Page 2
University Daily Kansan
Tuesday, May 2, 1961
Modern Monroeism
Since the first day the Eisenhower Administration branded Castro's Cuba a Communist nation, many Americans have been asking themselves "just what has happened to the Monroe Doctrine?" Monroe's famous statement in 1823, the basis of our foreign policy since then in this hemisphere, seems to have temporarily been shoved into a closet—or at least this is the consensus among many Americans. "What," they ask, "could the Monroe Doctrine possibly mean if it doesn't mean that we should toss any European or Asian power back across the ocean who tries to meddle in our affairs?"
Like so many other things of age, however, the Monroe Doctrine has changed with years. In fact, the man who formulated the words would be surprised at the additions and the interpretations that have been applied to his statement . . . and so would many Americans. Granted, Castro is allied with a movement that bodes no good for either North or South America. Granted, the United States would like to see the bearded dictator shaved of his position. And granted, this country almost went to war with Great Britain near the turn of the century because the British did not wish to settle a boundary dispute with Venezuela by arbitration, a far less serious offense than turning a nation into an arsenal for the destruction of freedom.
BUT THE DOCTRINE THAT PROCLAIMED unilateral action, for the most part, exists no longer. For better or for worse, it died—ironically enough—in the Havana Conference of 1940.
In July of that year, representatives of all the American republics agreed European territory in this hemisphere in danger of falling into hostile hands might be taken over by nations in this hemisphere and administered jointly by them. This principle of joint defense against aggression was confirmed and strengthened after the war by the Rio de Janeiro Pact of 1947.
UP UNTIL THIS POINT, PROTECTION OF the Americas was the sole responsibility of the United States. In carrying out the policy of protection on a unilateral basis, the United States had caused not only hostility abroad but also in Latin America. Now everyone was to have a share in the defense of this hemisphere.
At the same time, however, the United States left no false impressions at the Havana conference that if we considered parliamentary procedure too cumbersome in the time of crisis, this nation would act first and seek approval later. The United States has not renounced the original Monroe Doctrine as some might fear; it has merely committed itself to waiting until Latin American republics (and Canada, too) realize whatever danger may arise.
THIS, THEN, IS THE MODERN MONROE Doctrine. It contains the thought of the original policy tempered by a mutual respect and feeling of brotherhood for other republics of the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine must be considered in this light—however, there is often a tendency on the part of many of this nation's neighbors to believe the United States still prefers the policy of intervention as set forth in the Roosevelt Corollary. This is no longer true.
It has been said that the man on the street does not actually know just what the Monroe Doctrine means. This is probably quite true, for in the past a cult has grown up which worships the name and passes over the fine points of the Doctrine. But at the same time, members of this cult of the average American realize the Monroe Doctrine when they see it or when they think it is needed. The principle is much the same as explaining what a tree looks like—that is often hard to do, but each man knows what a tree is when it looms in front of his path.
WHILE THE AVERAGE UNITED STATES citizen cannot adequately explain what the Monroe Doctrine is and does, the cry has often come from other nations that the United States as a whole is not aware of the principles of the doctrine. Nothing could be more erroneous. While the modern Monroe Doctrine asks other nations to take part in the defense of this hemisphere, it is still a policy of the United States. A sovereign people can interpret their policies as they desire. The Monroe Doctrine remains for the United States to decide just what Monroeism is.
That is as true in the case of Cuba today as it was in the days prior to Castro.
-- Dan Felger
Cuba Defended
Editor:
In reference to your editorial of Tuesday, April 25:
Yes indeed! What happened in Cuba was bad. I would say it was terrific! But what is worse is the fact that when millions of Americans who knew about the CIA's plans on Cuba kept their mouths shut after the fiasco or tried for the sake of their country to give a more "reasonable" explanation of their guilty hand in the aggression against Cuba, Mr. Morgan, our
Daily Hansan
University of Kansas student newspapers
Founded 1889, became bweekly 1904,
trweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone VIKing 3-2700 Extension 711, news room Extension 376, business office
Member Inland Daily Press Association. Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Corp. N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon durings and Sundays, University holidays and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
John Peterson ... Managing Editor
Bill Blundell, Carrie Edwards, Lyron
Cheatum and Ruben Wilson, Assistant
Managing Editors; Tom turner, City
Editor; Bill Sheldon, Sports Editor;
Sue Thieman, Society Editor.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Dan Felger ... Co-Editorial Editors
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
John Massa ... Business Manager
F. Mike Harris, Advertising Manager;
Tom L. Brown, Circulation Manager;
Richard Horn, Classified Advertising Manager;
William Goodwin, Pro-
National Advertising Manager.
... Letters ...
friend from "People-to-People," the one who is trying to understand foreigners and their affairs, said, "The fact that we 'partially' armed and based the rebels was never much of a secret but that we planned the whole affair and carried it out is ridiculous. Our arms yes, but there was no Cuban blood spilled by Americans on the beaches." That is, he is trying to prove something that even Stevenson couldn't; that the one who holds the cow's feet is not as guilty as the one who knifes it.
SINCE I'M JUST A GUEST in this country, I don't have any rights whatsoever to criticize or tell any American that he should realize our problems, but when a bunch of prefabricated lies are thrown to the good-hearted Americans by the same kind of people who made me come to this country, running away from a police state which no CIA official raised his voice to condemn, I cannot hide my indignation.
No, Mr. Morgan, there wasn't any landing on the Isle of Pines (it was at the Bay of Pigs) nor were 10,000 prisoners freed for the rebels, as Paul Harvey, the colorful commentator claimed. You both had the same source of news, cool and meditated sources of lies. You and many others like you are just victims of the same kind of warfare you talk about; "one of subversion, deceit, and slow annihilation of man's rights."
WHAT INTERESTS do you have in Cuba? The preservation of your life? Don't you think that is the same goal of the animals of the very low class? What worth is life to human beings if we try to impose ourselves as masters and defend our principles by subversion and lies?
Ask the Guatemalan and Colombian peasants, the Bolivian miners, and the Nicaraguans in general how they protect their life in the "free" hemisphere of Mr. Kennedy. Ask the Indonesian and Indians who were threatening their survival, the ghost of Communist subversion or the Dutch and English of the "free" world.
We Cubans have been taken advantage of in this Cold War, taken advantage of by your own fear of the success of our revolution. You know very well that you Americans are secure, that the only ones who are not secure are the nations of the hungry bloc, in which (and you know it) American monopolies have caused more harm than the ghosts of Nikita and his gang.
"WE, AS STUDENTS and leaders of the future, have to learn to understand others and to show our good will, but only with the application of truth and with respect for each country's sovereignty.
IF AMERICAN "FREEDOM" means bringing the Tory "freedom fighters" of the CIA back to Cuba with their "democracy." I am sure that we Cubans will keep the "communism" of Castro "regardless of the cost and regardless of the peril."
Luis Mayor
Placentas, Cuba, junior
(Editor's Note; We admire and respect Mr. Mayor's sentiments concerning his homeland and the recent counter-revolution, however, the point was that this country's primary interest is its own welfare. Mr. Mayor asks us to understand, but he does not understand the American Americans" have limits to their tolerance for the denunciations and threats of Fidel Castro or anyone else.
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS
Unless he has access to information that we do not, we find it difficult to accept Mr. Mayor's black-white analysis of the Cuban-American problem.)
"THIS IS NUTHIN'—YA SHOULDA SEEN OUR 'HOMECOMING FLOAT LAST YEAR"
Magazine Rack
Nixon and the Press
As the 1960 Presidential campaign wound up, one fact seemed obvious—Vice President Nixon, although he enjoyed the editorial support of a majority of America's newspapers, received the roughest going over from newsmen covering him that any Presidential candidate has received within memory.
Both Newsweek and Time, in rundowns on the attitude toward Nixon, stressed the predominance of Democratic reporters. One veteran correspondent who covered the Vice President's campaign told Human Events: "The antagonism toward Nixon was tremendous, almost fanatical. Out of the usual number of about 75 reporters following the VP's tours, it would be hard to find ten at any given time who were giving Nixon an even break in their dispatches."
THE REPORTER gave as an example the habit most newsmen had of playing down the size of Nixon's crowds. He said that reporters sending in accurate crowd estimates were hooted by the pro-Kennedy scribes.
The reason Nixon cancelled his campaign train press conference several weeks ago was because of the treatment he received at the final one, in Scranton, Pennsylvania. According to our source, some reporters "were not interested in questioning Nixon but were actually hurling insults at him."
Newsmen frequently badgered the VP, seeking to draw him out on the religious issue. They finally succeeded but with results that they chose not to print in their dispatches: Nixon got mad and suggested to the journalists that they might for a change write about the anti-Quaker statements thrown out by Democratic leaders such as Senator Lyndon Johnson and Governor Hodges of North Carolina.
ANOTHER INDICATION of press hostility toward the GOP nominee came from Mario Remo, who had been head of the nationalities division of the Democratic National Committee, but who switched to Nixon during the campaign. Remo told HUMAN EVENTS that, when he sat down to eat after boarding Nixon's campaign train in Dayton, "A reporter sitting next to me called me a turncoat and began insulting me."
On the Oct. 18 Three Star Extra news program from Washington, Ray Henle reported: "The Democrats, notably Mr. Truman, often say all the papers are Republican. They omit that in many key cases 80 to 85 per cent of the newsmen who work on those papers are Democrats. Especially in big metropolitan California papers this gives Kennedy an edge. For example, one of the San Francisco papers editorially is for Nixon, but it has a vast majority of editorial workers, reporters, headline writers, make-up men, re-write men, etc., who are for Kennedy, and, indeed, boldly wear Kennedy buttons while they work.
"One paper recently published a story in its first edition on betting odds, and carried a one column headline which read: 'Betting Odds Favor Nixon.' By the time the last edition went on the streets this headline had mushroomed into an eight column banner line which read: 'Gamblers Favor Nixon.'"
(From "Nixon and the Newsmen" in the Nov. 10, 1960, issue of the newsletter Human Events.)