Evening star., 1939-12-02


barge" on the David Lawrence.
shipment of planes to Russia is un-
der consideration, the prohibition to
be invoked as heretofore, in the case
of Japan for using planes to bomb
non-combatants and unfortified
cities.
Under existing laws any Ameri-
can airplane manufacturer can get
an export license to sell to any for
eign government so long as the lat
ter comes and gets the planes. Rus
sia is still technically neutral in
the war and may never be recog-
nized as belligerent by Britain or
France for reasons of their own. So
Russia can readily charter neutral
ships to carry planes from the Pa
cific Coast of the United States to
be delivered at Siberian ports and
carried by rail or flown across Asia.
The United States Government
has been pleading in vain with Euro
pean governments that there be no
bombing of non-combatants, and up
to now the plea has seemed to be
of no importance because 1T could
not be enforced The Presidents
plan to deny airplanes to countries
which use them in violation of the
customs and conventions of inter-
national law will naturally find sup
port with world opinion. Hence,
when the Government asks airplane
manufacturers to refrain from SELL
ing to such countries, the moral
embargo becomes as effective as if
1t were legal. The manufacturers
can readily say to any foreign pur-
chasers that they cannot deny re-
quest from their own Government.
Retaliatory Measures.
Where complications may arise is
In connection with retaliatory meas
ures forced on Britain and France,
whose aviators in the excitement
of pursuit, or in reprisal against
unwarranted bombing of their
countrymen, may find themselves
violating the rules of war, too.
Would the United States then en-
force the moral embargo against
the British and French?
1t will be recalled that during the
debate over the arms embargo re-
peal, ex-President Hoover asked
that distinction be drawn between
offensive" and defensive" weapons.
He was cropping then for some form
ula which would dissociate America
from the sale of war weapons to ma
tions carrying on offensive war. Mr..
Roosevelt has carried the idea to a
practical point by asking that a
distinction be made between lawful
and unlawful methods of war as
recognized heretofore by interna-
tional treaties, agreements and con-
ventions. and that the sale of arms
be in effect forbidden to those who
do not use the weapons in accord
ance with the rules of civilized
warfare.
If Congress had been asked to
bestow on the President the power
to withhold arms from nations
which misuse them, there would
have been considerable hulabaloo
for fear that Mr.. Roosevelt had the
means of involving America in war
Yet by means of the moral en-
barge" he achieves the same objec-
tive of keeping American producers
from being associated with the
crimes of war and still does it in a
way that cannot possibly be classed |
as an unneutral act. For compliance |
with the laws of war by belligerents
is necessary prerequisite to win
ming the cooperation of neutrals for |
the sale of supplies.
Violation of Neutrality.
The invasion of Finland by Russia |
and the effort to coerce an inde-
pendent nation to give up her |
sovereignty is such palpable vio-
lation of the spirit and letter of |
neutrality as it has been understood
for centuries that America has the
moral right to declare such an ag-
gressor nation as hardly neutral. |
For technical reasons, the Russians
do not declare war. Neither did
Japan declare war on China.
Russia is no more neutral than |
Is Germany. but America is rapidly
developing a realistic policy which
tends to treat acknowledgements no
longer as true neutrals. The moral |
embargo" will be heard from again
and again in the present war and it
may make the issuance of a declara-
tion of war irrelevant hereafter in |
determining whether a powerful |
neutral should have direct COM |
mercial intercourse with nations en-
ggaging in hostilities on wide
scale.