AGGRESSIVE POWERS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 8 April 1939, Page 8

AGGRESSIVE POWERS

ATTITUDE OF UNITED STATES ABANDONMENT OF ISOLATION URGED. PROTECTION FROM IMMINENT DANGER. By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright. WASHINGTON, April 6. The former Secretary of State, Mr H. L. Stimson, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged the United States to use its economic resources to halt the aggressions of dictator nations. Mr Stimson opened the hearing of evidence on the proposed revision of the neutrality laws. He urged that the President be given broader discretion, declaring, “Caucasion civilisation is threatened by the gravest danger with which it has been confronted for four centuries, “Today three of the seven most powerful nations of the world have rejected the code of behaviour with, open scorn and contempt, and have adopted as their most conspicuous foreign policy a system of aggressive action against neighbours. “Under the name of unilaterial action they have proceeded to tear up all the net of promises, treaties, and codes which have been adopted under the old system of mutual respect, and which stood in the way of their aggrandisement.” Mr Stimson advocated the abandonment of the principle of isolation, asserting that the European axis moved much too rapidly and the world had become far too small and inter-con-nected.

He urged that the United States should “carefully and moderately, but firmly and intelligently, help to protect the world, tX'hich includes ourselves, from its imminent and continuing danger.” He concluded: “The fact that we are known to be ready to do so will not only tend to slow down the akis but at the same time will encourage their intended victims not to make surrenders which will ultimately endanger us.” Another testifier before the committee, was Mr Bernard Baruch, wartime economics expert and Peace Conference delegate, who said that the use of economic sanctions against aggressor nations would lead the United States into war.

If our economic war fails, we would then be in) a military war,” he said. “If we make'an ecomonic war, that conclusion is inevitable. lam not sure that, even with utmost pressure, we could prevent a European war if it was determined upon by the aggressors.” Referring to the various neutrality proposals to place a Strict embargo upon arms, munitions and other commodities unless foreign nations sent their ships to transport the goods, he said: “We might be abandoning much, even all of our shipping trade for nothing.” “Would it not serve all our purposes in such cases not absolutely to prohibit such shipments but to serve notice on our people and on the world that the American flag will not protect them. I also question the theory that we must take part in a European war. I am not a military expert, but do happen to have had some experience with many nations in the World War. “I venture to believe that this country and this hemisphere can escape involvement in a European conflict and we can do, this without burying our head in the -sand. We can still raise our voice against faithlessness and brutality.” He said that the barriers protecting the United States against invasion were still formidable, despite the advances made in military and naval weapons of aggression. “If we believe we can defend this hemisphere,, then the whole argument for not waging an economic war weakens.” Senator Borah interrupted at this point and asked: “Is your proposal neutrality at, all,” Mr Baruch replied, “No. There is no such animal as neutrality.” Senator Borah: “Isn’t there another question involved in your argument and that is that we should not cut ourselves off from trade in munitions because of the income involved?” “Mr Baruch: “Personally I would not engage in the munitions business. I’ve a personal abhorrence of it. How stupid anyone would be to bring this country into war to make profits.”