THE 'VENEZUELAN DISPUTE.
THEdispute between England and the United States over the Venezuela boundary question, is a very dis- agreeable and unfortunate one ; but it does not mean war or any real risk of war. War between England and the United States is civil war, and neither branch of the Anglo-Saxon race is going to shed brothers' blood for a mile or two of barren mountains in Guiana. Whatever else happens, that will not. Even if the cannon were ready to fire, and the gunner's hand on the lever, there would be in the end no war, for on each side of the Atlantic there are millions of quiet, plain, undemon- strative men who would forbid the outrage, and de- clare that come what may, humiliation or no humiliation, right or wrong, there should be no war. But though in the long-run we are not afraid of war, we detest more than we can say the spectacle of the two great English nations flinging ink at each other, and shaking fists in each other's face before an amused and cynical world. "So much for their precious theory that blood is thicker than water," sneers the Frenchman, and all Europe titters. Fortunately, our newspapers have not replied ; but the American Press has been full of false and ridiculous rumours, and heady commentaries on obviously impossible facts. All this is not only most disagreeable to those who, like ourselves, feel the sense of kinship strongly, but also does material harm to the growth of a good understanding between the two countries. No doubt newspaper articles matter very little in one sense, still it is to be feared that in the present case they have awakened a good deal of ill- feeling, and that vaguely and indefinitely a large section of the people of the United States have been made to feel that somehow or other England is doing them an injury, and infringing their claim to prevent any extension of European dominion in the two Americas.
Let us try to see what truth, if any, there is in this contention that we are infringing the Monroe doctrine. In the first place, it must be remembered that we have two distinct disputes pending with Venezuela. One con- cerns the boundary, the other our demand that Venezuela shall apologise and make reparation for an injury done to British subjects by soldiers of the Republic. Now, it is admitted that, in regard to the second of these—the de- mand for apology and reparation—the United States has no sort of locus standi for interference. America does not, and never has, claimed to prevent the European Powers from exercising that essential right of sovereignty, —the right to demand and obtain reparation. If America made such a claim, she knows that she would have to take upon her the responsibility for all the stupid and illegal things done by the semi-civilised States which make up Central and South America. The -United States then, can only be concerned with the boundary-line dispute. Here, no doubt, granted that the Monroe doctrine is admitted, she might claim to influence the settlement ; for she might say tous,—‘ Your claim that the Venezuelans have entered your territory, is answered by their assertion that you have entered theirs. But if their claim is correct, as it may be for all we know, then you would be extending your boundaries at the expense of the Republic, and that again would be increasing your territory on the American con- tinent by fresh annexations, and so contrary to the Monroe doctrine. Hence, in a boundary dispute, we claim the right to intervene, and see that our resolve to prevent fresh annexations is respected.' There is, of course, an easy answer to this,—namely, that there is no such thing known to International Law as the Monroe doctrine, and that by citing the message of President Monroe the United States cannot give herself any special right of interference. We have, however, no desire to take up this attitude. We personally, and we believe most thoughtful Englishmen, respect and approve of the essential principle of the Monroe doctrine, and by no means desire to challenge it or to prevent its being carried into operation. We do not want to add to our possessions in America, and therefore are perfectly willing not to dis- pute when America gives us notice that she will consider herself injured if we try to increase them. Let us then argue the case as if the Monroe doctrine were a part of the law of nations. Does that admission give America the right to protest against our claim to insist upon the Schomburgk line ? Most assuredly not ; and for this very good reason. The boundary-line was in dispute long before Canning suggested to the Americans the estab- lishment of the Monroe doctrine. What we claimed now we claimed then. Hence, unless we are to suppose that the Monroe doctrine has an ex post facto operation, the dispute as to the boundary-line between Venezuela and what was once Dutch Guiana cannot possibly concern the Americans. That is an argument which ought to affect the Americans more than any other nation, for they have absolutely excluded ex post facto legislation from their polity by forbidding its use by the State Legislatures. But this may be said to be a legal subtlety. Let those who think so read the text of President Monroe's famous message, and they will not be able to help the conclusion that the President never dreamt that the doctrine he was enunciating could be applied to a boundary dispute that even then had been pending for a quarter of a century. The Monroe doctrine could only help the contention of the United States in the present case if Great Britain were to annex, or to contemplate annexing, territory beyond what she claimed before the promulgation of the message. But there is no sort of assertion that she has been increasing and expanding her claim. Right or wrong, the dispute is about the same territorial area that was involved in 1795.
We presume that what will actually come of all the talk of the Monroe doctrine is what came of the talk about it when a little time ago we had to coerce a. Central American Republic. The American Press will rage and ramp, and our Press will reply with cold-drawn indignation, but the two Governments will keep their heads completely, and when the Venezuelans find that the State Department is not going to help them by going to war, but is only giving the Monroe doctrine that judicious exercise which is as good for doctrines as for horses, they will give in, and the frontier will be finally delimited on the very reasonable lines suggested by our Foreign Office. Meantime we wish that the existing opportunity might be taken hold of for a public understanding between us and the United States as to the Monroe doctrine. We should like to see a treaty between us and them which would guarantee the Monroe doctrine. There should be no great difficulty in doing so. Canada's boundaries are clear, and so are those of the islands, and thus, if the boundaries of British Guiana and British Honduras were settled and scheduled, it would be quite possible for us to agree not to increase our territories in America without risk of boundary disputes. Under such a treaty America would have the Monroe doctrine made invulnerable—it would thenceforth rest on the sea-power of England—and she would therefore be free of all fear of being drawn into European complications. We, on the other hand, as the second biggest Power in America, should feel perfectly happy as to Canada and the West Indies. In case of war the American guarantee would secure them from attack. But the good would not stop here. On such a treaty, as we pointed out a week or two ago, might in the fullness of time be reared that alliance of all the subjects of King Shakespeare, the accomplish- ment of which, as Carlyle said, is incomparably the greatest of all modern problems. The fate of the civilised world hangs on that alliance of the Anglo-Saxon English- speaking race, and happy are the statesmen who are able to contribute to its carrying-out, however small the mite they cast. That the acknowledgment and upholding of the true Monroe doctrine will contribute directly and materially to that consummation, so devoutly to be wished, we cannot doubt. Therefore we say, and say it with full conviction and deliberation, "Long live the doctrine of President Monroe !"
Previous page
