Note 6 — Chapter V · THE FAILURE OF THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES TO WIN POPULAR APPROVAL

One hundred years of trial have made Americans feel that the Monroe Doctrine is not to be unthinkably and lightly surrendered. The Senators who questioned the Covenant of the League of Nations were on unassailable ground when they insisted upon a reservation to make clear Article XXI. How poorly this article was drafted is shown by a comparison of the English and French texts, which have quite a different meaning. One cannot be called a translation of the other. The French text reads: “Les engagements internationaux, tels que les traités d’arbitrage, et les ententes régionales, comme le doctrine de Monröe, qui assurent le maintien de la paix, ne sont considérés comme incompatibles avec aucune des dispositions du présente pacte.” The English text says: “Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to effect the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace.” Which text is right? The defenders of the League are necessarily silent on this point. Of one thing we are sure, that from the American viewpoint, the Monroe Doctrine is neither an “entente régionale” or a “regional understanding.” It is simply a unilateral declaration of purpose, valid only because of our determination and ability to enforce it.