Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1939-12-25
Safety Zone Protest

Now that the twenty-one Ameri-
can republics have formally pro-
tested recent violations of the safety
zone" doctrine enunciated in the
Declaration of Panama, it will be
necessary for them to reach a de-
cision as to what measures they will
adopt in an effort to persuade the
belligerent nations to comply with
the request that they refrain from
"warlike acts" in neutral area ex-
tending some 300 miles out to sea
around this hemisphere. The pro-
test, which has been sent to the gov
ernments of Great Britain, France
and Germany, was couched in re-
strained language, but it carried
clear implication that stronger meas
ures may be resorted to if naval
vessels of the powers now at war con-
tinue to ignore the safety belt" De-
termination of what these punitive
measures will be must await "con-
sulation" among the American gov
ernments, but the note of protest
suggested one-the closing of Ameri-
can ports to individual vessels Of
belligerents which commit any war
like acts in the zone of security.
There has as yet been no definition Of
just what is meant by "warlike"
acts.
The officials charged with the duty
of implementing the Declaration OF
Panama are to be commended for
making haste slowly at this time.
They are exploring a new phase OF
international law, and there is moth
ing in the experience c. the past or
in the situation confronting us to-
day which calls for drastic action.
Even in our own country there is a
difference of opinion as to the need
for and wisdom of the safety zone
doctrine which cannot be disregard
ed.
Eminent critics of the State De-
partment's policy in this respect feel
that there is no foundation in in
ternational law for an attempt to
assert jurisdiction over waters ex-
tending 300 miles out to sea, and
that serious effort to enforce the
principle of the doctrine might
needlessly expose this country to
risk of war, contending at the same
time that this Government faces
loss of prestige if it is merely assert
inga supposed right which it does
not intend to enforce.
There is no reason to suppose, how
ever, that the State Department. as
well as the governments of the other
American republics, have not fully
considered these matters. In all
probability they do not expect to OBJ
tain full and literal compliance with
the doctrine at this time. Even a
partial acceptance of the principle
by the present belligerents would
mark a gain for the peace of this
hemisphere, and start would have
been made toward the establish
ment of a doctrine which might prove
to be of great value in the future.
The fact that the naval battle at
Montevideo did not threaten the
peace of the Americas does not mean
that such a threat will not arise ten
or twenty years from now. And it is
well to remember that, generally
speaking, new principles of inter-
national law are not promulgated and
accepted by the nations at any given
time. Their growth and acceptance
often extend over period of many
years. With these considerations in
mind, it can be said that the Ameri-
can governments are to be COM
mended for approaching the first
test of the Declaration of Panama
with extreme caution. Hasty or
rash action at this time might we'll
doom this latest experiment in
American neutrality before it has
any kind of a trial.