Wairarapa Times-Age MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1939. AMERICAN NEUTRALITY.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 6 March 1939, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1939. AMERICAN NEUTRALITY.

f ONE o’reat undetermined factor in. the international, situation is The part to be played by the United States in relation to the other world democracies and to the dictatorships by which all democracies—at a long view not excluding the United States itself—are more or less critically menaced. 1 eaee, ot course, is desired by the American Government and people not less ardently than by other democratic nations. In spite of the great scale on which American armaments are now being built up, it may be taken for granted that nothing short oi a necessity, clearly perceived, of repelling aggression would induce the United States to go to war. That being understood, there remains a wide of-possible action in which it is open to the United States profoundly to influence the course of world events. Much depends’, in particular, upon the shaping in the immediate future of the American neutrality law. As it stands, this law was designed to guard to the greatest extent practicable against the United States being drawn “into controversies not of its own making.” An essential element of the Jaw is the provision that commercial dealings with belligerents may be broken off irrespective of the merits of the issues that have given rise to hostilities. The law, in fact, was designed to enable the United States to stand aside from any war in another part of the world, though the position thus implied is modified by Idie emphatic reaffirmation in recent times of the Monroe Doctrine. A strong body of opinion in the United States still favours the policy of holding rigorously aloof from international disputes elsewhere than on. the American continents, but this attitude is no longer unanimously approved and supported by the American people. There is a considerable and incieasing body of support for the views expressed by Senator Logan, who was reported, in a cablegram published on Saturday, as saying, in the course of a defence debate in the United States Senate: — We cannot, be attacked by any nation in Europe without the fall of England and France. It is important, therefore, that we do what we can to see that England and France do not fall a prey to the dictators. I would furnish England and France with everything they need to fight a defensive warfare. I would seek to avoid to the fullest extent furnishing anything to Germany and Italy that would enable them to carry on a war of aggression. It gives added weight to this pronouncement that almost identical views had already been expressed by President Roosevelt. In his Message to Congress at the opening.of the present session, the President said in part: — We have learned that when we deliberately try to legislate neutrality our neutrality laws may operate unevenly and unfairly —may actually give aid to an aggressor and deny it to the victim. The instinct of self-preservation should warn us that we ought not to let that happen any more. While neutrality remains an exceedingly controversial issue in American politics, there is a promise of increasing support from the country for those who believe, with President. Roosevelt,, that the present neutrality law should be amended in vital details. Recently, for example, a body known as the Committee for Concerted Peace Efforts, composed of fifteen leaders of national peace organisations, received a report from a committee of experts recommending the following changes in the Neutrality Act :— (1) Give the President, with Congressional approval, power to distinguish between treaty-breaking and non-treaty-breaking warring nations and to place an arms embargo only on treaty breakers. (2) Secure greater flexibility in the Act by allowing the export embargo on treaty-violating nations to include other materials in addition to arms, munitions and direct implements of war. (3) Strike all references to civil war from the Act and handle such situations by special statutes when they arise. (4) Substitute the term “hostilities” for that of “war,” since so many actual wars today are “undeclared.” According to the chairman of the Committee for Concerted Peace Efforts (Mr C. M. Eichelberger), the recommendations just quoted “set the framework” within which that body will conduct a nation-wide campaign for revision of the Neutrality Act. Advocacy of a given policy, even by an influential and growing weight of public opinion, is distinguished clearly from the actual adoption of that, policy. There appears to be a distinct possibility, however, of American foreign policy being amended on the lines here indicated and while that, possibility remains in sight-Britain and France obviously will be wise io regard the cultivation of good relations with the United Slates as much more important than efforts to reach an understanding with dictatorships intent on extorting unjust concessions. !