3 DECEMBER to 3 JANUARY
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
U. S. Naval Forces in Nicaragua.— On December 24, Rear Admiral Latimer ordered the landing of sailors and marines at Puerta Cabezas, the capital established by the revolutionary Liberal forces in northeastern Nicaragua. Carrying of arms and other military activities were prohibited within the zone, and here as well as at Rio Grande Bar a censorship was put on radio stations to prevent violation of the zone by sending military information and instructions from either side. This censorship was later withdrawn. The landing was for the purpose of affording protection to American lives and property. It is reported that there are two American fruit companies and five mahogany companies at Puerto Cabezas, and over 1,000 American residents.
United States naval forces had previously been landed at Bluefields and at Rio Grande Bar, sixty miles further north. In a dispatch on April 26 Admiral Latimer stated that the neutral zones were maintained impartially as regarded the warring factions, and that government as well as Liberal forces entering would be disarmed, in accordance with the agreement of October 26. In the fighting around Pearl Lagoon, north of Bluefields, in the latter part of December, the government forces were defeated with reported losses of over 400. About seventy wounded from each side entered the neutral zone at Bluefields and received medical attention.
Liberal Government Recognized by Mexico.—Trouble in Nicaragua has been almost constant since the withdrawal of American marines in 1925. At this time Major C. B. Carter, U.S.A., was invited to , Nicaragua to establish a native constabulary, but while this was in progress General Chamorro, a conservative politician, long powerful in the country, overthrew President Solorzano, who had beaten him in the election of 1924, and held control until last November. At that time Admiral Latimer negotiated an armistice between the warring factions of Liberals and Conservatives; Chamorro surrendered power, and, in accordance with the terms of the armistice, Adolfo Diaz was elected President by the Nicaragua congress, pending a regular election. The Diaz government was at once recognized by the United States. The new president, however, was no more acceptable to the Liberals than was Chamorro, and the civil war began anew.
On December 3, the Liberals set up a government at Puerto Cabezas, and Dr. Juan B. Sacasa was proclaimed president. Mexico subsequently recognized this government, declaring that as vice-president under President Solorzano, Sacasa was the legal successor until another regular election. Liberal politicians in Nicaragua and sympathizers in other Central American countries attacked the United States for its participation in Nicaraguan politics and for its recognition of Diaz. Senator Borah and others also criticized the action of the United States, expressed the fear that business interests were forcing intervention, and suggested a senatorial investigation. On December 28, President Coolidge conferred with state and naval officials on the Nicaraguan situation, but no change of policy was announced.
United States interest in Nicaragua is naturally increased by the possibilities of the Nicaragua route for a sea level inter- oceanic canal, via the San Juan river and Lake Nicaragua. Exclusive rights for this canal were purchased by the United States for $3,000,000 in 1913.
The Situation in Nicaragua.—An officer who has recently served in Nicaragua has made the following comments on the Nicaraguan situation which may be of interest to the naval service:
The contradictory statements emanating from the Nicaraguan capital, Managua, and the revolutionary (Sacasa) government on the east coast of Nicaragua, are causing much uncertainty in the minds of the American public as to the merits of the controversy between the so-called Conservative and Liberal parties in that Central American republic. The injection of Mexico into the affair further confuses the issue.
To anyone familiar with local conditions in Nicaragua the present situation causes
no surprise. The essential facts are easily determined, since they arise from conditions which have existed for many years.
The Conservative party, controlled by the (comparatively) wealthy Granada element, and supported by nearly all the Nicaraguan landowners, has been in power since 1912. This party controls at least fifty per cent and probably sixty to sixty-five per cent of the voters of the republic.
The Liberals, who control Leon, the largest town in Nicaragua, are a minority group, making up in vociferation what they lack in numbers. This party attracts the floating vote, and makes its appeal to many artisans, shopkeepers, lawyers, and so-called “intellectuals” throughout the republic. It is noticeable that most Nicaraguan poets are
Liberals. Add to this group the usual “lunatic fringe” and disgruntled “outs” and you have a fair picture of the Liberal party of Nicaragua. Through this party there has percolated, and continues to percolate, a spirit of communism which, seeping down from Mexico on the north, has had its effect on the thought of the whole group. It is perhaps not unnatural that a minority party with small hope, under present conditions, of getting control of the government by way of the ballot, should turn to communism as one means of coaxing to their standard the thousands of Indian peons who are neither Liberal nor Conservative but who vote the way they are told. However this may be, it can be asserted as a fact that communistic theories are working southward from Mexico, and a fairly fertile field has been found for them in the Liberal element of Nicaraguan politics.
Mexico has long resented the constantly growing influence of the United States in Latin America, particularly in Central American states. The gesture of extending recognition to Sacasa after the United States has formally recognized the Conservative Diaz is merely a bold attempt to make character with a group which, with proper aid and encouragement, may ultimately control the government of Nicaragua. Assurance can be given that this encouragement and aid will be forthcoming to the extent of Mexico’s ability to supply them.
The Conservatives of Nicaragua owe much to the United States, and, as a party, they are pro-American. Adopting an attitude precisely opposite to that of their opponents, the Liberals are anti-North American—usually violently so. The “Colossus of the North” assumes a threatening, horrific figure in Liberal circles. At heart the Liberal knows that Mexico is more to be feared than the United States, but help of any kind is valuable—and any port in a storm.
The Conservatives are neither seraphim nor blackguards. They are the usual political group with their own internal troubles, puttering along in an attempt to keep the government a going concern in the face of much poverty, much Liberal caterwauling and much discouragement. A Central American government “on its own” is a tottering affair at best. Without the bolstering effect of “moral” aid from Washington, or the more tangible support of large foreign or domestic corporations, few Central American governments would survive a twelve-month. The Nicaraguan government is in peculiar need of one or both of these types of support, and unless the want is supplied, the present government, or any government, must fall.
Liberals are neither angels nor ghouls. They occupy much the same position as the democrats of Pennsylvania or the republicans of Kentucky. They are utilizing the only tactics known to Central American political parties, and they are accepting help from any quarter.
It is inconceivable that a real threat is being planned against the Panama Canal. The most serious blow to the United States will be the loss of prestige in Central America unless a definite, continuing policy governing our relations with these peoples is enunciated by our Department of State, supported by the sincere intention of backing that policy to the limit in case opposition is offered at home or abroad.
Mexico is obviously making a bid to extend her influence southward. The Conservatives of Nicaragua desire to remain in control of the country. The Liberals are fighting to displace the Conservatives. Most men who know Nicaragua believe that the best men are to be found in the Conservative ranks. The Conservatives are sympathetic toward the United States. Why not support a proved pro-American group when it is known that its opponents are receiving aid, moral and otherwise, from sources not sympathetic with American ideals? Why not announce to the world that the revolutionary activities in Nicaragua will not be permitted to assume control of the government?
If the protection of the legally acquired properties of American citizens in Latin American countries must be further condemned by malcontent politicians at home; if support, by Washington, of governments in Central America favorably inclined toward the United States must be the signal for hecklers to stand up and shout for the benefit of our own orange-reds and lemon- pinks; if the bogey of imperialism must continually arise to confuse the issue when our relations with the weak Central American states are discussed;—why can not our Department of State say to the nations— “If this be Imperialism, make the most of it.
Panama Treaty Terms.—The full terms of the new treaty between the Republic of Panama and the United States were made public upon its submission to the Panama Congress. The substance of the treaty is contained in Article II, which reads:
The Republic of Panama agrees to co-operate in all possible ways with the United States in the protection and defense of the Panama Canal. Consequently, the Republic of Panama will consider herself in a state of war in case of any war in which the United States should be a belligerent, and in order to render more effective the defense of the canal will, if necessary in the opinion of the United States Government, turn over to the United States in all the territory of the Republic of Panama, during the period of actual or threatened hostilities, the control and operation of wireless and radio communication, aircraft, aviation centers and aerial navigation.
The civil and military authorities of the Republic of Panama shall impose and enforce all ordinances and decrees required for the maintenance of public order and for the safety and defense of the territory of the Republic of Panama during such actual order or threatened hostilities, and the United States shall have the direction and control of all military operations in any part of the territory of the Republic of Panama.
For the purpose of the efficient protection of the canal, the Republic of Panama also agrees that in time of peace the armed forces of the United States shall have free transit throughout the republic for maneuvers or other military purposes, provided, however, that due notice will be given to the Government of the Republic of Panama every time armed troops should enter her territory. It is understood that this provision for notification does not apply to military or naval aircraft of the United States.
Critics abroad commented on the treaty as meaning practically “the absorption” of Panama, and questioned whether it was consonant with Panama’s obligations as a member of the League of Nations. It was recognized, however, that special circumstances were created by Panama’s proximity to the canal.
Mexican Oil Laws in Effect.—The new Mexican oil and land laws went into effect on January 1 without modification. American oil companies in general took no steps to conform to the laws by seeking confirmatory concessions for land acquired before 1917, the date of the new Mexican constitution. Theoretically this land would
revert to the Mexican Government, but it remained to be seen whether the land would actually be seized. The policy of the United States government was to wait until definite cases of this nature should arise.
UNITED STATES
Turkish Treaty.—The Lausanne Treaty between the United States and Turkey was presented to the Turkish Chamber on December 24, and prompt ratification was expected. The treaty is similar to those negotiated by Turkey with European powers and calls for the surrender of practically all extraterritorial rights. It has not yet been ratified by the United States Senate.
Invitations to League Conferences.— The United States Government has recently been invited to attend two conferences to be held under the auspices of the League of Nations. The first of these is the Economic Conference to open next May at Geneva. The second is a conference on the supervision of private manufacture of arms, which the League Council has decided to call next autumn. Delegates to this conference will consist of the League Council acting as a commission, together with delegates from the Soviet Union and the United States, should these nations decide to be represented. It will take under consideration the draft of a convention for control of arms manufacture which has already been prepared by a sub-committee of the Council. Co-operation on the part of the United States was practically assured by the U. S. delegate at the Conference on Traffic in Arms held last year.
As regards a general Armament Conference, the Council at its December meeting merely referred the matter back to the Preparatory Commission by requesting its advice as to the earliest practical date— which, in view of the opinion of the Preparatory Commission already expressed, will not be earlier than 1928.
The Council adopted a resolution looking toward the construction of a powerful radio station near Geneva under League control, one purpose of which will be to expedite action of the Council in the event of threatened war.
Thompson Report on Philippines.— The report of Col. Carmin A. Thompson on
his Philippine mission of last summer was made public December 22. The report advises indefinite postponement of independence but gradual extension of internal autonomy. It declares the inhabitants of the Philippines have not the racial or cultural homogeneity necessary for independence or successful democratic government. With the exception of a small racial minority, all that the Filipinos really hope for is an ultimate settlement on the basis of “complete autonomy in internal affairs, but with the United States directing all foreign relations.” Although the administration of General Wood is praised in the report, his military aides are characterized as a factor making co-operation difficult between the executive and the legislative branches. It is recommended that the land laws be modified to encourage large scale development of rubber, coffee and sugar production by United States capital; also that the Moro islands should not be separated politically from the rest of the Philippines.
Poison Gas Treaty Pigeonholed.—On December 13 the United States Senate returned to the Foreign Affairs Committee the Geneva protocol designed to extend to other nations the Washington Conference agreement against the use of poison gas in warfare. The Washington agreement itself is not yet in effect, since it has not been ratified by France. It was generally assumed that the recommittal of the Geneva protocol ended the prospects of American ratification.
During its consideration in the Senate the protocol was opposed by delegations representing the American Chemical Society and the Chemical Manufacturers’ Association, on the ground that production of such gases was essential to industry, and that control of production by an international board would be unacceptable and impractical. The American Legion also adopted a resolution opposing ratification.
Debt Policy Condemned.—Forty-two members of the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University signed a statement published December 20 proposing an international conference to revise the war debt settlements among the Allied powers, and criticising the existing settlements negotiated by the United States as productive of suspicion and dislike and constituting a barrier to economic recovery. The statement asserted that credits issued during the war were then looked upon in this country as “contributions toward a common cause,” and should not be considered in the same category with post-armistice loans. Application of the “capacity to pay” formula had also resulted in wide divergence in our demands upon European debtors, and a general feeling on their part of hostility toward this country.
GERMANY
Plans for New Ministry.—On December 17 the Marx Government in Germany was defeated in the Reichstag on a vote of confidence, by 249 to 171, only the “Little Coalition” of People’s, Center, and Democratic parties standing by the Ministry. Former Chancellor Luther was spoken about to form a new cabinet; and although nothing definite was to be done until the re-opening of the Reichstag in the middle of January, there was talk of a new “bourgeois” coalition between the Center parties and the Nationalists. Either there must be a new alignment of this kind, or else another weak cabinet from the center parties, dependent for a majority upon votes drawn from the Right and Left.
German-Italian Arbitration Treaty. —An arbitration treaty between Germany and Italy was signed at Rome on December 29. It is described as similar in terms to treaties negotiated by Germany with eight other nations, notably Holland, Switzerland, and Norway. It provides for a special body of five members (three neutral) to settle disputes not open to ordinary arbitration.
Allied Arms Control Ended.—On December 12, after a week of negotiations at Geneva, agreement was reached for transfer of the supervision of German armaments from the Allied powers to the League of Nations. It was provided that the Allied powers should retain military experts at Berlin for consultation with League representatives ; and further, that if questions relating to fortifications on the Polish frontier and export of arms were not settled by diplomatic discussion before February 1 they should be submitted to the League Council.
The chief difficulties that delayed the agreement were: (1) the claim that Germany had not properly reduced her defenses near the Danzig Corridor; (2) the objections, especially of England, to the manufacture in Germany of great quantities of potential war material, such as optical instruments, lenses, airplane parts, forgings of cannon, etc., which were shipped abroad for assembly; (3) the claim that many civilian societies in Germany were conducted for military purposes.
ITALY AND THE BALKANS
Jugoslavia Armed by Italo-Albanian Treaty.—The announcement of the new treaty between Italy and Albania was the signal for renewed fear of Italian influence in the Balkans. Despatches from Belgrade at the close of December declared that Italian military forces had been concentrated threateningly on the Jugoslav frontier, and that Italy had been busy in various ways to prevent close co-operation between Jugoslavia and her other Balkan neighbors.
Belief that the Italo-Albanian treaty was an Italian diplomatic victory and contained secret military clauses, was responsible for the downfall of Foreign Minister Ninchitch on December 6 and the resignation shortly afterward of the entire cabinet. It was hoped that the foreign dangers, whether real or imagined, might lessen the clamor of the Slovenes and Croats, under Raditch, for a more decentralized government. After two weeks of uncertainty, however, the former premier, Uzunovitch, organized another cabinet (his fifth since April) on no stronger basis than before, and with two ministers drawn from the army and not from parliament.
In the midst of the cabinet crisis occurred the death, at eighty-one, of ex-Premier Pashitch, the foremost of Serbian statesmen, who engineered the creation of a greater Serbia after the war. M. Pashitch was buried with great pomp on December 12.
In the meantime the Italian Foreign Office denied that the Albanian treaty contained secret clauses, and stated that it would be duly registered with the League. The treaty was ratified by Albania on December 10. To all appearances it meant no great gain to Italy, for by the Conference of Ambassadors in 1921 she had already been conceded the right to guarantee the independence of Albania if threatened.
French-Italian War Scare. — Although little reflected in the press at the time, later evidence indicated that the friction between France and Italy last November was of a serious character. Unusual troop movements were made on both sides of the frontier, and French naval vessels were shifted from the Channel to the Mediterranean. Commenting on the situation in a letter from London on December 9 (Baltimore Sun, January 2), Hector Bywater remarked that Italy could hardly hope for victory over France without support, and aid from either Spain or Germany would be very doubtful at this time.
The simultaneous fears of both Jugoslavia and France, Italy’s eastern and western neighbors, suggest forcibly that Italy is the most imponderable element in present- day European politics.
NORTHERN EUROPE
Coup d’Etat in Lithuania.—Forestalling, as they believed, a Bolshevistic uprising, Conservative leaders in Lithuania on December 17 overthrew the government, arrested the president and cabinet, and set up a new ministry. M. Suretona, the Conservative leader, was made president, and was duly elected by parliament, although only forty members, all from the parties of the Right, were present. The purpose of the change, so it was stated, was to counteract the swing toward communism which has been noticeable in Lithuania since the recent treaty with the Soviet Union. The latter regarded the coup as a deep anti-communistic move engineered by the western powers under British guidance.
FAR EAST
British Proposals Ineffective. — A British memorandum, containing proposals for solution of Chinese problems, was presented to the diplomatic corps at Peking in December and made public on December 25. It suggested very liberal concessions, including immediate levy of the increased tariff schedules proposed at the Washington conference, certain changes in extraterritorial rights, and immediate revision of China’s treaties with other nations. In China, however, the memorandum apparently came too late, for it was viewed with indifference or contempt by the leaders among the southern nationalists, who, under Soviet guidance, seemed determined to ruin British trade.
A few days later Foreign Minister Briand made it clear that France took no interest in the British proposals, and considered action unwise at a time when the situation in China was in a state of flux. Japan took the same position as France. While the United States lias long been in sympathy with the changes now proposed by Great Britain, it was stated in Washington on December 29 that a definite reply would not be ready for several days. With vast property and trade interests at stake in China, delay and inaction are scarcely possible policies for Great Britain. Although it has been said that the days of “gunboat diplomacy” in China are over, Great Britain has taken steps to increase both her naval and military forces in the East. Families of military officers in China have been withdrawn from the interior.
Northern Leaders Combine.—The conference of northern war lords at Tientsin in November resulted finally in the choice of Chang Tso-lin as generalissimo. General Wu was not present at the conference, and was evidently no longer regarded as an effective opponent of the Southern armies. It was reported after the arrival of Chang Tso-lin in Peking in December that a new ministry would be established there in order to maintain at least a semblance of organized government. There was no news of vigorous measures to combat the steady extension of Cantonese propaganda and military control in the Yang-tze provinces.
Death of Japanese Emperor.—Emperor Yoshihito of Japan, I22d of the imperial line, died at Tokio in the early morning of December 25. Prince Hirohito, who has ruled as Prince Regent since November, 1921, was at once proclaimed emperor.
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
The Grouping of Nations.—In an article by this title, by Prof. Archibald Coolidge in Foreign Affairs for January, are considered the various linkings of peoples and nations—racial, geographical, colonial, cultural—which have developed in recent times. Examples are the Union of Soviet Republics and the Association of British Commonwealths, which are existent political organizations; Pan-America, which is “an affiliation of sorts”; and Pan-Europe, which, though widely discussed, is still a dream of the future.
Professor Coolidge considers the difficulties in the way of a Pan-Europe. Soviet Russia may well be excluded as a vast block by itself, neither European nor Asiatic. But what of England, so closely linked culturally and economically with Europe, yet politically part of an empire extending over the globe? What of the colonial empires of France and Holland? What of the age-old antipathies of the nations themselves?
As for Pan-America, he points out the incongruity of omitting Canada, and suggests that the danger of British influence in Pan-America through the inclusion of Canada would be far less than the present danger of having Canada think of herself less as an American country than as a part of the British Empire.
Efforts to bind the British Empire more closely, he thinks, are not likely to be permanently successful.
On the contrary it looks more probable that the Empire will evolve or disintegrate not into a real commonwealth, though that may be the title, but into a loose confederacy of independent, English speaking states, bound together by ties of blood, language, culture, and ideals, with a common sovereign and his governor generals as figureheads, but each free to follow its own interests in whatever way it thinks fit, which means that no one will be required to support another in a war unless it chooses to. The recent Imperial Conference marks a long step in this direction. . . . . A British Commonwealth of Nations so constituted will hardly represent a much closer entente than the sentiment of community which, marred though it be by jealousies, attaches the different Latin American republics to one another.
In such a group, we may well imagine the United States taking part in some form—indeed, becoming much more interested in it than in Pan- Americanism and ultimately playing somewhat the same sort of role that it now does there. Even now Canada, though not included in the Monroe Doctrine, is at bottom protected from foreign conquest fully as much by America as by Great Britain. She has no need to contribute to imperial defense.
Finally we must not forget that the tendency toward forming groups of nations is no longer confined to the white race. “Pan-Asia,” that is to say India as well as China, Indo-China, Japan, and perhaps the East-Indian islands, would constitute a tremendous mass of humanity. It may be a wild dream but it has its partisans in all of the countries named. Even in the reduced form of a Pan- Mongolian federation it is enough to frighten all the other nations bordering on the Pacific. . . . In spite of the fact that we have been witnessing the break-up of empires, the tendency throughout the world toward great combinations, political as well as economic, is unmistakable today. Such combinations mean chances of future conflicts on a gigantic scale. They also suggest possibilities of bringing us one step nearer to a world-wide fusion of international interests.
Three Days in Belgrade.—In Foreign Affairs for December appears an article of great interest by this title, written by H. F. Armstrong, and based largely on information furnished by an official of the Serbian Foreign Office at the outbreak of the great War. It describes the three days which ended with the presentation of the Austrian Ultimatum. According to the article, Serbia was completely deceived by the “cloak of calm” assumed by the Austrian Foreign Minister after the Sarajevo assassination. M. Pashitch, the Serbian Premier and Foreign Minister, was in a remote district electioneering. Only three cabinet members were in Belgrade. The Austrian minister in the morning of July 23 set 4 p.m. that day as the hour when he would deliver an important communication. Serbia received no earlier warning. At 4 p.m. an Austrian secretary appeared to postpone the hour till 6 p.m. This, the evidence shows, was because word came via Germany that the sailing of President Poincare from Kronstadt had been postponed from 10 to 11 (9:30 Central European time) that night, and it was feared news of the ultimatum might reach St. Petersburg before his departure.
After the forty-eight-hour ultimatum was delivered, the Serbian cabinet worked up to the last minute over the reply, and the close of it was written in longhand, as the only typewriter left had broken down. Five minutes after the receipt of the Serbian document, the Austrian minister signed his reply (which must have been already prepared), and he was in Austrian territory by 6:40 that night.