World Power Policy (1905-14).— Another period of about 10 years passed without a de velopment of new principles. The United States was busy taking care of its colonies in the Philippines and Porto Rico and its de pendency of Cuba. The Venezuela episode brought out the fact that the Monroe Doctrine could be invoked to protect a country from aggression from overseas; but what should be done in case of a real injury to a European country? To meet this difficulty President Roosevelt announced as a new form of the Monroe Doctrine the policy of uThe Big Stick,') as it was commonly called; that is, he promised to keep unruly American powers in order, so as to take away the excuse for foreign inter ventions.
Hence he took charge of Santo Domingo in 1905; and Panama became practically an Amer ican dependency. Under President Wilson Nicaragua and Haiti were brought under the control of the United States and the Danish Islands were annexed in 1917. At the same time the government assumed a responsibility for Mexico such as would prevent foreign powers intervening there. It thus became the policy of the United States to occupy the Carib bean and exercise a dominant influence in all the neighboring coast of North America.
Another evidence of a ne.w spirit was the active part taken by delegates of the United States in The Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907. The general influence of our govern ment was toward world peace, though our rep resentatives were careful to give notice that we did not consider the Monroe Doctrine to be in any way set aside by The Hague convention& In all parts of the world American commerce was pushed, American influence was felt and American diplomats were consulted. The United States took especially strong ground for China against the oppression or looting of that country by other powers.
Policy in the World War (1914-19).—The i outbreak of war in Europe 1914 put the diplomatic policies of the United States to many severe tests. In the first place it was contrary to the genuine love of peace and desire to ad vance peace which has characterized the Ameri can people and government. From the Ameri can point of view, every war of the United States since the Mexican War has been simply an effort to put things into a condition where permanent peace was possible. The Civil War, the frontier Indian wars, the Spanish War and the military occupation of the little Latin American countries were all intended to lead to an enduring peace in America.
The policy of neutrality was hard either to define or to maintain, because of the natural ized or unnaturalized sons of the various war ring countries who were living in the United States and who naturally felt a strong desire that their native countries should be successful. The status of neutral trade was especially diffi cult, because the principles of international law recognized by the United States and applied during our Civil War permitted the capture of any vessel carrying contraband to a bellig erent port, and to a vessel with any cargo bound for a really blockaded port. Hence losses of
American cargoes and vessels were inevitable.
This tension was much increased by the allied enlargement of contraband, first to cover such articles as rubber, copper and steel which had come to be essential for carrying on more. Then food stuffs, always a debatable point, were added; then nearly everything that could be useful or comforting to the army or the general population. A further complica tion was the insistence of Great Britain that cargoes bound to neutral ports could be seized, if there was a strong likelihood that part of them would find their way to Germany. This still further limited the markets and the sales of American business men.
It had been the practice of the world to buy munitions of war freely in any available market while the war was going on; but the control of the sea by Great Britain prevented shipments to the Central Powers and they pro tested that it was unneutral for the United States to allow shipments to their enemies. Then came drastic orders from both sides, declaring considerable areas of the open sea to be fields of war, in which any vessel, neutral or other wise, might be sunk at sight. One result was the destruction of the steamer Lusitania by a German submarine without warning (May 1915), with a loss of more than 100 American lives. This warfare of furious orders culmi nated in.the German announcement of February 1917 that any vessel found approaching or leav ing the British islands was liable to be sunk without warning. The United States thereupon suspended diplomatic intercourse and the con troversy all but led to war.
The effect of this confusion and danger upon American foreign policy was to convince the country that the peace and the freedom of the seas, which was so dear to Americans, could only be made safe by a sufficient military and naval force to give weight to the remonstrances and demands of the United States.
Crandell, S. B., 'Treaties, Making and Enforcement' (2d ed., 1916) ; Dun ning, W. A., 'The British Empire and the United States' (1914) ; Foster, John W., 'A Century of American Diplomacy (1900) and 'The Practice of Diplomacy as Illustrated in the Foreign Relations of the United States' (1906) ; Fish, Carl R , 'History of American Diplomacy' (1915)4 Hart, Albert Bushnell, 'Foundations of American Policy' (1905) and 'The Monroe Doctrine: An Interpretation' (1916) ; Mahan, A. T., 'The Interest of Amer ica in International Conditions' (1891) ; Malloy, W. M., 'Treaties, Conventions, etc., between the United States of America and other Powers' (3 vols., 1913) ; Moore, John B., 'A Digest of International Law' (5 vols., 1906) and 'Ameri can Diplomacy: Its Spirit and Achievements' (1905) ; Wilson, George Grafton, and Tucker, George F., 'International Law' (6th ed., 1915).