No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Latin America and the League of Nations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
Extract
To students of international relations it has become almost a commonplace that among the most significant and permanent results of the World War has been the changed international status of the republics of Latin America. As a result of the war and post-war developments in these states, the traditional New World isolation in South America, as well as in North America, is a thing of the past. To our leading sister republics is no longer applicable the half-contemptuous phrase, current in the far-off days before 1914, that Latin America stands on the margin of international life. The new place in the comity of nations won by a number of these states is evidenced—to take one of the most obvious examples—by the raising of the legations of certain non-American powers to the rank of embassies, either during or immediately after the war. In the case of Brazil, for instance, where prior to 1914 only the United States maintained an ambassador, at the present time Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, and Japan maintain diplomatic representatives of this rank.
Yet all things considered one of the most fruitful developments in the domain of international relations has been the share taken by our southern neighbors in the work of the League of Nations. All of the Latin American republics which severed relations with Germany or declared war against that country were entitled to participate in the Peace Conference. As a consequence, eleven of these states affixed their signatures to the Treaty of Versailles, an action subsequently ratified in all cases except Ecuador.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1926
References
1 It will be recalled that eight of these republics,—Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama,—declared war against Germany; and that four—Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and Uruguay—severed diplomatic and commercial relations. Cf. Martin, P. A., “Latin America and the War,” League of Nations, August, 1919Google Scholar.
2 An exception should be made in the case of Costa Rica. Although the Costa Rican government had declared war against Germany, it was unrecognized by the United States or the nations of the Entente and its delegates were not admitted to the Peace Conference. In 1920, however, Costa Rica was admitted to the League.
3 Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay.
4 On November 10, 1920, a resolution was presented to the First Assembly signed by fourteen of the Latin American states, Spain, Great Britain, Switzerland, and Belgium, proposing that Spanish be considered one of the official languages of the Assembly. This body voted against this proposal partly on the grounds that the use of a third official language would entail unnecessary expense. League of Nations, The Records of the First Assembly, pp. 172–173, 219–223Google Scholar.
5 In fact, Brazil had the honor to be mentioned in Article 4 of the Covenant itself as one of the nonpermanent members of the Council until the First Assembly could elect others.
6 On the death of Ruy Barbosa (March 1, 1923) Dr. Epitacio Pessôa, former President of Brazil, was elected one of the judges of the court.
7 League of Nations, Records of the First Assembly, Annex A, pp. 595 ffGoogle Scholar. República de Chile, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Chile y la Aspiraciôn de Bolivia á Puerto en el Pacífico (Santiago, 1922), p. 47Google Scholar.
8 Chile y la Aspiraciôn de Bolivia á Puerto en el Pacífico, pp. 47, 50–56. League of Nations, Provisional Verbatim Report of the Second Assembly. September 7, 1921, pp. 1–3Google Scholar.
9 Chile y la Aspiraciôn de Bolivia, p. 63.
10 Ibid., p. 68.
11 It is perhaps superfluous to point out that at the present time (1925) Dr. Pueyrredón is Argentine ambassador to the United States and Dr. Alvear president of the republic.
12 Zeballos, E. S., “La República Argentina en la Liga de las Naciones,” being a series of editorials appearing in La Prensa in 1920 and 1921, p. 8Google Scholar.
13 The Argentine constitution explicitly provides that no treaty can be valid without the sanction of Congress. All the other American powers adhering to the Covenant—an integral part of the Treaty of Versailles—submitted the organic charter of the League to their respective parliaments for discussion and approval.
14 League of Nations, Records of the First Assembly (1920), pp. 87 ff.Google Scholar
15 At the present time (1925) fifty-five powers are members of the League.
16 Torello (acting minister of foreign affairs) to Pueyrredón, November 20, 1920. Revista Argentina de Ciencias Políticas, 1921, p. 156Google Scholar.
17 Ibid., p. 454.
18 Dispatch of November 24. Ibid., p. 157.
19 Dispatch of November 28. Ibid., p. 160.
20 League of Nations, Records of the First Assembly (1920), pp. 246 ff.Google Scholar
21 Ibid., pp. 276–277. On December 6, two days after the date of Sr. Pueyrredón's letter of withdrawal, the Argentine motion for the admission of all sovereign states to the League came before the Assembly and was disposed of in the manner recommended by Mr. Balfour's committee. Ibid., pp. 279 ff.
22 Sr. Pérez, the third member of the Argentine delegation, was also Argentine minister to Austria.
23 Revista Argentina de Ciendas Políticas, 1921, pp. 435–436Google Scholar.
24 Dispatch of December 30, Ibid., pp. 436–437.
25 Zeballos, passim.
26 As a striking exception may be noted the utterances of the Chilean historian, diplomat, and senator, Sr. Gonzalo Búlnes. He warmly supported Argentina's action and urged the withdrawal of Chile as an act of solidarity with her eastern neighbor. Associated Press dispatch of December 23, 1921.
27 Zeballos, p. 64.
28 Ibid.
29 League of Nations, Records of the First Assembly (1920), p. 278Google Scholar.
30 Ibid., p. 78.
31 Le Temps, March 11, 1921.
32 Revista Argentina de Ciencias Políticas, 1921, pp. 436–437Google Scholar.
33 Hill, David Jayne, “The Betrayal of the Monroe Doctrine,” North American Review, November, 1920Google Scholar.
34 “Sr. Aramayo, for Bolivia, informed the Associated Press that the chancellery of the United States had been consulted regarding Bolivia's application to the League before it was submitted and had decided that mediation by the League was not incompatible with the Doctrine, Monroe,” Associated Press, dispatch of September 7, 1921Google Scholar.
35 Garay to Drummond (dispatch undated). League of Nations, Official Journal, (1921), p. 214Google Scholar. Cf. also New York Times Current History, Vol. XIV (1921), p. 151Google Scholar.
36 Ibid.
37 Chile y la Aspiraciôn de Bolivia á Puerto de Bolivia en el Pacifico, p. 47.
38 Dr. Alejandro Alvarez, one of the Chilean delegates to the Third Assembly, in a notable address before that body pointed out certain advantages which in his judgment the Monroe Doctrine had over Article x. The latter does not prevent a state from ceding part of its territory or placing itself under the protection of another state; it does not forbid a state defeated in war to cede a part of its territory to the victor; it does not oppose the temporary occupation of the territory of another state as a measure of coercion or reprisals; finally, it does not oppose the intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another. All of these practices, according to Dr. Alvarez, would be contrary to the Monroe Doctrine if one of the states were an American and the other a European. L'Amérique Latine (Paris), October 7, 1923Google Scholar.
39 “The organization of this League is in my opinion a logical sequence to the Treaty of Versailles, which in recognizing and expressly accepting the Monroe Doctrine seems to be desirous of limiting its sphere of action as far as American affairs are concerned.” Quoted by James Brown Scott in editorial on President Brum's, address in American Journal of International Law, vol. XIV (1920), p. 605Google Scholar.
40 L'Amérique Latine, April 8, 1923.
41 Address before the American Society of International Law, April 14, 1914.
42 Observations on the Monroe Doctrine, American Journal of International Law, vol. XVII (1923), pp. 611–640Google Scholar.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.