AMERICAN NEUTRALITY.

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 22, 10 February 1937, Page 4

AMERICAN NEUTRALITY.

So far as the United States can be said to ha.ve a foreign policy it is pretty well confined to the promotion of oversea trade, with an increase in American exports speeially in view. Her relations with the Central and South American republics, discussed at a recent Pan-American Congress, scarcely come within the category of foreign policy. There the Big Republic's position of dominance is fully assured and, with the Monroe Doctrine still maintained, there is little ihance of any serious European challenge to it. As for the Old World, America's only thought is to abide by the advice of a President of the eighteenth century and "keep free from European entanglements." With this objecl in view she has, since the Great War, studiously avoided taking any reailly active part in attempts to restore friendly relations among the Continental nations. An occasional piece of pious advice, along with the wholly ineffective Kellog Paet, is about all she has contributed. Above everything, and possibly with good justification, both the American Government and the American people are determined that, come what may elsewhere, they are not to be drawn into another war. It is this that lies mainly behind what from time to time we hear with regard to American neutrality law and the recent proposals for its amendment. It was in the course of the Italo-Abyssinian "dispute" that the first Neutrality Act was passed by Congress. This forbade the export of certain specified war materials to either belligerent and imposed restrictions upon the supply of certain other commodities. The effect of this in operation was, of course, though not so intended, to favour the aggressor Power, which was in a position to provide from its own armament factories all the weapons, instruments and munitions of war it required. At the same time it left Italy free to draw from America such domestic supplies and, indeed, also war-needed material of some kinds as she was able to pay for. Impecunious Abyssinia, on the other hand, was left pretty well to her own hopelessly inadequate resources, with the result wd all know. The question of neutrality has again been brought pro* minently for ward by the civil war in Spain. It was not long in being discovered that the original Neutrality Act did not contemplate or make provision for a war of this character, having regard only to armed conflicts between nations. The consequence was that, while other neutral countries — some of them, of course, only professedly so — were endeavouring to institute a general prohibition against furnishing war supplies to either party and so to shorten the fratricidal conflict and prevent it spreading, the United States Government found itself witbout power to follow suit. However, at the beginning of the year, as soori1 as Congress met after the presidential election, steps were taken to remedy this defect. ^However, the position thus disclosed has led to President Roosevelt asking to be invested with still greater discretionary authority in connection with the export of war equipment and munitions or other requirements to countries engaged in aciive hostilities. The actuating motive is still the desire to avoid all possibility of becoming involved in them. As the law now stands any prohibition imposed must, no niatter what the circumstances or how flagrant the aggression, be applied without discrimination to both or all countries engaged. The latest comment on this we have had comes from an American economist, who looks at the problem as to how this rigid provision may react upon America's foreign trade. He points out that the natural bent of any country that foresees even the possible prospect of becoming implicated in war will be to favour in peace-time eommercial relations with countries that will continue to supply its necessaries in war-time. On that account he advocates for. his country a position of strongly armed neutrality that will enable her, as sympathies and interests may at the moment dictate, to exercise her own discretion with respect to the supply of arms or anything else.