Evening star., 1939-07-15

~ tllc congress Oh Tie OLltcO
States:
I am advised that by a vote of
II to II the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations has deferred ac-
ton on peace and neutrality legisla-
tion until the next session Of the
Congress.
I am appending hereto a state
ment from the Secretary Of State
which has my full approval, and
which I trust will receive your earn
est attention.
1t has been abundantly clear to
me for some time that for the cause
of peace and in the interest of
American neutrality and security, it
Is highly advisable that the Con-
gress at this session should take Ger
tain much needed action. In the
light of present world conditions, I
see no reason to change that opin-
ion.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.
The White House,
July IA, 1899.
Statement on peace and neutrality
oy the Secretary OF State:
The cornerstone of the foreign
policy of the United States is the
preservation of the peace and Sc
curity of our Nation, the strength
ening OF international law and the
revitalization of international good
faith. The foreign policy of this
Government may be misinterpreted
or 1t may be misunderstood, but it
cannot be destroyed. Peace is so
precious and war so devastating that
the people Of the United States and
their Government must not fail to
make their just and legitimate con-
tribution to the preservation of
peace.
The Congress has pending before
1t at the present time certain pro-
posals providing for the amendment
OF the existing so-called neutrality
legislation. Some of these proposed
changes regard as necessary to
promote the peace and security of
the United States.
There is an astonishing amount
OF confusion and misunderstanding
as regards the legislation under con-
sideration, and particularly with re-
gard to the operation of the existing
arms embargo.
l shall try to bring out as clearly
as can the important points of
agreement and disagreement be-
tween those who support the prin-
ciples in the six-point peace and
neutrality program recommended
by the executive branch of the Gov
ernment and Sf1ose who oppose these
recommendations.
Points Of Agreement.
In substance and in principle both
sides Of the discussion agree on the
following points:
l. Both sides agree that the first
concern of the United States must
be its own peace and security.
2. Both sides agree that it should
be the policy of this Government to
avoid being drawn into wars be-
tween other nations.
3. Both sides agree that this Ma
ton should at all times avoid en-
tangling alliances or involvements
with other nations.
4. Both sides agree that in the
event of foreign wars this Nation
should maintain a status of strict
neutrality, and that around the
structure of neutrality we should so
shape our policies as to keep this
country from being drawn into war
On the other hand, the following
is the chief essential point of dis
agreement between those who favor
the adoption Of the recommends
tions formulated by the executive
branch of the Government and
those who are opposing these rec
concentrations:
The proponents, including the ex-
ecutive branch of the Government,
at the time when the arms embargo
was originally adopted called at
tention to the fact that its enact
ment constituted a hazardous de-
parture from the principle of inter-
national law which recognizes the
right of neutrals to trade with bel
ligerents and of belligerents to trade
with neutrals. They believe that
neutrality means impartiality, and
In their view an arms embargo is
directly opposed to the idea Of neu-
trality. 1t is not humanity possible,
by enacting an arms embargo, or by
refraining from such enactment, to
hold the scales exactly even between
two belligerents. In either case and
due to shifting circumstances one
belligerent may find itself in a posi-
ton of relative advantage or dis
advantage. The important differ
ence between the two cases Is that
when such a condition arises in the
absence of an arms embargo on our
part, no responsibility attaches to
this country, where as in the pres
ence of an embargo, the respon-
sibility of this country for the cre-
alton of the condition is inevitably
direct and clear.
Result Actual Unneutrality.
There is no theory or practice to
be found in international law per-
tanning to neutrality to the effect
that the advantages that any par
ticular belligerent might procure
through its geographic location, it's
superiority on land or at sea, or
through other circumstances, should
be offset by the establishment by
neutral nations of embargoes.
The opposition to the present sub
stitute proposal joins issue on this
point, and stands for existing rigid
embargo as permanent part of our
neutrality policy. And yet by insist
ing on an arms embargo in time OF
war they are, to that extent, for the
reasons I have stated, urging not
neutrality, but what might we'll re-
suit in actual Immortality, the Sc
rious consequences of which no one
can predict.
Those who urge the retention of
the present embargo continue to