to be a
possibility that France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia—a
combination known as the Holy Alliance—would join with
Spain in the subjugation of the revolted South American
territories. The government at Washington became alarmed
over the possibilities of large military and naval forces being
sent across the Atlantic by a coalition of monarchial
countries, believing that this would not only be a blow to the
republican form of rule but a serious danger to the United
States as well. President James Monroe accordingly
authorized the issue of a declaration setting forth the interest
of the United States in the matter.[292]
The salient passages in this declaration are as follows:

“In the wars of European powers in matters relating to

themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it
comport with our policy to do so.... With the existing colonies
or dependencies of any European power we have not
interfered and shall not interfere.... But with the
governments which have declared their independence and
maintained it, and whose independence we have on great
consideration and on just principles acknowledged, we could
not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing
them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by
any European power, in any other light than as a
manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United
States.... The American continents, by the free and
independent condition which they assumed and maintain,
are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future
colonization by any European powers.”

This doctrine has remained the cornerstone of American

policy with reference to the countries of Central and South
America for one hundred years. On Its application.
several occasions it has been invoked to
protect these countries against armed pressure. During the
Civil War, for example, the French government sent an army
to Mexico and maintained an imperial administration there in
defiance of the Mexican people. While the conflict between
North and South continued the government of the United
States was unable to take any firm action in this matter, but
in 1866 France was requested to withdraw her troops from
Mexico, which she did. Again, in 1895, President Cleveland
informed the government of Great Britain that the United
States would support Venezuela against any attempt to settle
a boundary dispute otherwise than by arbitration.
The Monroe Doctrine is not a part of Its status.
international law. It is not even a law of
the United States. It never received the approval of the
Senate, which is supposed to be a check upon the President
in deciding the permanent features of American foreign
policy. Its validity has never been formally recognized either
by the countries of Europe or by the states of South America
whom the doctrine immediately concerns.[293] Its
maintenance rests upon the vigilance and strength of the
United States. In guarding the smaller states of the New
World against European aggression the United States is
taking what the American people regard as an essential
measure of self-protection.
Is the Monroe Doctrine Obsolete?—We are sometimes
told nowadays that the Monroe Doctrine is behind the times,
that we have outgrown it, and ought to give it up.[294] When
the doctrine was announced, a hundred years ago, the states
of South America were too weak to defend themselves; the
various countries of Continental Europe were governed
despotically and maintained large standing armies. The
states of Central and South America, likewise, were at that
time glad to have American protection. But now, we are told,
all this is changed. The Spanish-American states are strong
and able to look out for themselves. They do not want our
guardianship. The nations of Continental Europe, moreover,
are no longer despotisms but republics and limited
monarchies. They have enough problems to keep them
employed for the next generation without interfering in the
affairs of the New Hemisphere. So it has been suggested
that the doctrine be given up, particularly as no one knows
exactly what it means at the present day.[295] But the
doctrine is deeply imbedded in the diplomatic traditions of
the American people and there is nothing to be gained by
giving it up unless the situation becomes very different from
what it is today.
American Contributions to International Law.—The
United States has rendered signal service in making the rules
and usages of international law more enlightened and more
humane. At all times the American 1. Neutral rights.
government has been a champion of
neutral rights and particularly has insisted upon liberal rules
concerning neutral commerce on the high seas. It has lent its
influence to the movement for making 2. Laws of war.
the laws of war more human and for
prohibiting all practices which needlessly endanger the lives
of non-combatants. It has stood for freedom of trade and
the “open door”. Among the nations of the world the United
States has been foremost in the 3. Arbitration.
advocacy and use of arbitration as a
means of settling international disputes. In keeping with this
policy arbitration treaties have been concluded between the
United States and twenty other countries, each treaty
providing that all disputed questions, of whatsoever nature,
shall be submitted to arbitration if they cannot be adjusted
by diplomatic negotiation, and that no resort to war shall in
any event take place until after the processes of arbitration
have been exhausted. At the Peace 4. Recent
Conference which assembled in 1919 contributions.
after the close of the World War, moreover, it was the United
States that first put forward in definite form the plan for a
League of Nations. And in 1921 it was the United States
which took the initiative in calling the international
conference which arranged for a great reduction in naval
armaments.
General References
Charles A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 315-341;
Ibid., Readings in American Government and Politics, pp. 291-307;
Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 540-
573;
A. B. Hart, Actual Government, pp. 430-445;
John W. Foster, The Practice of Diplomacy, especially pp. 34-54;
P. S. Reinsch, Readings in American Federal Government, pp. 651-682;
E. S. Corwin, The President’s Control of Foreign Relations, passim;
Gaillard Hunt, The Department of State.
Group Problems
1. The Monroe Doctrine. Is it obsolete? The international situation
during the years 1815-1823. The Holy Alliance, its organization and aims.
Spain in America. The revolt of the Spanish Colonies. Preliminaries of the
declaration. Canning’s suggestion. Scope of the doctrine as announced.
Subsequent applications and extensions. The French in Mexico. The
Venezuela controversy. Present scope of the doctrine. Attitude of Europe
toward it. Attitude of the Spanish-American states. Its value for the
future. Conclusion. References: Hiram Bingham, The Monroe Doctrine: An
Obsolete Shibboleth, pp. 3-55; A. B. Hart, The Monroe Doctrine, pp. 55-
83, and passim; A. C. Coolidge, The United States as a World Power, pp.
95-120; C. H. Sherrill, Modernizing the Monroe Doctrine, pp. 64-76; C. L.
Jones, Caribbean Interests of the United States, pp. 323-351; J. H. Latané,
The United States and Spanish America, pp. 292-334; D. C. Gilman,
James Monroe (American Statesmen Series, Standard Library Edition),
pp. 156-174; Theodore Roosevelt, American Ideals, pp. 220-237;
Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. II, pp. 456-468; Dexter Perkins,
“Europe, Spanish America, and the Monroe Doctrine” in American
Historical Review (January, 1922).
2. The diplomatic service and how it can be improved.
References: J. W. Foster, The Practice of Diplomacy, pp. 34-54; John A.
Fairlie, National Administration, pp. 77-91; E. Van Dyne, Our Foreign
Service, pp. 45-113; Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. I, pp. 593-
595; P. S. Reinsch, Readings on American Federal Government, pp. 651-
658; 675-682.
3. The chief rules of international law; how can their
enforcement be ensured? References: G. B. Davis, Elements of
International Law, pp. 19-30; T. J. Lawrence, Principles of International
Law, pp. 119-138; G. G. Wilson and G. F. Tucker, International Law (7th
ed.), pp. 44-60; A. S. Hershey, The Essentials of International Public Law,
pp. 143-169; A. H. Snow, The American Philosophy of Government, pp.
113-154; 267-283. See also the General References to Chapter XXX.
Short Studies
1. The rights and duties of neutrals. G. B. Davis, Elements of
International Law, pp. 376-395 (Rights of Neutrals); pp. 396-445 (Duties
of Neutrals).
2. The privileges of diplomats. J. W. Foster, The Practice of
Diplomacy, pp. 159-174.
3. How treaties are made. G. B. Davis, Elements of International
Law, pp. 223-249.
4. The power of the Senate in relation to treaties. Ralston
Hayden, The Senate and Treaties, especially pp. 169-195; J. W. Foster,
The Practice of Diplomacy, pp. 262-283.
5. The Venezuelan controversy. Grover Cleveland, Presidential
Problems, pp. 173-281.
6. Arbitration as a method of settling International disputes. R.
L. Jones, International Arbitration as a Substitute for War between
Nations, pp. 218-269; J. W. Foster, Arbitration and The Hague Court, pp.
39-57; J. B. Moore, American Diplomacy, pp. 200-222.
7. The Hague Conferences. G. B. Davis, Elements of International
Law, pp. 258-263; 519-524; 525.
 8. The proposed codification of international law. A. H. Snow,
The American Philosophy of Government, pp. 395-418.
Questions
1. What is international law? Is it properly a system of law? Explain the
sense in which you use the term law in the following expressions: law of
gravitation; law of the land; law of supply and demand; law of fashion.
2. Look up and explain the following terms: belligerent, contraband,
unneutral service, filibustering, blockade, three-mile limit, diplomatic
immunity.
3. Make a list of (a) the rights of neutrals; (b) the duties of neutrals,
and show how each right involves a duty.
4. Draw up, in the form of a diary, a day’s happenings in the American
embassy at Tokyo, putting down at least six things done by the
ambassador during the day.
5. Explain what is meant by secret diplomacy. To what extent has the
United States avoided it and why?
6. Give an account (from your studies in American History) of some
important treaty to which the United States was a party. Tell how it was
negotiated, signed, and ratified.
7. Is the principle set forth by Washington and Jefferson concerning
the true policy of the United States in foreign affairs applicable at the
present time?
8. Are the following statements true of the United States today:
(a) “In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves
we have never taken any part.”
(b) “With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power
we have not interfered”?
9. What is meant by the saying that “the covenant of the League of
Nations does not destroy the Monroe Doctrine but extends it to the whole
world”? Is that statement correct?
10. What seems to you to be the most important among American
contributions to international law?
Topics for Debate
1. All members of the diplomatic service, including ambassadors,
should be chosen under civil service rules.
2. A majority vote in the Senate should be made sufficient for the
ratification of treaties.
3. It would be a violation of the Monroe Doctrine if Great Britain were
to sell the island of Jamaica to Germany.
 CHAPTER XXX
THE UNITED STATES AS A WORLD POWER

The purpose of this chapter is to answer the question: What are the
relations of the United States to the rest of the world?

The Old Policy of Isolation.—For more than one

hundred years it was the settled policy of the United States
to keep aloof from all entanglements in the affairs of the rest
of the world. This tradition of aloofness The doctrines of
was given a definite form by Washington and
Washington, who solemnly warned his Jefferson.
countrymen against getting mixed up in the “ordinary”
conflicts of European states, and it was subsequently
endorsed by Jefferson.[296] Yet even in Jefferson’s own
administration it became apparent that if the United States
intended to carry on trade with all parts of the world, the
government must intervene for the protection of its own
citizens whenever this should become necessary. So, in 1803,
the American fleet was sent to the Mediterranean, where it
bombarded a nest of pirates who had been interfering with
American commerce. Then came the War of 1812, which
grew out of foreign interference with American trade. On
several subsequent occasions during the nineteenth century
the policy of protecting and promoting foreign trade drew
the United States into negotiations with various countries of
Europe and Asia. In a sense, therefore, the United States has
never pursued a policy of complete isolation; on the other
hand no permanent alliances have been made with any
 country, and the principle of independence in all matters of
foreign policy has been consistently maintained. So far as
diplomatic matters did not directly concern North, Central, or
South America, the statesmen of the world could safely leave
the United States out of their reckonings during the greater
part of the nineteenth century. In diplomacy the United
States belonged, so to speak, to a different world.

THE SPIRIT OF LIGHT. By Edwin A. Abbey

Copyright by Edwin A. Abbey. From a Copley Print, copyright

by Curtis & Cameron, Boston. Reproduced by permission.

THE SPIRIT OF LIGHT

By Edwin A. Abbey
From a mural painting in the Pennsylvania
State Capitol at Harrisburg.
 This is a very striking picture, one of the
artist’s best. In the background are the huge
derricks which lift the oil from the bowels of the
earth. In front of them golden-haired figures,
robed in gauze with torch in hand, are swirling
upward in joyous energy like a swarm of fireflies.
In making this picture the artist took infinite
pains. Each figure was first drawn from a living
model. Each was then photographed and by the
use of a lantern the figures were projected upon
the canvas where they were manœuvred into
place for the artist’s guidance. The whole picture
is successful in conveying the impression of
spontaneity combined with lightness and grace.

Why Isolation was Possible.—This substantial isolation

was made possible for more than a hundred years by three
features. The first is the favored 1. The fortunate
geographical position of the country. The geographical
United States, as a strong nation, has position of the
United States.
stood alone in the Western Hemisphere.
Her only neighbors were European colonies and the
struggling states of Latin-America. So long, therefore, as the
powerful nations of Europe could be held at arm’s length
there was no reason why the United States should give much
thought to problems of defence, alliances, and diplomacy.
Nature gave the United States an advantage in this respect
which is not possessed by any other strong nation with the
exception of Japan. Countries like England, France, and
Germany could not have pursued a policy of isolation even if
their people had desired it, for they are too close to each
other.
In the second place the United States 2. The abundance
was encouraged to hold aloof from the of land.
older countries of the world by the fact that there was plenty
of room for expansion at home. For a hundred years there
was no need to go abroad seeking new territories. It took
the United States a whole century to develop and populate
the solid block of country which extends from the Atlantic to
the Pacific. When other countries desired places of overflow
for their population and new fields of investment for their
capital, they engaged in a race for colonial possessions. The
United States had no such need or ambition; there was quite
enough opportunity at home.
Finally, the traditional policy of 3. The absence of
isolation was made possible by the good European
fortune which prevented European intervention.
interference at critical times, notably during the American
Civil War, when there was serious danger that Great Britain
and France might combine to aid the South. If that had
actually happened, it is not unlikely that Russia would have
come to the aid of the North, and the Civil War would then
have developed into a world conflict. In that case American
isolation would have ended more than a half century ago.
But good fortune, aided by competent diplomacy, enabled
the United States to settle its own troubles without foreign
interference and to continue the traditional policy of incurring
no obligations to any other country. In a word there was the
will to keep aloof and, what is quite as important, the
opportunity to do it.[297] From the War of Independence
down to the year 1917 the United States entered into no
military alliance or association with any other country; when
the American armies fought, they fought alone.
America’s Entry into the World War.—The World War
created a situation which the United States had never faced
before. All Western Europe burst ablaze; The old policy of
one country after another was drawn in; isolation comes to
and hostilities soon spread beyond the an end.
borders of the Old Continent. From the outset the United
States endeavored to maintain a strict neutrality; but
American commerce was subjected to interference by the
belligerents on both sides. Particularly offensive to the United
States, however, was the German practice of sinking without
warning passenger vessels upon which American citizens
were traveling. The torpedoing of the British liner Lusitania,
and the consequent loss of many American lives, stirred
public opinion throughout the United States. This and other
offences against the law of nations moved President Wilson
to demand from the German government a pledge that the
practice of sinking vessels without warning should cease, and
this pledge was conditionally given. Early in 1917, however,
the German government decided to inaugurate, as a
desperate stroke, a campaign of “unrestricted submarine
warfare”, and the government of the United States was
informed that even neutral vessels, unless they observed
certain strict precautions, would be torpedoed without
warning.
This action settled the matter of America’s continued
neutrality. Diplomatic relations with The declaration of
Germany were broken off and in April, war in 1917.
1917, Congress passed a declaration of war. The events of
the next eighteen months are still fresh in everyone’s mind.
America entered the struggle with a determination to turn
the scale, and on November 11, 1918, the German military
authorities were brought to terms. By signing an armistice
they acknowledged defeat and agreed to terms dictated by
the Allied and Associated Powers.
The Fourteen Points.—Some months before the signing
of this armistice President Wilson, in an address to Congress,
set forth the principal aims of the United States in the war.
These aims were grouped under fourteen heads and soon
came to be known as the Fourteen Points. Every one of them
had to do with matters which, prior to the war, would have
been deemed of no immediate concern to the United States.
Taken as a whole, however, they outlined the principles upon
which, in President Wilson’s opinion, a durable peace could
be erected and the future security of the world maintained.
The German government, in asking for an armistice, declared
its acceptance of these principles.
The Treaty of Versailles.—After the armistice had been
signed on behalf of the various belligerents a conference was
convened at Versailles to draw up a definite treaty of peace.
This conference included delegates from the countries which
had shared in the winning of the war. Germany and her
allies, the vanquished, were not represented. For several
months the conference wrestled with the problems involved
in the making of a treaty—the rearrangement of boundaries,
the recognition of new states, the disposal of German
colonies, the payment of reparations, and, most difficult of
all, the forming of a league of nations to prevent future wars.
When the work was finished the German representatives
were called in and were required to sign the treaty
substantially without any changes. The treaty was then
communicated to the various countries to be ratified and in
due course it was ratified by all the important countries
except the United States.
The New World Order.—The war Why isolation is no
and the changes which accompanied it longer possible:
served to alter the whole world environment. America was
brought into more intimate contact with Europe than ever
before. Even before the war, however, it had become
apparent that the traditional policy of isolation could not be
permanently maintained. To all intents and purposes the
world has become much smaller in these latter days. In point
of miles America is just as far away from Europe as ever, but
a thousand miles count for less nowadays than did a
hundred in our great-grandfathers’ time. During the summer
of 1918 the United States transported to Europe in less than
four months a million men. Fifty years ago that would have
been deemed to be an utterly impossible achievement. The
fast steamship of today can cross the 1. The annihilation
ocean in a hundred hours; in of distance.
Washington’s time the fleetest sailing-ships could not skim
the Atlantic in less than three weeks on the average. The
time is soon coming, in all probability, when men can be in
London one day and in New York the next. This is not a mere
dream; it is well within the range of possibilities. So we can
no longer talk of geographical isolation. The progress of
mankind has virtually annihilated distance.
Again, the United States is no longer, 2. The acquisition of
as in the old days, devoid of tangible overseas
interests in distant parts of the earth. possessions.
Beginning in 1898, Porto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam
were acquired from Spain, and Hawaii was annexed. Later
the Panama Canal was built and a zone of territory on both
sides of it acquired. More recently, the Virgin Islands were
purchased from Denmark. All this has involved a departure
from the traditional policy of acquiring local interests only. It
has given America, in the case of the Philippines, an outpost
several thousand miles away. Whatever, therefore, concerns
the Malay Archipelago or, indeed, any part of the Far East,
concerns the interests of the United States. Isolation is no
longer possible because the United States has surrendered,
in this case at any rate, the geographical advantage of
isolation.
Finally, during the past few years, the 3. The acquisition of
relation of the United States to the rest interests through
of the world has been changed by the war.
reason of the interests acquired through the war. The fact
that the Treaty of Versailles did not receive the approval of
the Senate does not in any way impair the rights and
interests which the United States acquired as one of the
victors in the war. Those interests, obtained at great sacrifice
and acknowledged by Germany in the separate treaty which
the United States made with that country in 1921, are spread
over virtually the entire world. They are of incalculable value,
present and future. No policy of isolation is now possible
unless the country is ready to abandon these privileges
altogether, and, for reasons which will presently be stated,
the surrender of these various American interests is out of
the question. In the new world order the United States
cannot hold off from the rest of the world. The policy of a
nation is determined by what it regards as its own vital
interests.
The New American Interests.— Wide scope of these
Some important interests in various parts interests.
of the world were acquired by the United States before the
war; others have been obtained or intensified as a result of
it. The scope and nature of these interests may best be
explained, perhaps, by grouping them under four main
heads, according to their general geographical location,
namely, Europe, Central and South America, the Far East,
and the Near East. It is not possible to arrange them in the
order of their relative importance, for only the future can
determine what this order of importance may turn out to be.
Certain it is, however, that in all four world-areas the
interests of the United States are of vast consequence not
only to the American people but to the cause of world peace
and prosperity. Above and beyond all, moreover, is the vital
interest of America in the maintenance of international amity.
Apart from the loss of life, America’s participation in the
World War cost the country, directly and indirectly, more than
thirty thousand million dollars. That is indeed a heavy price
to pay for helping to settle a quarrel which the United States
had no part in promoting. It surely requires no argument to
prove that America has a vital interest in avoiding another
such calamity.
America and Europe.—The war America’s interests
resulted in placing Great Britain, France, now extend to
Italy, and the other victorious countries everything that may
threaten peace.
of Europe under heavy obligations to the
United States. To a certain extent these obligations are
sentimental; in return for America’s help towards winning the
war the other victorious countries are under a natural
obligation to give the United States an adequate share in
determining the permanent conditions of peace. This they
have been willing to do; but it involves responsibilities which
the United States has shown no great willingness to accept.
The old tradition of non-interference in strictly European
affairs is still strong and this has led the American
government to distinguish, wherever possible, between
questions of local and of world-wide concern. The distinction,
however, is practically impossible to make. The boundaries of
some small European state may seem to be a matter of no
concern at Washington; but if a disagreement over this
question should bring once more a general European clash of
arms, the importance of the issue would speedily be
recognized. So long as the general preservation of world-
peace is among the primary interests of the United States, as
it seems bound to be, no menace to peace, anywhere, at any
time, can be lightly regarded by the people of America.
The Loans to Associated Nations.—But the war did not
result in the creation of sentimental obligations only.
Obligations of great importance and a tangible nature on the
part of Europe to America grew out of it. During the conflict
the United States loaned large sums of money to Great
Britain, France, Italy, Russia, and the other Associated
Powers.[298] These loans were made generously, in the midst
of a grave emergency; but nothing definite was arranged as
to when or how they should be repaid. How the loans were
In view of the disorganized conditions in made.
Europe created by the war no request for the payment of
interest was made by the United States during the conflict or
for some years after its close. In 1922, however, Congress
authorized the President to appoint a commission of five
persons to arrange with the European countries for the
funding of the debts by the issue of bonds. These bonds will
be given to the United States.
Now it must be reasonably clear to anyone who gives the
matter a moment’s thought that until these bonds are paid
off by the various European countries (which will be thirty or
forty years hence) the United States will be vitally interested
in what Washington called the “vicissitudes” of the Old
World. America, in effect, holds a America’s mortgage
mortgage on Europe, and it is the on Europe.
practice of mortgage-holders to keep a sharp eye on their
invested funds. Great Britain, France, and the other debtor
countries expect to redeem these loans, in considerable part,
out of reparation payments made to them by Germany. If
Germany does not pay them, it will be much harder for them
to pay America.[299] In this roundabout way, therefore, the
United States has acquired a tangible interest in the pledges
made by the German government.
America’s Interest in the Industrial Reconstruction
of Europe.—The sum total of America’s interest in the peace
and prosperity of Europe is not represented, however, by
these ten billion dollars of loans. The commercial relations of
the two continents have become so intimate that whatever is
an injury to the one is a detriment to the other. Europe is
America’s best customer. Our exports there are greater than
to all the rest of the world put together. Importance of
The farmer, the cotton grower, the Europe as a
manufacturer—all depend in part upon market.
the European market. There is not sufficient demand at
home for all the foodstuffs, materials, and manufactured
goods which the United States can now produce. The
European market, however, has been broken down as the
result of the long conflict and it is greatly to the interest of
the United States that it should be built up again. This can
only be done by keeping the world at peace until the
damage done by the war has been repaired. For that
commercial reason, if for no other, the United States cannot
well afford to remain entirely isolated from the rest of the
world.
The United States and Latin-America.—The relations
of the United States with most of the Latin-American states
have been at all times friendly. We have never been at war
with any of them except Mexico. When these various
countries revolted against Spanish control about a hundred
years ago, the people of the United States, remembering
their own experience, were in sympathy with them. The
announcement of the Monroe Doctrine was regarded by
Latin-America as an act of friendliness. And for more than a
century since that time the United States has served as a
protector to the sister republics of the southern continent.
When the War with Spain began in 1898 Congress
announced that the United States had no intention to annex
Cuba and this pledge, at the close of the war, was kept. Cuba
was given her independence. Naturally this evidence of good
faith made a strong and favorable impression upon the
Central and South American states.
With Mexico, however, relations have Relations with
not been cordial for several years. Ever Mexico.
since the invasion of their country by an American army in
1846 the Mexican people have been suspicious of American
aggression; but the relations between the two governments
remained cordial enough so long as President Diaz continued
in power south of the Rio Grande, which was from shortly
after the close of the American Civil War until well into the
twentieth century. Diaz ruled Mexico in the fashion of a
dictator; but he kept the country peaceful as well as on good
terms with the outside world. Since the expulsion of Diaz the
Mexicans have had several changes in the presidency and for
ten years the government has been denied recognition by
the United States. The successors of Diaz have professed
their desire to place the government of the country on a
truly democratic basis and to some extent they have
succeeded in doing so; but they have not managed to
maintain order and justice with a firm hand. Twice during the
past decade it has been deemed necessary to send American
troops into the country. The government of Mexico is
republican in form, but elections have not, as a rule, been
fairly conducted. The leaders who have control of the
government try to manipulate the elections so as to maintain
their own hold upon the country, and they usually succeed.
Between Mexico and the United States The situation today.
there are today no questions of great
importance in dispute. The United States is ready to
recognize the existing government of Mexico but only upon
condition that certain pledges are made in writing. These
include assurances that payments will be made by Mexico as
compensation for the lives and property of American citizens
destroyed during the troubles of the past ten years; that
there shall be no confiscating of property without legal
reason in the future; and that payments of interest on
Mexico’s foreign obligations shall be resumed. These do not
appear to be unreasonable conditions.
There are large American investments in Mexico,
particularly in the oil and mining districts. Some of those who
hold these investments would like to see the United States
intervene by force of arms, but it is quite unlikely that there
will be anything of the kind unless all other means of
securing the rights of Americans in Mexico prove unavailing.
The United States has a certain moral responsibility for the
good behavior of Mexico, even though the Mexican
government may not recognize the existence of such an
obligation. If the Monroe Doctrine gives Mexico and the
the United States the right to keep Monroe Doctrine.
European countries from interfering in Mexican affairs, even
when their citizens have been wronged, it may also be said
to carry the duty of seeing that Mexico does not abuse this
protectorship.
In the region of the Isthmus the Panama.
interests of the United States are
especially important because of the Canal. The Panama
Canal is not only of commercial but of military value to the
United States, and no serious disturbance of the peace in
this section of Central America can well be tolerated.
 Many years ago the United States The Pan-American
government made the suggestion that Congress.
from time to time a Pan-American Congress made up of
delegates from all the republics of the New World should be
held to discuss matters of common interest. The suggestion
was accepted and several Congresses have been held during
the past three decades. There has also been established at
Washington a Bureau of American Republics whose function
it is to carry out the resolutions of each Congress and to
spread information concerning the common interests of all
the countries.
The United States and the Far East.—In ordinary
usage the term “Far East” includes the Japanese and Chinese
empires, Siberia and the other Russian territories to the
north of China, and the Malay Archipelago to the south. Until
a quarter of a century ago the interests of the United States,
whether political or commercial, were relatively small in this
part of the world. But the acquisition of The Philippines.
the Philippines and the growth of
American trade with the Orient have combined to alter the
situation. Another factor which has impelled the United
States to pay greater attention to the Orient today is the
progress of Japan. The rapid growth of this empire in military
and naval strength means that the United States has a rival
for the mastery of the Pacific. During the nineteenth century
the eyes of America were turned entirely towards Europe; in
the twentieth they will have to be turned towards Asia as
well.
Apart from affairs in the Philippines China and Japan.
the problems of the Far East, so far as
the United States is concerned, center around two present-
day international phenomena, the weakness of China and the
strength of Japan. China is a vast country with at least three
or four times the population of the United States. Although
nominally a republic its government is weak, inefficient,
unable to exercise firm control over all parts of the country,