Pan-American Diplomacy

COUNT DE ARANDA, Spanish ambassador in Paris, in announcing to Charles III. the treaty of peace and independence of the British-American colonies, used this prophetic language : —

“ This federal republic is born a pygmy. A day will come when it will be a giant, even a Colossus, formidable to these countries. . . . In a few years we shall watch with grief the tyrannical existence of this same Colossus.”

Of all the statesmen of Europe, he seems to have realized most fully the significance of this event, and especially the influence it was destined to have upon the Spanish dominions in America. He advised King Charles to transform the Spanish colonies in America into three great empires : one embracing all the possessions in North America, with Mexico as a centre ; one in the southern part of South America, with Peru as its seat of power ; and the other on the Spanish Main, grouping the viceroyalties of the northern half of that continent, — each empire to be ruled by a member of the Spanish royal family. He proposed that the king should assume the title of Emperor, that the new sovereigns should intermarry with the Bourbon families, and that each of them should pay an annual tribute into the Spanish treasury. Thus this farseeing statesman sought to satisfy the spirit of independence which must be awakened in the western hemisphere, to resist the contagion of republican principles, and to attach to the Spanish throne by ties of consanguinity and mutual interest the vast territory then under Spanish domination.

At that time it embraced nearly forty-six per cent of the area of the hemisphere ; Portugal possessed twenty-one per cent, and the new republic of the United States only five per cent. Before a generation had passed the leaven of republicanism had begun to work in the Spanish-American colonies, within half a century they had followed the example of the British colonies and established their independence, and our day has witnessed the fulfillment of Aranda’s prophecy in the complete expulsion of Spanish authority from this half of the world.

The influence of the United States, so potent in bringing about the overthrow of Spanish dominion in this hemisphere, has continued throughout the entire existence of the Latin-American republics. This influence has been at all times very marked ; usually of a friendly and beneficent character, but often misinterpreted and not always on our part distinguished by disinterested and honorable conduct. A citation of some of the leading events of the past seventy-five years respecting the relations of the United States with the other American republics will give emphasis to these statements.

During their prolonged and sanguinary struggle for independence they looked anxiously and impatiently for recognition from our government, whose principles they had embraced, whose Constitution they had adopted as a model, and on whose favor they confidently relied. Mr. Clay championed their cause with eloquence and great urgency, but the conservative policy of President Monroe’s administration led to much delay in the realization of the hoped-for recognition. The purchase of Louisiana had rendered necessary the acquisition of Florida ; and a century ago the power of Spain made her a formidable opponent for the young and still feeble republic. Florida was finally secured, by peaceful negotiations, in 1821, —an event which John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, characterized as the most important achievement of his life.

That event removed the chief embarrassment to recognition, and it soon followed, to the great satisfaction of the Spanish republics as well as of our own people, who had no sympathy with the delay of the administration.

The achievement of independence by these countries had a direct influence on the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine, which was hailed with great delight by them. But they were soon destined to serious disappointment, when they sought to have what they regarded as its principles put into execution. The Panama Congress of the American States, in 1826, was the inspiration of Bolivar, the South American liberator. It had for its object the union of these nations in the organization of an army and navy to resist the encroachments of the Holy Alliance, and in securing the freedom and independence of the remaining Spanish-American colonies. When the United States was invited to send delegates, our government was given to understand that it need not participate in the armed measures, but would be asked to unite in a declaration against European interference in American affairs, to consider measures for the suppression of the slave trade, and to recognize the negro republic of Hayti. The proposal of President Adams to send delegates evoked a bitter debate in Congress, in which the Monroe Doctrine was fully discussed and the rising spirit of slavery propagandism was manifested.

After much delay the delegates were finally appointed ; but the Panama Congress had adjourned before their arrival, and its objects failed largely because of the hesitating conduct of the United States. These new republics met with a further disappointment in the declaration of the House of Representatives on the scope of the Monroe Doctrine, in consenting to the appointment of the delegates. It was as follows: “In the opinion of this House. . . . the United States . . . ought not to form any alliance . . . with all or any of the South American republics ; nor ought they to become parties with them ... to any joint declaration for the purpose of preventing the interference of any of the European powers with their independence or form of government, or to any compact for the purpose of preventing colonization upon the continents of America, but that the people of the United States should be left free to act in any crisis, in such manner as their feelings of friendship towards these republics or as their own honor and policy may at the time dictate.” This must be accepted as a proper statement of the policy which should guide our government in the application of the Monroe Doctrine ; but it created an unfavorable impression in the Spanish-American countries, and was interpreted as evincing an indisposition to treat with them upon a basis of equality.

What may be termed the middle period of our country’s history was characterized by a spirit either of indifference or of outright unfriendliness toward the other American republics. It includes the aggressive colonization of Texas and its separation from Mexico through the action of American settlers ; the unjustifiable war with Mexico and the spoliation of one half its territory ; the rampant spirit of slavery extension, which permitted the filibustering expeditions of Walker and others from our shores against the Central American states ; the famous Ostend Manifesto, which declared if Spain would not sell us Cuba for a fair price we should be justified “by every law, human and divine, ” in taking it by force. These are dark pages in our history, and it is not to be wondered at that the countries to the south of us should have contracted feelings of suspicion or hostility, which a generation and more of better conduct has hardly obliterated. Our excuse is that the government was bewitched by the demon of slavery, and our hope is that, chastened by the terrible ordeal of the Civil War, we emerged with a proper spirit of fraternity toward our sister republics.

It is gratifying to note that the relations of the United States with them since that period have been of a much more honorable and friendly character, notwithstanding the action of the government has not in all cases been interpreted in a favorable light. Though inspired in part by motives of self-interest, the interposition of the United States to bring about the withdrawal of the French forces from Mexico, which resulted in the overthrow of Maximilian, made it manifest that the Monroe Doctrine was not a defunct nor useless pronunciamento, but a vital force sufficient to reëstablish republican government in Mexico. In the case of Venezuela the interposition of the United States was free from every imputation of self-interest, and the check then given to the expansive spirit in the British colonial possessions was the most significant indication that our government stands ready to interpose its powerful influence when it is satisfied that a European nation is infringing upon the territorial rights of even the weaker of the American republics. That act has done much to satisfy them that the United States is sincere in its advocacy of the doctrine, even when its own interests are not immediately involved.

In a number of instances our government has departed from the strict line of impartial neutrality in times of civil disorder, to favor republican principles when threatened by undue European influence or monarchical tendencies. On the eve of our Civil War, when Mexico was torn by internal dissensions and the clerical party was supported by the open sympathy of the European monarchies, the administration of President Buchanan did not hesitate to recognize Juarez as the legitimate ruler, and our navy at Vera Cruz was able, without any overt act of war, to render material aid to the liberal cause. Also during the administration of Lincoln and up to the close of the French intervention, relations were maintained exclusively with the Juarez government, and Maximilian’s envoys were refused recognition.

A more recent manifestation of the manner in which the sympathy of the United States may be made effective in support of republican principles on this hemisphere was seen during the attempt of the royalists to reëstablish the monarchy of Brazil, in 1893-94. The opponents of the newly established republic gained possession of the Brazilian navy and held undisputed possession of the harbor of Rio Janeiro. A squadron of the United States navy was ordered to that port, to observe the progress of affairs. The American admiral found the commanders of the European squadrons in sympathy with the reactionary movement. The revolted Brazilian admiral proposed to establish a blockade of the port. The American admiral alone protested, in the interest of foreign commerce, and threatened to prevent it by the exercise of force against the Brazilian navy. The latter had to desist from its purpose. The republican government was thereby greatly encouraged and strengthened in its hold upon power, and the revolt soon after collapsed.

But not always in recent years has our government found it possible to maintain a friendly attitude toward the southern republics. A case in point is the relations with Chile. Pursuing a uniform policy of maintaining friendly relations with the established government, the United States, up to the overthrow of Balmaceda, recognized him as the legitimate President ; and during the civil war in that country we were compelled, in the enforcement of the neutrality laws, to frustrate some of the plans of the revolutionists for securing warlike materials in this country. When the latter succeeded to power, they manifested their unfriendly feeling toward the United States by the attack of the populace of Valparaiso on the sailors of our navy. This led to the firm attitude of President Harrison, heartily supported by Congress, which brought about an apology from the Chilean government and compensation to the families of the murdered and maimed sailors. Our government could not have done less and retain the respect of other nations, but its action has left a feeling of resentment in Chile.

This feeling is the more deep-seated because of an occurrence a few years before, when we unwittingly gave that country a ground of complaint. The war between Chile, Peru, and Bolivia, in 1881, brought about an unpleasant state of relations between the United States and Chile, the victorious party, because of the effort of Secretary Blaine to save Peru from some of the harsh terms exacted for peace. To facilitate this effort Secretary Blaine dispatched two special envoys to Peru and Chile, with instructions which, if followed to the letter, would have brought about a suspension of diplomatic intercourse with Chile, and possibly have led to more serious consequences. But before the envoys could execute their instructions a change in the State Department occurred, occasioned by the death of President Garfield, and the new Secretary, Mr. Frelinghuysen, so modified the instructions as to deprive them of their hostile character. Mr. Blaine’s purpose was to interpose the good offices of the United States to save Peru from her cruel fate, but his unsolicited intervention was a cause of offense to Chile.

Repeated instances have shown that the United States cannot presume upon its disinterested friendship nor upon any supposed primacy on this hemisphere to intrude its counsel on two or more disputant American republics. The weaker or defeated party may welcome the intervention, but the stronger power is apt to resent it as an intrusion. Mr. Blaine instructed our minister in Mexico, in 1881, to tender our good offices in a boundary controversy between Mexico and Guatemala, which seemed to threaten hostilities. Guatemala welcomed the offer, but it was respectfully but firmly declined by Mexico. So also any suggestion that our system of laws or jurisprudence is better than theirs is not kindly received. An American was arrested, a few years ago, across the line in Mexico, for a libel published in the United States. Secretary Bayard insisted that, under the common law, the offender should be tried in the district where the offense was committed. But the Mexican government held that he had offended against the civil law, which prevailed in Mexico, and having voluntarily come within its jurisdiction he must be tried by that code. It was of no avail that the Secretary sent a special envoy to the City of Mexico and that an investigation was had by Congress.

In one class of international questions, at least, the United States has pursued a consistent and conciliatory course toward the other American republics. Nothing has been such a perennial source of trouble for them as the claims of foreigners. This was the foundation or avowed cause of the tripartite intervention in Mexico in 1861, which led to the coming of Maximilian and the temporary overthrow of the republican government. Yesterday witnessed the dispatch of a British fleet to Nicaragua to enforce the money claim of a subject. To-day an Italian cruiser visits a Colombian port to support the broken contract of a subject. And tomorrow a German squadron may seize the custom houses of Venezuela to compensate a German railroad company whose accounts are disputed by the government with which it voluntarily entered into a contract.

The United States does not abandon the just claims of its citizens, but often presents them with much diplomatic persistency, and usually succeeds in bringing about a satisfactory settlement. But when diplomatic resources are exhausted, our country does not adopt the tactics so often resorted to by European governments against the weaker American republics. Force gives place to arbitration, and in a score and more of instances American citizens have been required by their government to accept that method of settlement.

This government has shown still greater consideration for the sensibilities of its neighbors. In repeated instances where American citizens have been awarded large sums upon claims presented on their behalf by their government, it has not hesitated to reopen the awards or refuse to enforce them when it has been made to appear that they were tainted with fraud. In the case of Venezuela, corruption on the part of the American officials connected with the arbitration was suspected ; and though awards in favor of our citizens for large sums had been rendered, Congress, upon the suggestion of the State Department, set aside the whole proceeding, and by a new arbitration Venezuela was saved from the payment of fraudulent claims to a considerable amount. A similar proceeding has recently occurred respecting Mexico, and by the voluntary action of the United States over a million dollars has been returned to her, which represented certain dishonest claims presented by our government, without knowledge of their character, to the arbitration tribunal, whose award, the treaty prescribed, should be final and conclusive.

Almost every one of the American republics has profited by this sense of equity and honorable dealing on the part of the United States respecting private claims. Notable instances not already named are those in the case of Peru, Brazil, and Hayti, which need not be narrated in detail. In contrast with what has so often been the arbitrary conduct of European nations, the action of the United States in this respect has not failed to create a favorable impression among the other American states.

Since the Congress of Panama various efforts have been made to unite the American republics in some general line of policy. In 1883 the representatives of a number of the Spanish-American states assembled at Caracas, and another conference was held at Buenos Ayres ; but the most notable of these assemblages was the Pan-American Conference which met in Washington in 1889—90. It was the first time that the representatives of all the independent nations of this hemisphere had come together.¹ The invitation to attend was issued by the President of the United States, and it is a marked illustration of the influence of this government that it received a favorable and unanimous response. The two subjects most prominently brought to the attention of this conference were arbitration and the improvement in the commercial relations between the American states, but various other matters received consideration, such as the establishment of steamship lines, an intercontinental railway, a uniform system of customs regulations, of weights and measures, of consular fees, and of sanitary regulations, and the establishment of a monetary union.

On all of these subjects formal reports were made, and on most of them the draughts of treaties or distinct recommendations for the action of the participating nations were adopted. It is discouraging, however, to those who hope for a better union or coöperation among the American republics, to record the fact that all these projects failed of realization, with one exception, — the establishment of the Bureau of the American Republics, for the dissemination of commercial and other information respecting these countries.

The limits of this article will not permit of a detailed discussion of the causes of this failure, but it may be well to make some comment on one subject. Before doing so a useful result of the conference may be noted. One of the most distinguished and experienced of its members, the late Señor Romero, of Mexico, in a review of the work of the conference, wrote : “ Almost all of the Latin-American nations came to Washington with a fear that the United States intended to dictate to them by reason of its great power and its material superiority ; and they went back satisfied that, so far from this being the case, this country had only sentiments of respect and consideration for her sister republics, and that its aim had simply been to accomplish what was of mutual advantage to all, she acting on the same footing as the smallest of the nations represented.”

The subject most discussed and which evoked the greatest feeling in the conference was that of compulsory arbitration, and the proceedings on this question developed some of the reasons why a more perfect union or harmony among these states was difficult of realization. Chile and the Argentine Republic are the most progressive and important of the South American countries. Their governments, upon the whole, have been well managed, and their financial credit well sustained abroad. They are both ambitious of power, and had developed much antagonism because of boundary disputes. Chile also had controversies with Peru, growing out of their late war. The five Central American states had a long-standing source of trouble in the effort made on the part of some and resisted by others of them to form or compel a single confederate nation. Costa Rica and Colombia also had a controversy arising out of their frontier line. The same cause of difference existed between Mexico and Guatemala, and it had more than once approached the brink of war.

The conference threatened dissolution without result because of the arbitration controversy. Mr. Blaine, then Secretary of State, who had been conspicuous in calling the conference and deeply interested in its success, personally exerted all his influence and persuasive powers to secure harmony of action. But he was only able to bring a bare majority of the republics to agree to the arbitration treaty ; and the important states of Mexico, Argentina, and Chile, with other of the smaller ones, declined to commit themselves to the project. The effect of this dissidence was the failure of the arbitration scheme, as none of the governments whose delegates signed the treaty ever ratified it.

Twelve years after the adjournment of this conference a second one was held, and it has only recently concluded its labors in the City of Mexico. After an agreement respecting the call for the conference had been reached by the diplomatic representatives of the American republics, resident in Washington, the invitation was issued by the President of Mexico, and, after some hesitation on the part of Chile, it was accepted by all of the independent nations on this hemisphere. Their delegates assembled in the City of Mexico in October last, and continued in session through January. As in the Washington conference, the subject of compulsory arbitration gave rise to the most animated discussion, and for a time threatened to break up the sessions ; but happily, at the last, a pacific though not unanimous agreement was reached.

The action of the conference on the subject of arbitration has a threefold character. It was unanimously decided that all the American republics should become parties to the conventions concluded at the Hague in 1899, including that for arbitration, which, as is well known, is purely voluntary on the part of the signatory powers. The adhesion of the American nations is to be made through the good offices of either the United States or Mexico, which were the two governments of this hemisphere participating in the Hague conference and signatory parties to the conventions. In addition to this, ten of the nineteen nations represented at the City of Mexico united in the project of a treaty, to be ratified by their respective governments, providing for compulsory arbitration of all controversies which, in the judgment of any of the interested nations, do not affect either their independence or national honor ; and it is prescribed that in independence and national honor are not included controversies concerning diplomatic privileges, limits, rights of navigation, or the validity, interpretation, and fulfillment of treaties. Mexico became a party to this project, but the United States declined ; thus showing an entire change of attitude on the part of these two nations since the Washington conference of 1890. Mexico had in the meantime adjusted its boundary dispute with Guatemala. But since Mr. Blaine’s ardent advocacy of compulsory arbitration the Senate of the United States had manifested its opposition to the policy by the rejection of the OlneyPauncefote arbitration treaty of 1897, and it is to be inferred that the Secretary of State did not think it wise to commit our government to a measure which had been disapproved of by the coördinate branch of the treaty-making power.

The third provision of the conference respecting arbitration related to the subject of claims. It was resolved to submit to the arbitration court organized under the Hague convention all controversies that may arise among the governments of America on account of the claims of private individuals for indemnities and damages where they amount to a sum sufficient to justify the reference. This action was characterized by Señor Mariscal, the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs, in his address closing the conference, as the most important triumph of that body, as he attributed to questions of this class the most frequent cause of controversies between the countries of this hemisphere. His commendation of the measure is well founded, if, upon examination, it shall prove that the project has properly provided for the method of submission and the composition of the tribunal.

Treaties were likewise agreed upon respecting a number of other important matters, including extradition and protection against anarchy, patents and trademarks, literary and artistic copyright, the exchange of official, scientific, and literary publications, and the exercise of the learned professions. A recommendation was made for the establishment of a Pan-American bank, and resolutions were adopted for the holding of conferences to consider customs regulations for facilitating commercial relations ; for the construction of an intercontinental north and south railway, utilizing existing lines ; for the agreement upon sanitary measures and the establishment of a permanent international sanitary board ; and for the exchange of statistics and samples of natural and manufactured products. Important principles were also enunciated as to the rights of foreigners, and a commission was decided upon to frame a code of public and private international law, which, when sanctioned, should be recognized throughout the hemisphere.

In order to provide against the failure to carry out these desirable measures, such as followed the decisions of the conference of 1890, a resolution was adopted for the convocation of a PanAmerican Conference within five years, which after that interval might consider anew the questions, remedy defects, and overcome the causes for failure. In officially closing the conference the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs said : “It is possible the results obtained may not come up to what an enthusiastic Pan-American had been led to expect. But they are enough, and more than enough, to prevent any one of you going away disappointed. . . . May the aims for which this conference was convened serve to confirm and strengthen your love of peace, fraternity, and justice ; and may these sentiments, placed at the service of your several nations, guide their policies, making them happy in themselves and happy in the reflected happiness of all their sister republics, whether great or small. ”

It is certainly a source of congratulation to all the friends of peace and good government in America that such valuable results as those enumerated have been secured, and that elements so discordant could be brought to an agreement upon many important questions. Doubtless all the projects will not be immediately realized, but it is a great step toward continental concord that such a conference has been held, and it does mark an advance in republican government and fraternity. A fair degree of credit for this result is due to the Secretary of State and the delegates from the United States. The power of our nation and its greater prosperity and success in government naturally led the other nations to defer much to its line of conduct, and its moderate attitude on arbitration prevented Chile and Chilean sympathizers from causing an open rupture.

But no less credit is due the Mexican government and its very capable delegation. Holding views on arbitration more in harmony with the majority of the delegates, it was able to restrain their action, and, joining with the United States in a conservative policy, it contributed greatly to the final adjustment of that troublesome question. Its delegates were also better adapted to gain the sympathy of the members of the conference ; speaking the language of most of them, being of the same religious, social, and racial tendencies, they afforded no cause for jealousy or sinister designs. The presence in the City of Mexico of the delegates from Central and South America gave them a constant object lesson of great value. Here was a country of Spanish-American origin, which, after half a century of independent existence, the victim of constantly recurring revolutions, had abruptly turned upon its past history and made a record of twenty-five years of peace and orderly government. As a consequence, it was in the enjoyment of unparalleled prosperity and development. It pointed these delegates the way to a solution of all their troubles.

The construction of an isthmian interoceanic canal has an important relation to the other American republics, and more especially those through whose territory it may pass. For half a century our government has been hampered in the realization of this great enterprise by treaty relations with Great Britain ; but having released itself from European embarrassments, it is now addressing itself to perfecting satisfactory arrangements with the countries of Central America in or adjacent to which the canal may be located. It proposes to construct the canal at its exclusive cost, taking all the risks of its practicability and profit, and upon completion to throw it open to the commerce of the world on terms of equality. Notwithstanding the assumption of these burdens, it proposes to pay to the government through whose territory the canal may pass a liberal compensation for the right of way. Neither does it seek any territorial aggrandizement, or other privileges than such as are absolutely necessary for the proper maintenance, control, and preservation of this valuable and important property. To this end, it is understood, negotiations are in progress to obtain a lease, perpetual or for a long term of years, for the strip of land through which the canal passes, with the right of police and judicial control. Such privileges do not derogate materially from the sovereignty of the nation in whose territory the canal shall be constructed, but, on the other hand, confers upon it valuable pecuniary benefits, and guarantees the peace and security of the locality. Such conduct is in marked contrast with that of its great commercial rival, Great Britain. That government allowed the Suez Canal to be built by a private company, with capital largely contributed by the people of other nations, although the enterprise was to be mainly for the benefit of its own commerce and its possessions. When the canal was shown to be an engineering success and a profitable investment, it purchased a controlling interest in the stock ; and then, in order to make sure of connection through the canal with its imperial domain and for its navy, in time of peace and war, it took violent military possession of the entire country in which the canal is located, and still continues as overlord.

The foregoing review of the relations of the United States with the other republics of the Americas presents no such record of self-aggrandizement or of disregard of national rights, and yet their estimate of us has not always been free from jealousy or suspicion. Neither are our commercial relations with them upon a satisfactory basis. There are several reasons for this, two of the leading ones being the lack of frequent and direct communication and the absence of satisfactory tariff arrangements. Much might be done to overcome the first if our government would give greater encouragement to the establishment of steamship lines, and the second if satisfactory reciprocity treaties could be made.

Social intercourse is apt to follow commerce. With Mexico, since the opening of the various railroad lines, we have established both a large commerce and fairly intimate financial and social relations ; but with the other countries we have little trade and less social intercourse. There are good reasons for this fact. Aside from the similarity of our systems of government, we possess little in common with Latin America. The people have a different language, religion, and historical association. Their government loans, financial exchanges, and banking are with Europe ; their steamship communication is most frequent with the ports of that continent, and the tide of travel turns thither. Much of this may be changed by us with the development of greater commercial relations, but not wholly overcome.

There is also a reason of a personal character which has operated to our disadvantage with the Latin - American countries. Too little attention has been given to the fitness of the diplomatic and consular representatives sent to them by our government. It is a calumny to state, as has been charged, that the Spanish-American countries have been made the Botany Bay of broken-down American politicians ; but it is true that the diplomatic posts on this hemisphere are not so much sought after, nor has the government exercised as much care in filling them, as those in Europe. This does not grow out of the fact of lower salaries, as Congress has treated them on an equality. For instance, the ambassador to Mexico receives the same salary as one to London or Paris ; and because of the fact that Mexico is on a silver basis the salary is of more intrinsic value. The salary of the minister to Brazil is the same as that of the ambassador to Italy ; that of the minister to Colombia or Peru equal to that of the envoy to Belgium, and greater than that of the envoy to Sweden or Greece. Señor Romero, in referring to some of the disadvantages under which the delegates of the United States labored in the Pan-American Conference at Washington, states that not one of the ten delegates could speak the Spanish language. It is a rare instance that a person when appointed minister or consul to a Spanish-American country has any knowledge of the language, and usually he has had no diplomatic experience. Our country will not exert the influence in Latin America that it should until greater attention is given to the appointment of ministers and consuls fitted for their posts.

But with all its shortcomings and mistakes the policy of our government toward the other American nations has been one of friendship, seeking more intimate relations, both commercial and social. The spirit which actuates it today cannot be better stated than in the language of Secretary Hay in a recent public address, as follows : “I think I may say that our sister republics to the south of us are perfectly convinced of the sincerity of our attitude. They know we desire the prosperity of each of them. We no more want their territory than we covet the mountains of the moon. We are grieved and distressed when there are differences among them ; but even then we should never think of trying to compose any of those differences unless by the request of both parties to it. Not even our earnest desire for peace among them will lead us to any action which might offend their national dignity or their just sense of independence. We owe them all the consideration which we claim for ourselves.”

John W. Foster.