Evening star., 1939-09-19

Russia REMAIN D"'i"
a neutral and, as such, eligible
to receive munitions, airplanes and
even battleships from American
shipyards?
The Russian foreign office has
been careful in its diplomatic notes
to other governments to indicate
that its army entered Poland mere
ly to protect some minoritles in
the population in view of the dis
appearance of the Polish state"
International law records many an
instance in which military or
naval force is used to protect ma
tionals without involving in any
way a belligerent status.
Thus the United States landed
an expeditionary force at Vera
Cruz early in 1914 and occupied the
port for several months as a re-
prisal, and no declaration of war
was issued. No European country
regarded America as a belligerent
in that controversy. There have
been similar examples of the move
ment of troops into neighborlng
territories without war declara-
ton.
But if Russia is to be regarded
as a neutral" and there are signs
that for diplomatic reasons the Brit
tsh and French will choose to re-
gard the SovietS in that category,
shall America take the initiative in
recognizing that Russia is engaged
in war and add Russia to the list
of countries to which arms may not
be shipped?
These are practical problems
which a fast-changing picture in
Europe has brought to State De-
partment officials Neutrality is no
simple term which can be defined
nowadays, yet thousands of Off
cials of the Government are obliged
by our existing laws to permit the
shipment of arms and ammunition
and airplanes to countries like Rus
sia, Italy and the smaller Balkan
countries which are definitely with
in the German sphere OF influence,
and must deny these supplies not
only to the British and French, but
to our next-door neighbor, Canada,
which frankly and honestly accept
ed a belligerent status, though her
self 5000 miles away from the
theater of war.
These complexities over enforcing
neutrality are what persuade ex-
perts in international law for the
most part to say that the task of
seeing whether articles of contra
band should or should not reach
either side in a war is the task of
belligerents who detain and inspect
cargoes, and is not the task of a
neutral country itself For one
thing, the whole theory of trans
shipment of contraband through
neutral countries contiguous to a
belligerent has sometimes caused
quotas to be set up whereby naval
power usually strives to see to it
that importation rights of neutral
are not abused.
Sooner or later, therefore, in the
present war, the British Navy will
undertake to prevent anything in
excess of given quotas from going
to Holland or the Scandinavian
countries, or to Russia and Italy.
If American ships are used in this
trade between the United States
and certain neutral countries, then
the danger of submarine attacks will
persist, just as the danger of seizure
by the allied naval forces.
Neutrals' Obligation Limit.
Under international law there is
no obligation on any neutral shipper
to find out what happens eventually
to his exports. But under the exist
ing Federal statute passed by Con-
gress in 1887, the obligation of de-
termining the ultimate destination
of shipment has been added to
America S enforcement staff Anybody
who makes fraudulent statement as
to ultimate destination is, of course,
subject to prosecution. But Euro
peans are not as simple minded as
that. They arrange for bona fide
shipments from the United States to
bona fide recipients in neutral coun-
tries. The American agents actually
know nothing about the ultimate
destination, even though they may
be suspicious about it. All they
know is that orders are placed by
persons in neutral countries. The
belligerents then arrange with a
different set of agents for trans
shipment.
Under such circumstances, Amer
lean officials nevertheless are sup
posed to trace the cargoes to the
ultimate user, but this is a sad story
in the history of the American sery-