BOOKS.
" POST-BELLU3I" AMERICA.*
IT is clear that, independently of the normal and temporary ebullition due to the approach of a Presidential Election, American public opinion is being tossed to and fro on a sea of doubt. The masses may possibly still think that the United States, entrenched behind the Atlantic Ocean as a physical, and the Monroe Doctrine as a diplomatic barrier, can regard the issues of the present struggle with indifference, and delude themselves with the belief that it will not seriously affect the future of American social, commercial, and political life. But thinkers and well-informed politicians know better. Professor Usher r holds that • (1) The Challenge of the Future. By Boland 0. Usher, Ph.D. London : Con- Stable and Co. (7s. ed. net.)—(2) Germany versus Civilisation. By William Roscoe Thayer. Same publishers. (4s. 6d. net.)--(3) Aloderniting the Monroe Doctrine. By Charles IL Sherrill. Same publishers. [Ca. net.]—(4) Japanese Rxpansion and American Politic,. By James Francis Abbott. Ph.D. London : ana Co. 10s. Gd. neLl the war " is transforming the United States and altering every factor of consequence in our [the American] national frame." Mr. Thayer' dwells on " the doom which awaits Civilisation unless Staler is crushed," and he adds : " We Americans must not be lulled into inaction by the belief that this Titanic struggle does not and cannot concern us." Mr. Sherrill,3 who was formerly United States Minister in Argentina, is of opinion that an admirable opportunity now presents itself for making a clean sweep of all European influence both in North and South America. Mr. Abbott,* who is principally concerned with the relations between the United States and Japan, thinks it " very doubtful " whether the former Power will be able to continue her traditional policy of isola- tion. Any one who fails to see the interest which America has in the present war must, indeed, be smitten with political blindness. Let the Allies be vanquished, and not only American institutions, but also American independence, will not be worth ten years' purchase. Have not many of those learned Professors, who have been called, not without reason, " the wisest fools in Christendom," who form the Uhlans of German thought, and who prepare the way for the advent of battalions of sturdy Pomeranian grenadiers, pronounced very definitely that the South American Republics must certainly be garnered into the German fold, and that the complete Germanization of North America is written in the book of fate It would be presumptuous for any dweller on this side of the Atlantio to proffer advice as to how the Government and people of the United States should act in present circumstances, but no English politician can fail to watch with deep interest the development of those cross- currents which are now rending American public opinion asunder. Moreover, inasmuch as by the common consent of most American writers the various schemes which they advance depend for their execution in a great measure on the policy adopted by the British Government and nation, he may hazard some conjectures as to how those schemes are likely to strike his own countrymen. The latter is, apparently, a point on which some misapprehension exists. in America.
American controversy ranges mainly round the merits and demerits of the Monroe Doctrine. Is it a boo n or a curse to the country ? Should it be maintained, and even strengthened, or should it be either modified or abandoned altogether ? This discussion necessarily leads to a consideration of Pan-Americanism, the parent of which the Monroe Doctrine was the offspring. Professor Usher and Mr. Sherrill may probably be taken as representing the two extremes of opinion on these subjects. Inasmuch as they start from diametrically opposite premisses, it is natural that their conclusions should differ widely. Mr. Sherrill begins by saying : " I believe in Pan-Americanism and its great future." Professor Usher, on the other hand, derides and condemns the Pan- American conception. There can scarcely be a doubt as to the aide in this controversy to which the balance of argument leans. We can understand Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism. They connote that the Germans and the Slays respectively are alleged to be united together by certain common bonds, linguistic, racial, in some cases religious, and in others economic. But what is Pan-Americanism ? It is a mere meaningless expression which describes a thing that does not exist. No one in Europe would talk of Pan-Europeanism. Why, therefore, should Americans speak of Pan-Americanism ? A moment's reflection will suffice to show that all the fundamental relations between North and South America point to mutual repulsion rather than to mutual attraction. It is quite conceivable that we should never have heard of the word if, in an unfortunate moment, a sixteenth-century German Professor (Waldseemiiller) had not given to the whole of the Western World a misleading title borrowed from the name of Americus Vespuccius.
From the starting-point that the Pan-American idea is based on a complete fallacy, Professor Usher naturally arrives at the conclusion that, if the Monroe Doctrine be not altogether abrogated, its application should be strictly limited to Central America and to the Gulf of Mexico.. Outside these regions, he considers the political creation of Monroe " a most dangerous possession." No one knows precisely what it means. American statesmen are " afraid to define it, afraid to use it, and afraid to discard it." It is not, Professor Usher thinks, the Monroe Doctrine itself, but the strength of the British Fl t which has preserved the integrity of both North and South Aca. " British naval supremacy has been for three centuries the basis o the relations between North America and Europe." Professor Usher holds that America can no longer maintain a policy of isolation. " Isolation, based upon an anachronism and an anomaly, is a living international falsehood." There must be " a definite and constructive American foreign policy." The " corner-stone " of that policy should be a close alliance with Great Britain. Simultaneously, the naval and military strength of the United States should be greatly increased. Incidentally it may be remarked, as a curious feature in the execution of this programme, that, at a moment when some Englishmen are disposed to extol American diplomatic methods, and to condemn the alleged " secret diplomacy " of the Old World, Professor Usher advocates a complete transformation of American methods, and pleads that the American public must be led to understand that " secrecy is the essence of negotiation."
Mr. Sherrill, on the other hand, holds that American policy has always been " idealistically altruistic," and that no more convincing proof of its altruism can be found than in the steadfast maintenance
and the extension of the Monroe Doctrine. He dwells on the fact that " foreign loans and credit to European nations are being floated in the United States as never before." He thinks that it would be a " graceful recognition " on the part of the nations of Europe of all that America " is doing, and will do, for them " if they were to abandon the whole of their American possessions. These possessions are not to be absorbed into the great American Republic. They are all alike— Canada, the Guianas, the Falkland Islands, British Honduras, and presumably all the West Indian Islands, though to these last Mr. 'Sherrill makes no specific allusion—to become independent and, in some cases, confederated States. The chief sacrifices will, of course, fall on Great Britain, who, in return, is to receive " a share of the Philippines," with the prospect of " making some arrangements touching them with Japan." The great South American Republics are to be drawn closer together. French Guiana is apparently to be consigned to Brazil. Dutch and British Guiana, together with Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador, are to form " a splendid con- federation." The Falkland Islands are to be "freed from British role," and are to fall to Argentina. Mr. Sherrill concludes by saying that " out of the melting-pot of the great European War blessings have already come." France and Russia have been regenerated. British patriotism " has flamed up as never before in the memory of living men." Should not the citizens of the United States, therefore, not " take thought of the Spirit of their Nation," and contribute this further blessing to a stricken world—namely, that they should " join the crusade for progressive Pan-Americanism " ?
The obstacles in the way of carrying Mr. Sherrill's far-reaching programme into execution are many and formidable. Perhaps the most formidable is the fact that any British Ministry which entertained his somewhat fantastic proposals would receive short shrift at the hands of their countrymen. Why should we accept a white elephant in the shape of " a share of the Philippines " ? We do not in the least want either a share or the whole of those islands. Why should Canada be moved to declare its independence at a moment when both British and Canadian public opinion show a strong disposition for cementing a closer union between the Canadian Dominion and the Mother Country ? Why should the minor British possessions in America have complete independence, for which they are quite unfit, forced on them ? Why should the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, which excites Mr. Sherrill's special wrath, be denounced without any adequate advantage accruing to Great Britain from its denunciation ? Mr. Sherrill will have to find better answers to these questions than are contained in his book before he will be able to obtain British adherence to his ambitious programme. But perhaps the best answer to Mr. Sherrill's suggestions is conveyed in the words of his countryman, Professor Usher, who says that " the traditional policy of the United States has been to insist upon privileges from European Powers without an apparent appreciation of the effort requisite to secure their concession."
Mr. Sherrill also appears to be under a complete delusion as to the views generally entertained by Englishmen in respect to the attitude adopted by the United States Government during the war. British public opinion has recently been very accurately described by Mr. James Beck. On this side of the Atlantic we amply appreciate the sympathy Mown for us by the majority of the American people. The noble Address to the Allied Nations, which was signed by five hundred of the deepest thinkers in America, and in which it was said " Our judgment supports your cause, and our sympathies and our hopes are with you in this struggle," can never be forgotten. Englishmen, indeed, have smiled at Mr. Wilson's tactless statement about being " too proud to fight," and they have thought that the view he expressed that the United States had no concern in the causes and objects of the war reached the high-water mark of political ineptitude and blindness. But incidents such as these have in no way seriously estranged British public opinion. Unofficial America and a section of the American Press have saved the situation. We may have thought that the fact that we and our Allies are fighting the cause of America was possibly not sufficiently appreciated, but we were quite willing to accept the argument that there must be adequate local reasons which have dictated the broad lines of policy a dopted by the United States Government. Sentiment and the ties of kinship exercise on this side of the Atlantic a more potent influence than is perhaps sometimes fully understood in America. On the other hand, although any proposal which the United States Government might make somewhat in the direction of that suggested by Professor Usher, and which would tend to strengthen the bonds of friendship between the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race, would certainly be considered with the utmost care and sympathy, we cannot recognize that the services which we have received from America during the present crisis of our national fate are of a nature to require from us the stupendous sacrifices which
Previous page
