DIVERGENT VIEWS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 27 December 1939, Page 5

DIVERGENT VIEWS

ENFORCEMENT OF AMERICAN NEUTRALITY SOME TALK OF SANCTIONS. RECENT URUGUAYAN PROTEST. By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright. MONTEVIDEO. December 25. It is officially stated that though Uruguay adheres, as a matter of principle, to the Pan-American declaration, her protest of last Saturday made important reservations, the text of which will be announced later. Well-informed circles understand that the reservations concern sanctions, which are still the subject of consultations. The original text was prepared by the United States State Department, but it was considered too vague, and diplomatic sanctions to make the protest more vital than a formal diplomatic protest were suggested. The Argentine proposed internment of all belligerent warships arriving at Ameican ports after violation of the neutrality zone. Efforts to include this proposal in the text threatened to delay the protest too long. Uruguay agrees to the Argentine’s general idea of sanctions, but wants a distinction between belligerents raiding commerce and protecting commerce. Bolivia, which has no sea coast, opposes any sanctions. Others feel that Uruguay’s proposals are tantamount' to American support of the Allies. This point is now the issue of consultations among Foreign Ministers. The nature of the eventual sanctions depends on the conciliation of divergent viewpoints. PAN=AMERICAN PROTEST UNITED STATES OPINION CRITICAL. VIOLATION OF NEUTRAL ZONE: NEW YORK, December 26. United States opinion, reflected in, the responsible Press, is critical of the Pan-American protest last Saturday against the claimed violation of the neutrality zone in the naval engagement with the Admiral Graf Spee. The “New York Times” in an editorial says: “It is unfortunate that the Pan-American States chose to assert their claim on a basis of right in preference to the more accurate and more realistic basis of logical, compelling interest.” The journal adds: “Whether the safety zone becomes a reality depends primarily not on counter-mea-sures, but on ability to convince the belligerents of the desirability of avoiding antagonising American opinion.” The “Herald-Tribune” says: “The protest was awkwardly worded and utterly uninspired. The basic weakness of the Panama declaration is its failure to account for the fact that when nations are fighting for their existence their conduct towards neutrals is governed by a balancing of the possible gains and losses resulting in flouting the neutrals’ policies.” The newspaper adds: “When, as here, an entirely new doctrine unprecedented in international law is launched it cannot be expected that the belligerents will acquiesce unquestioningly.” TRANSFER OF SHIPS REQUEST BY U.S.A. LINE. APPLICATION TO MARITIME COMMISSION. (Received This Day, 10.25 a.m.) WASHINGTON, December 26. The United States Line has asked the Maritime Commission for permission to sell eight ships to a Norwegian Corporation for service between New York and Britain. A transfer to Panama was refused some time ago.