Reading International Law's Historiographic Turn in Latin America

Chapter 1 Reading International Law’s Historiographic Turn in Latin America

The eighth annual meeting of the American Society of International Law con- vened at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 22, 1914 at the New Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. Society president, Elihu Root (1845–1937), delivered opening remarks. He and Charles Francis Adams Jr. (1835–1915), grandson of states- man John Quincy Adams (1767–1848), who played a central role in creating the Monroe Doctrine, then delivered opening addresses on “The Real Monroe Doctrine” and “The Origin of the Monroe Doctrine,” respectively. Four sessions followed over the next three days. Each session dealt with the Monroe Doctrine, the 1823 Western Hemispheric message to Europe to steer clear of colonial intrusion. Adams later could hardly recall when he had “had such a solid dose of any subject.”1 Presentations canvassed its doctrinal off- shoots, its misconceptions and limitations, its relevance as a domestic and international policy tool, and its role as a “gospel of peace.”2 Topics also included its influences in Latin America and Europe. Mindful of the “epidemic of discussion” swirling around the doctrine, the panel sessions concluded with George Blakeslee’s paper on the question: “Should the Monroe Doctrine Con- tinue to be a Policy of the United States?”3 Committing the entire substantive agenda to the Monroe Doctrine demon- strated both its central and controversial status in United States foreign policy. It had guided United States hemispheric policy for 91 years. However, Root wanted to dispel the notion that the doctrine had changed over time. He said the justification for his opening address “will be not because I say anything novel, but because there is occasion for restating well settled matters which seem to have been overlooked in some recent writings on the subject.”4 In contrast to his stated intention, Root then reworked the Monroe Doc- trine by overlooking what he had said less than a decade before. In a famous

1 Letter from Charles Francis Adams to Hiram Bingham (April 29, 1914) (on file with the Sterling Memorial Library, Yale University). The author thanks Andrei Mamolea for this information. 2 See generally 8 asil Proc. (1914). 3 George H. Blakeslee, Should the Monroe Doctrine Continue to be a Policy of the United States?, 8 asil Proc. 217, 217 (1914). 4 Elihu Root, The Real Monroe Doctrine, 8 asil Proc. 6, 6 (1914).

2 Chapter 1 speech delivered in Rio de Janeiro in 1906,5 Root linked the Monroe Doctrine to hemispheric fraternal association and common cause.6 His 1914 speech before the American Society of International Law emphasized the Monroe Doctrine’s unilateralist, nonreciprocal character. “Since the Monroe Doctrine is a declaration based upon this nation’s right of self-protection,” said Root, “it cannot be transmuted into a joint common declaration by American states or any num- ber of them.” If Chile or Argentina or Brazil made such a declaration, it would affect their own individual safety, “not the safety of the United States…. Each nation would act for itself and in its own right.”7 Root then emphasized that a “false conception” of the Monroe Doctrine had “invaded the public press.”8 By “false conception,” Root meant that the Monroe Doctrine had turned into an instrument justifying hegemonic intervention. The real Monroe Doctrine meant to counter “[g]randiose schemes of national expansion;” it opposed mo- tives of compulsion against Central or South American countries, “clamors for national glory,” “the essence of tyranny,” and “interference in the internal affairs of all weaker nations in the New World.”9 In subtle ways, Root conflated incongruent messages with his reworking of the Monroe Doctrine in an at- tempt to balance its unilateralist and fraternal constructions while disassociat- ing the doctrine from creeping interventionist criticisms. However, it was the doctrine’s increasing association with intervention that may have provided the impetus for dissecting its meaning at the annual meeting. Among the many issues discussed at the meeting, one leading concern relat- ed to whether the Monroe Doctrine had outlived its purpose. The central con- ditions present in 1823, when President James Monroe (1758–1831) announced the doctrine, no longer controlled modern affairs. The reconstituted European

5 Address to the Third Conference of the American Republics, Rio de Janeiro [July 31, 1906], in Latin America and the United States 10 (R. Bacon & J.B. Scott eds., 1917) [hereinafter Address to the Third Conference]. Root’s South American tour included Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile Peru, Panama, and Colombia (he also visited Mexico). It was the first visit ever by a high-ranking United States official and Root’s “first notable act as Secretary of State.” Biogra- phies of the Secretaries of State: Elihu Root (1845–1937), Off. Historian, https://history.state.gov/ departmenthistory/people/root-elihu. 6 The much-quoted portion of his speech, which became known as the Root Doctrine was as follows: We neither claim nor desire any rights or privileges or powers that we do not freely con- cede to every American republic. Address to the Third Conference, supra note 5, at 10. See also infra, at 58. 7 Id. at 19. 8 Id. at 21. 9 Id. at 21–22.