ee
>
&

Monroe, Kennedy Doctrines Compared
Just what was the Monroe Doctrine, and how does
the new Kennedy Doctrine differ from it?

In the early years of the
19th century, the Spanish
Empire in South and Cen-
tral America was smashed
by the struggles of the peo-
ple. But the young repub-
lics created by these Wars
of Independence were grav-
ely threatened at the end
of the Napoleonic wars in
Europe by both Britain and
the reactionary Holy Alli-
ance composed of Russia,
Prussia and Austria.

It was in these conditions
‘that -President James Mon-
roe of the United States on
‘Dec. 3. 1823, put forward
‘his- famous doctrine warn-

ing aggressive - Eurepean -

powers to keep their hands
‘off the Americas. He said:

-“The ‘American centin-
ents, by the free and inde-
pendent conditions which
they have assumed and
maintained, are henceforth
not to be considered as sub-
jects for futuré coloniza-
tion by any European pow-
er... with governments
'who*have declared their in-
dependence and © maintain-

.ed it, and whose. indepen-

‘dence we have; on_ great
‘consideration and -just prin-
ciples, acknowledged, we
could not view any imter-
‘position. for.the purpose of
oppressing them, or control-

|limg in any -other manner
their. destiny, by any. Eur-

oOpean power, in. any other
light. than. a manifestation

of any unfriendly disposi-

tion towards the United
States.”

While undoubtedly _ al-
ready in 1823 there were

_those in the U.S. who were

beginning. to think of the

United States taking over
_the whole Western Hemis-
phere, the basic effect of

the Monroe Doctrine was
to keep the European pow-
ers from establishing col-
onial “domination over La-
tin America:

William. Z.- Foster in his
Outline of Political History
of the Americas writes:

“England swallowed the
Monroe Doctrine with dif-
ficulty, and it came as a
heavy blow to Metternich

and his cronies in the Holy
- Alliance. It ‘was a victory
_for the young -United Stat-
-es. It was also an “advan-"
‘tage for the Latin~ Ameri-
‘can countries, as in the
“midst of the various pow-

ers seeking to absorb them,
it gave them-a measure of

' protection.”

The years went by: U:S.
capitalism grew _ stronger
and entered. its imperialist

stage. And with that -came

a new and entirely differ-
ent interpretation of the

*Monroe Doctrine.

In the Spanish-American

War of 1898, Spain’s last
remaining colonies were
“liberated” by the United
States — Cuba to come un-
der almost total U.S. poli-
tical, economic and _  mili-
tary domination, and Puer-
to_Rico to become an out-
right U.S. colony. Five
years afterwards, President
Theodore Roosevelt used
his “big stick” to partition
Colombia and establish U.S
control over the Isthmus of
Panama, there to build the
Panama Canal. ~

It was then that Roose-
velt first laid down the
20th century version of ‘the
Monroe Doetrine. He: told
the Latin American coun-
tries: _

“Chronic wrong-doing or
an impotence which results
in a general loosening of
the ties of civilized society,
may in America, as else-
where, ultimately require
intervention by some civil-
ized nation, and in the
Western Hemisphere the
adherence of the United
States to the Monroe Doc-
trine may force the United
States, however, reluctant-
ly, in flagrant cases of
wrong-doing or impotency,
to the exercise: of an inter-
national power.”

Thus did the Monroe
Doctrine, originally -direct-
ed against European aggres-
sion in the Western -Hemis-
phere, come to be used as
the screen for United Stat-
es aggression.

Kennedy carries: on in
the arrogant tradition of
Theodore Roosevelt. He
does not even bother to

‘sereen U.S. policy with his

predecessor’s cheap dema-
gogy about “civilization.”
The Kennedy Doctrine flat-
ly says:

“Tf the nations of: this
hemisphere should fail to
meet their commitments
against outside Communist
penetration, then I want it

clearly understood that this |

government will not hesit-
ate in meeting its primary
obligations which are to
the security of our own na-
tion.”

Thus Kennedy asserts
that the United States will
deny to all the countries of
the Western Hemisphere
their right to effect such so-
cial changes as they see fit.
And he asserts this in the
name of United States se-
curity, by which he means
of course the security of
the U.S. monopolies.

But the main difference
between the Roosevelt -Big
Stick and the Kennedy Doc-
trine is first what the Yan-

‘kee bosses and their Mar-

ines could do in 1903 what
they cannot do in 1961.

How should Unemployment]
Insurance Act be changed?)

Because of the current widespread discussions of the, should qualify for ull
Unemployment Insurance Act and because parliament will be{ ment insurance bené
discussing changes in the Act shortly, the Pacific Tribune has| no worker should b
decided to bring to the attention of its readers proposals on this| because of employment
matier advanced to the Canadian government in November! sonal or other’ occ
1958. Moreover, unemployl

These proposals by the Communist Party are directed to surance should be pal@
making the Act work to the benefit of employed and unem-; cry day of unemployy
ployed, in our opinion are still valid and should be pressed on| the extent of. twovthi®
government and parliament. ef .a person’s weekly ©

Following is a digest of these proposals. for the duration of,
ment.”

There are three areas in
which improvements » to the
Act. ought to be made:

1. Every person working
for wages or salary should be
entitled to unemployment ben: would place much nee
efits: under the Act and “thus The government was com-| chasing power into
be protécted in part against | pelled to increase pension pay-| of those who need 7p
the ravages of'unemployment: } ments, not only because they | 2nd thereby protect |
This is not the case. today-| were inadequate, but also be-| Some extent against en
In fact, between 800,000 to} cause they were completely | effects of the econom
900,000 Canadians are still ex- | out: of line with rising living | Im turn, it would have
cluded from the benefits of) costs. This precedent: ought-to | What salutary effect
the: Act: : be followed up with regards | €Conomy, because fa

2. Benefit payments need! to - unemployment insurance | 4% Imcrease’in purch
to be increased for: single and-| payments. er, the crisis: will
married men and women: 3. Benefit payments need to | Self and worsen.

When the Act was adopted be continued the entire per-
in 1940, the purchasing power.| iod of unemployment:
of the dollar was far greater; The present period of pay- ernment made whe
than it is. today. How. mueh ments is totally inadequate office, as -well as wit
greater can be seen by the fol-}.and is based. on the concept Wrinister Diefenbaker’s
lowing: it takes $1.68 today:/that unemployment would: be
to buy the same value that mainly “seasonal. and tempor- year, that “no. Canadi
could be obtained. for $1.00-in’ ary. : 3 Ss ueer through ne”
1939. : With the above in mind the- ment? a

Thus, a+ married man on} Communist Party proposed |. one : : el
unemployment insurance’ ben--| the: following’ amendment: to’ In. this connection, # >
efits receiving $30 weekly,.in-.| the Act: munist. Party: made ont :
fact. receives less than $20 in “That every employee | tional. proposal, -nam )
terms of teday’s purchasing where wage or. . salary . does.) the government utilize | a
power of the dollar. Surely not exceed. $4,800. annually, |.nsold food surpluses “| Q
the. country in order, #4
plement. the - supply a rly
necessities. to. the chil
unemployed . workers oi
above. what. they “9
with unemployment i

Coupons for the Po®

Q
| of such - surplus ot f
I
i

the govenrment cannot claim
this to be adequate for a man
and his family, not to speak
of single men and women who
receive far less?

The party urged ™
ernment to - bring. it”
proposal- to Parliamé
am ~ amendment -— to —

Moreover, it would | i
line with the pledges *,

ation’ the earl art “i,
: Y a nediol

f

‘

BY YOMEN

CONGRESSMAN DRIPP:

ove

could be issued wit “fl
ployment. benefits i1 ie
ion to the size of fat™

Press reports indica ;
such: surpluses are J
erable proportions: 9) .jit

i Tt
I
I

the government has
eliminate them by vit gy
away programs to oth@ 4
tries. Would it not Pee
if the surpluses, whi
paid for by Canadial “yf }
generally, were ma ar
able to the children Ef”
employed? 4
\
¢

Th government may ‘f
where is the money |
from? .

We would say that 7
constitutes a proble™ ai
portion of the furds 2 igh |
ing spent on armani
transferred to the U® |
ment Insurance Fund. pis) .

We would add to vi
corporation taxes be 4 st,

'

“How can we prove that our intervention | 2%. s° as > “lie!
° ger contributions '0 ~ Ff

Po em pmpry ere

in Latin America is really good for them?’ | from this source.

«fit
May 26, 1961—-PACIFIC TRIBU" I |