MASTER'S THESIS - M-1688 SCHMIDT, Walter E. THE UNITED STATES, ARGENTINA, AND THE DRACO DOCTRINE: A POLITICAL AND HISTORICAL EXAMINATION. The American University, M.A., 1968 Political Science, international law and relations University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THE UNITED STATES, ARGENTINA, AND THE DRAGO DOCTRINE; A POLITICAL AND HISTORICAL EXAMINATION by Walter E, Schmidt Submitted to the Faculty of the School of International Service of The American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of __ Master of Arts in International Relations Signature of the Committee: Chairmantr Dean of the Schoo^of International Service Date: ^ ________ uVlERiCAN UNiubiw., l i b r a r y 1968 SEP 171968 The American University Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON. O. C TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION................................... 1 II. THE DRAGO DOCTRINE AS A DEFENSIVE REACTION. 8 The Historical Peeling of Dependence. ........ 8 The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity............ 11 Latin American legal philosophy............ 12 American international law.................. 13 Pear of Colonization and Conquest............ 13 Argentine historical experience ............ 15 Renewed ties with England.................. l8 Pear of Economic Domination............... 19 The financial crisis of 188O-I890 .......... 19 Aftermath of the crisis.................... 22 First reactions to the Venezuela blockade . 24 III. AS A DEFENSE OF FUTURE INTERESTS................ 27 Argentina's Increasing National Power ..... 28 Economic expansion ........................ 28 Qualitative changes in Argentine economic l i f e ....................... 31 Indications of changing political outlook............................. 32 Proposals for Joint issuance of the Drago note................................ 34 Ill CHAPTER PAGE Influence of the Monroe Doctrine.............. 36 The Venezuela-Great Britain border controversy............................. 37 The United States invokes the Monroe Doctrine................................. 39 Favorable reactions and multi­ lateralization proposals............. 4l The Drago Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine. 43 An unequal partnership..................... 45 Association of the two doctrines............ 48 A delayed reply ........................... 50 IV. AS A RECOGNITION OP CHANGING POWER RELATIONSHIPS ....................... 54 Growing United States Influence .............. 55 Beginnings of an Anglo-American entente . 58 The rise of German imperialism.............. 6l The United States Power Position in Venezuela in.19O2 ......................... 64 Preparations and deployment of American F o r c e s ................................. 67 Roosevelt's alleged ultimatum .............. 69 V. AS A UNIQUE INSTANCE OP ARGENTINE INTERNATIONALISM............................. 72 A Burst of Acclaim........................... 73 A mixed official blessing .................. 75 iv CHAPTER p a g e A damning association...................... 76 The Transformation of the Drago Doctrine.. 8 l The role of Saenz Pena. ............ 82 The Third Inter-American Conference........ 84 VI. AS A DOCTRINE OP INTERNATIONAL LAW.............. 91 The Hague Peace Conference of 1907............ 92 The Drago Doctrine and the Porter Proposition.............................. 95 Relationship to the Calvo Doctrine.......... 97 Reservations and Reactions.......................100 New public acclaim and a strained comparison...................................101 VII. SUMMARY CONCLUSION................................. 105 APPENDIX A .............................................. 112 APPENDIX B .............................................. 123 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................ 131 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION On December 29, 1902, Dr. Lula Marla Drago, then Argentine Foreign Minister, sent a lengthy note to the Argen­ tine Minister, Martin Garcia Merou, in Washington, for trans­ mission to the United States Department of State. The des­ patch took note of the Anglo-German blockade of Venezuela, an armed action later joined by Italy. After a recital of various reasons why this action was unjust, contrary to reason and to the legal and moral sensibilities of the North American government and people, and in flagrant violation of the Monroe Doctrine, "a doctrine to which the Argentine Republic has, heretofore, solemnly adhered," he said the principle his nation would like to see recognized was: "That the public debt can not occasion armed Intervention nor even the actual occupation of the territory of American nations by a European power.This latter phrase Is the heart of what has come to be known as the Drago Doctrine. The Drago Doctrine held a brief place on the world stage. It was "too relevant and timely to languish as one p half of an exchange of diplomatic opinion." But certain ^The complete text of the Drago note Is given in Appendix A . -"inc&as r. ncuann, argentine, tne united atates and and the Inter-American System. iodO-19Î4 (CambridgeÜtarvard 2 aspects of Drago's note bore such controversial implications that the diplomats of both the United States, and presently, Argentina herself, found It necessary to retreat from what was tacitly recognized as too advanced a foreign policy po­ sition. Conceived as a political doctrine, Drago's original injunction followed a tortuous course through a period of five years, finally emerging as a minor tenet of public international law. In retrospect the Drago Doctrine has been appraised in various ways. In his Western Hemisphere Idea. , Arthur Whitaker calls it "an unprecedented and unrepeated Argentine foreign policy excursion into the realm of internationalism on a regional plane." Harold Peterson terms it part of a Latin American "doctrine of sovereign Immunity, " whose Immediate purpose was to "safeguard national control of their colonial economies and revolution-ridden governments against 4 Invasion of European capital." Thomas Mo Gann views It as "another Argentine bid for a leading part in a slowly de­ veloping hemispheric drama in which the United States, with University Press, 1957), P* 219* “^Arthur P. Whitaker, The Western Hemisphere Idea; Its Rise and Decline (Ithaca, kew York: Cornell University Press, 19^4), p. 124. 4 Harold P. Peterson, Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960 (Antioch, New York: State University of New Ÿork, T952F), p. 258. 3 Its power and Its Monroe Doctrine, had long preempted all the Important roles. Others see the Drago Doctrine as not at all a doctrine In its own right but as a corollary to the doctrines of Monroe, or of Calvo, or even, "since Imprison­ ment for debt has been abolished by law. ," as a simple extension of municipal law Into the International plane.^ In fact, the Drago Doctrine Is all of these things and not exclusively any one of them. The Intent of this paper is to cover all these complex and interrelated motives in order to gain a broad understanding of all aspects of the Drago Doctrine in its contemporary political and historical setting. It is convenient to divide such a broad study into five parts, each representing a distinct thought which re­ lates directly to the Drago Doctrine. These parts, which correspond to chapters II through VI, consider the Doctrine as (l) a defensive reactionj (2 ) as a defense of future Interests; (3) as a recognition of changing power relation­ ships; (4) as a unique Instance of Argentine Internationalism; and (5 ) as a tenet, or doctrine of International law. These divisions are hardly perfect since many of the actions. ^McQann, 0£. clt.. p. 218. ^Ricardo Levene, A History of Argentina, trans. and ed. by William Spence RoFertson {cRapel H1Ï1, North Carolina: University Press, 1937), p. 241; Peterson, loo. cit.; Edwin M. Borohard, "The Calvo and Drago Doctrines," Encyclopaedia of the Soclal Sciences (New York: The Macmillan Company, 193^), ïfî, pp. l53-l5 6 . 4 statements and events which form the whole episode cannot be definitively assigned to one such category or another. This organization, nonetheless, seems the best available and avoids the opposite error of attempting to assign meanings and motives, without an overall plan, within a purely chronological framework. In fact, such a chronological framework need not be abandoned, but is loosely superimposed on this flve-polnt breakdown. Thus, the general circumstances surrounding the drafting of the Drago note, which began the whole affair, are treated as part of the second chapter, . A Defensive Reaction," while the 1907 Hague Conference Is covered In the sixth chapter. The reader will gain a more objective under­ standing and perhaps be more tolerant of the real ambiguities that arise. If he will bear In mind the organizational needs that call forth this chapter arrangement. Luis Marla Drago was born May 6 , 1859, and christened with the.same name as his father, a prominent La Plata medical doctor and politician, several times member of the 7 provincial legislature of Buenos Aires. His maternal grand­ father was the renowned general and statesman, Bartoleme Mitre, ^For biographical Information, I am chiefly Indebted to the following: Ricardo Ploclrllll, Francisco L. Romay, and Leone10 Glanello, Dlcclonarlo hlstérlco argentine (Buenos Aires: Eldlelones Historicos Argentines^ 1954), I, pp. 213-217; William B. Parker, Argentines of Today (New York: Kraus Reprint Corp., 1920), I, pp. 11-14; ET~tJdaonaa, 5 who In the year of his grandson's birth led porteno troops north to meet Urqulza In the battle of Cepeda and would soon be