Evening star., 1934-01-07

RESS comment upon recently
- published book of mine-"Amer-
lea Faces the Next War"-has
L served to illustrate once more
how vague and uniformed is the
general conception in this country OF
the problems of policy relating to the
question of neutrality The theses OF
my book were that Europe is facing the
prospect of a new war and that Amer
lea is in danger of being involved in
that struggle.
As to the first point there was gen.
eral agreement, as to the second there
was a certain measure Of disagreement,
but that disagreement was not based
upon any clear view of an American
policy which would assure us against
involvement, but rather upon reliance
upon the obvious desire Of the Ameri-
can people to stay out Of any fresh
European conflict. And the point I
wish to emphasize here is that there
was no suggestion anywhere that any
realistic American policy, based upon
the lessons of the World War, actually
existed.
But if one assumes that Europe is
menaced by the danger of new war
and agrees that America desires to stay
out of that war, then it becomes evident
that the first step to be taken is to
formulate some course to be followed in
case of conflict. The alternative. too.
is plain. The United States must
wage" or suffer" neutrality That is
to say, it must either undertake to as
sert its so-called rights" as neutral,
by means of its military and naval
forces, or reconcile itself in advance to
submitting to the invasion of these
VII ztr'j pv,h ha11
Rights" Largely Imaginary.
Now the first point to keep in mind
is that the rights" themselves are
largely imaginary Mr.. Charles Warren,
former Assistant Attorney General of
the United States and member of the
Wilson administration in the World
War period, has pointed out with ad-
mirable clarity that, although the
United States argued endleSsly with
Great Britain over the invasion of our
neutral rights" while We stayed out
side the World War, and that we even
tually became belligerent because Of
German invasions of the same rights" +"
no progress has ever been made in the
direction of establishing these right"
in international law.
That means, in simple terms. that If
Europe went to war again we should
find ourselves faced with the situation
of 1914, in which we should have no
other basis for our claims to the right
to trade with belligerent nations than
those which rest upon our own forces.
Assuming Britain to be a belligerent
she would certainly use her sea power
again as she did before, to win. As
suming that Germany were also a bel
ligerent she would with equal certainty
use such submarine or air forces as she
might possess to avoid a defeat which
the British feet might otherwise in
sure.
Might Gain Concessions.
BY threatening to make war against
Britain or Germany the United States
might, up to point, wrest concessions
from both, but not when the struggle
reached a point of life or death. More
over. as Mr.. Walter Mills has pointed
out, in the very nature of things our
handling of the question OF neutral
rights would automatically make us
the ally of one of the two contestants.
Thus if we insisted upon our right TO
trade with Germany we should invali-
date the effect of the British blockade.
If on the other hand we demanded that
dHdAluOAA SubAAnA AAAS NAAN ~~~N
operations affecting our rights" we
should practically be supporting the
British against the Germans.
We are then again, as in l9l4-l7,
faced with the fact that our very neu-
trality becomes participation in a Euro
pean war and that our Interpretation OF
our rights" may again, as before, con-
stitute decisive circumstance in that
war. Looking back to 1914-17, we see
now more clearly than at the time that
we were, in effect, allies of Germany's
enemies. We were allies because they
found in our markets the supplies, mill
tary and otherwise, necessary to their
struggle. At the same time we prac-
tically, although not technically, acqui-
esced In their closing our markets to the
Germans, particularly for the foodstuf1s
which might have enabled them, If not
to triumph, at least to escape collapse.
Now, what are we going to do next
time? In this country there is a gen.
eraI Conviction that the expansion of
the American deet IA the level of parity