UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Raid in East Nicaragua.—In mid-April a band of Sandino brigands under one of Sandino’s chief lieutenants, Pedro Blandon, advanced unexpectedly into the east Nicaragua region, with threats to reach Puerto Cabezas “dead or alive,” and on the morning of April 14 perpetrated a savage raid on the lumbering settlement of Logtown, seventy miles from the east coast. Nine Americans and several other foreigners were killed in the first attack, some of them being brutally butchered after capture. A force of four Nicaraguan guards and three civilians under Lieutenant Harlan Pefley, U. S. Marine Corps, advancing toward Log- town after the first warning of the raid, were ambushed and their leader killed. Another small body of guards under Lieutenant C. R. Darrah, U. S. Marine Corps, was also surrounded by superior forces but held their ground until supported by aircraft. A considerable number of the bandits were killed in the course of the fighting around Logtown, including their leader Blandon.
On the following day the settlement at Cape Gracias a Dios, forty-five miles north of Puerto Cabezas, was burned and looted, but the insurgents were driven out by marine bombing planes. The U.S.S. Asheville reached Puerto Cabezas from Panama on the fourteenth, and landed marines temporarily to release the native guardsmen for advance into the interior. The Memphis, Sacramento, and Rear Admiral St. Clair Smith’s flagship, Rochester, arrived soon afterward at the east coast ports and were followed by the aircraft carrier Langley and destroyers.
Before the end of April the Sandino followers had retreated into their center of activities in the northwestern region and conditions in eastern Nicaragua were again comparatively quiet.
American Policy Re-stated.—Close upon the murder of Americans and other foreigners in the eastern Nicaragua region came a warning from Secretary Stimson of the United States Department of State, in the form of instructions to the American legation at Managua and the consul at Blue- fields, to the effect that the United States government could not undertake the general protection of Americans throughout Nicaragua with American forces. The text of the instructions was a follows:
In view of outbreak of banditry in portions of Nicaragua hitherto free from such violence, you will advise American citizens that this government cannot undertake general protection of Americans throughout that country with American forces. To do so would lead to difficulties and commitments which this government docs not propose to undertake.
Therefore, the department recommends to all Americans who do not feel secure under the protection afforded them by the Nicaraguan government through the Nicaraguan National Guard to withdraw from the country, or at least to the coast towns, whence they can be protected or evacuated in case of necessity.
Those who remain do so at their own risk, and must not expect American forces to be sent inland to their aid.
Marine and naval forces were kept under careful check by the Department of State, and there were further assurances that there would be no change in the policy of evacuating the marines now in Nicaragua and turning over the campaign against Sandino to the Nicaraguan National Guard.
In the American press, while there was little criticism of the general policy of “getting out” of Nicaragua, there was much adverse comment in regard to the timeliness and wisdom of the State Department announcement, and a natural feeling of uncertainty as to the safety of American lives and interests in the Central American region. To allay this feeling, Secretary Stim- son made a later statement that he had been “misunderstood and misinterpreted,” and explained that the situation now differed from that of 1926 in being one of banditry rather than civil war, and declared that by assisting Nicaragua to organize her own forces and then turning over the bandit problem to them, the United States was adopting the wisest course to secure the protection of our own and other foreign interests.
Our Nicaraguan Policy.—In reply to a request from the New York Times for comment on the Nicaraguan situation Senator Hiram Johnson of California made the following statement:
Last January, just after the killing of ten or twelve of our marines, I introduced and the Senate passed a resolution calling upon Secretary of State for information concerning the situation in Nicaragua. I remarked then that the United States should pursue one of two courses: either withdraw the marines entirely or send enough there to do the job.
The administration has done neither. We now invite assassination of innocent Americans and others by Nicaraguan bandits and take the humiliating position of saying we cannot protect the lives of our citizens.
I would not say, of course, that if we devoted less time to sending hosts of people through our country to preach our going into Europe by one means or another, we might have more time to devote to American interests and safeguarding American lives; but I would very humbly suggest that now we are permitted by the grace of a foreign country to build a Navy upon specifications provided for us abroad, we might give a little, just a very little time to thought of our own upon this continent.
I cannot help recalling Theodore Roosevelt’s ultimatum when Perdicaris, an American citizen, was captured by the bandit Raisuli: “Give me Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead"—and the American citizen was forthwith released and delivered alive. But this was in the now unfashionable time when our first thought was America and Americans.
Withdrawal of Marines.—The United States State Department announced on April 16 that, in accordance with the policy of withdrawal decided on last February, all marines would be removed from combatant duty in Nicaragua “probably by June next,” leaving only those engaged in training the native guard and an aviation section for transport of supplies to forces in the bandit provinces. By June the total number of marines still in Nicaragua will be reduced to about 500. According to Secretary Stimson’s statement, the native constabulary has been increased to 2,100.
Uprising in Honduras.—As if encouraged by the new American policy of strictly limited interference in Central American affairs, a revolt broke out in Honduras at the moment when American naval vessels and marines were occupied with the Sandino raid in eastern Nicaragua. The uprising, however, was a short-lived affair, stimulated chiefly by unemployment and economic depression, and with no particular animus against Americans or other foreigners. In the region inland from the banana ports of Tela, Ceiba, and Trujillo on the north coast, there was considerable fighting between rebels and loyal forces and communications were interrupted between these towns and the interior. By the end of April the remnants of the rebels had been driven into the back country and their capture or dispersion was certain. American residents in the coast towns took refuge temporarily on steamers of the United Fruit Company, and were later protected by the arrival of naval vessels.
The only leader of any consequence connected with the revolt was General Gregario Ferrera, a Liberal politician of Indian blood who had considerable influence with the lower classes, and who had been at one time Minister of War under President Colindres.
American investments in Honduras are somewhat greater than in any other of the Central American republics, amounting to about $71,500,000, of which $26,000,000 is in railroads and communications and the rest chiefly in the banana industry. Between 1919 and 1924 the country suffered an epidemic of no less than thirty-five revolutionary disturbances, culminating in the serious civil warfare of 1924 which necessitated American intervention. Following that period Honduras settled down, and under President Mejia Colindres, elected in 1928, has had a fairly liberal and equitable administration.
SPAIN BECOMES A REPUBLIC
Alfonso Leaves Spain.—After an overwhelming victory for the Republican parties by a vote of three or four to one in the municipal elections of April 12 in Spain, a governmental crisis quickly developed which led to the overthrow of the monarchy, the withdrawal of King Alfonso, and the establishment of a republic with Niceto Alcala Zamora, leader of the Republican party, as temporary president. The Azuar cabinet resigned on the fourteenth, as soon as the results of the election were definitely known. Cities all over Spain declared for a republic, revolutionary mobs thronged the Madrid streets, at 6:00 P.M. Zamora took control, and that night Alfonso left by automobile for Cartagena and boarded a Spanish cruiser which landed him at Marseilles. The royal family departed for Paris by train the next morning. In leaving the country Alfonso declared in his final manifesto that he was still king but was stepping aside to avoid civil war, and while awaiting the final verdict of the people as determined in national elections. “I am deliberately suspending the exercise of royal power,” so the manifesto read, “and I am leaving Spain, recognizing in this way that she is the sole mistress of her destinies.”
President Zamora quickly organized a republican cabinet, declared political amnesty, restored the criminal code existing in 1923 before the Rivera dictatorship, and announced that elections for a constituent assembly would be held early in May. The province of Catalonia, richest in Spain and responsible for three-fourths of Spanish industrial products, caused immediate trouble by setting up a separate government under Francisco Macia, a leader in the separatist movement. An arrangement was made, however, by which Catalonia will remain at least temporarily within the Spanish republic. Spain is the twelfth country in Europe to establish a republican government since the war. Ten monarchies still survive. In Spain the growth of the anti-monarchist movement, despite Alfonso’s personal popularity, courage, and skill in extricating himself from tight places, gathered strength after the scandals and failures of the Morocco campaign, and the resultant eight-year dictatorship of Primo Rivera.
Revolt in Portuguese Islands.—A revolt chiefly of naval and military forces against the Portuguese dictatorship of President Carmona broke out early in April in the Azores Islands and Madeira, and necessitated the dispatch of naval, military, and aerial forces against the islands. Upon the arrival of the naval vessels and aircraft the revolutionary junta in the Azores surrendered on April 19 without resistance. At Madeira the situation was somewhat more serious. After various ultimatums, the government forces bombarded Funchal, landed troops, and on May 2 secured the surrender of General Sousa Diaz, the leader of the rebellion. In the course of the skirmishing no foreigners or civilians were injured. Responsibility for the uprising was attributed chiefly to refugee Portuguese politicians with headquarters in Paris, and there was considerable fear on the part of the leaders in power lest it should spread to Lisbon, where there were student riots and antigovernment disturbances on May Day.
EUROPEAN POLITICS
Naval Pact Again Deadlocked.—Apparently as a partial result of the new fears created by Austro-German developments, the French government in April raised new obstacles to her long-projected naval agreement with Italy and Great Britain. According to the present French contention, the agreement, if it is to be accepted, must be so interpreted as to enable her to begin replacement at least as early as July, 1935, of tonnage which would become over age in the period between 1931 and 1936. By this interpretation France would be able to get an earlier start on 66,000 additional tons of new construction and would enter the year 1937 with her present superiority over Italy maintained, and maintained with new ships rather than obsolete ones. The British reply on this point expressed unwillingness to accept the 1935 date, but suggested a somewhat later one, or a postponement of the whole question of replacements. The Italian note sent early in May was also unfavorable, regarding the French proposals as an attempt to “re-write” the original accord as made on March 1.
As the matter now stands, it appears hardly possible that a settlement of these disputed points can be patched up in time to clear the way for the arms conference of next January.
Austro-German Trade Agreement.— While agitation against the Austro-German customs agreement somewhat subsided pending its consideration at the League Council meeting in May, Premier Briand of France continued busily to develop against it a closer economic union with the Little Entente powers. Contributing to this result was the completion in April of arrangements for a $50,000,000 French loan to Czechoslovakia, though a similar loan to Jugoslavia is still hanging fire. In opposition to the Austro-German Anschluss, France counts strongly on the cooperation of Foreign Minister Benes of Czechoslovakia, who in numerous speeches has condemned the German agreement as in no way beneficial to the rest of Europe, and as certain to divide the continent once more into two hostile camps.
Meantime it is expected that the visit to London of Chancellor Bruening and Foreign Minister Curtius of Germany, on the invitation of the British government, will take place some time in June, and it is quite possible that the League Council may be able to turn over the customs union question for British mediation at this meeting.
Rumanian Dictatorship Threatened.—After the fall of the Moronescu cabinet in Rumania in April, efforts were made to form a concentration cabinet under Nicolas Titulescu with support from all parties, but this failed and King Carol was finally forced to call on his former tutor Professor Nicolas Jorgo to organize a ministry. The Jorgo government dissolved parliament on April 30 and called for new elections early in June, taking measures at the same time to see that these elections should bring results favorable to the leaders now in control. Royal privileges are to be restored and a stronger central government created. In fact Rumania appears to be moving toward a royal dictatorship under Carol, similar to that in Jugoslavia, with the possible alternative of an overthrow of the monarchy.
FAR EAST
New Japanese Ministry.—Owing to his slow recovery from the wound inflicted in the attempt on his life last year, Premier Hamaguchi of Japan resigned, together with his cabinet, on April 13. A new ministry was organized by Baron Wakatsuki, former premier and head of the Japanese delegation at the London Naval Conference. The new cabinet retains all but three of the former ministers and contemplates no marked changes of policy. In his first speeches the present premier emphasized the need of national retrenchment and reorganization of industry to balance production and consumption.
Revolt in South China.—In the midst of the assembling of delegates from all parts of China for the opening of the People’s Convention at Nanking on May 5, a serious movement against the Nanking government was reported among politicians in southern China. According to this report, anti-Nanking leaders had taken over control of Canton and Kwantung province, and probably of other southern provinces also, and allied themselves with the bandit rebellion in central China. This hostile development against Nanking is described as an outgrowth of the long-standing differences between President Chiang and certain southern politicians, which brought about the resignation of Hu Han-min as president of the Nanking Legislative Yuan last March, and the forced detention at Nanking of another Cantonese leader, General Li Chai-sum, for the past two years. Presumably because of its difficulties in central China, the Nanking government planned no immediate measures against this new revolt.
Nanking Rule Assailed.—One of the most violent attacks on the present central government of China for its failure to protect foreign lives and property appeared April 20 in the Shanghai Evening Post, an American-owned daily, in the form of an open letter to Secretary of State Stimson. The immediate occasion of the attack was the continued detention of the Rev. Bert Nelson, captured by Communist brigands over six months ago, despite payment of $17,000 for his release, and also the recent capture in Hupeh province of an American woman missionary, Miss Esther Nordlund of Chicago, and two Swedish missionaries. Mr. Nelson’s fellow-prisoner, Rev. Kristofer Tvedt, was not long ago released by the bandits, but at the close of April Nelson’s whereabouts were still unknown. The “open letter” read in part as follows:
“It is the solemn and considered opinion of a large number of American nationals resident in China that the continued friendly negotiations of the United States with the government of China are a national disgrace.”
After a review of the Nelson-Tvedt case, the letter to Mr. Stimson continues:
“In that time no effective effort has been made by the government of China to exterminate these brigands or bring them to justice. Repeated protests of American officials and private citizens have been ineffectual or have been entirely ignored. In view of the obvious indifference of national China to the solemn obligations of government and to afford protection to foreign and native lives, it becomes no less than a national scandal for the United States to treat with the government of China as though it were in fact a government.”
In addition to this open letter to Mr. Stimson, which will probably result in the Evening Post being denied the use of the mails, the newspaper scathingly attacks the Nanking government’s action in the Nelson and similar cases in an editorial which stoutly maintains that the surrender or modification of extraterritoriality under present conditions is unthinkable. The Evening Post declares that when the Nanking government permits a handful of bandits to hold, flog, and torture two foreigners for more than half a year without stirring to effect their rescue, it is idle to discuss surrendering foreign-protected areas to such a so- called government.
“To deliver such power now to the national government in the face of its adolescent petulance over imagined affronts and its demonstrated inability to recognize and deal with a major domestic insult to its own sovereignty,” the editorial says, “is to renounce the principles which every citizen of the United States has long held dear in his representatives. It would admit that America, too, holds life cheaply and the obligation of a government to protect its citizens lightly.”
No doubt both the Nanking government and Secretary Stimson would welcome suggestions from the Post as to the quickest method of restoring order in bandit-ridden China, and as to the best policy to be adopted by foreign governments in securing protection for their nationals.