130
Press Releases, vol. XX, p. 475
The Secretary of State to the
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations (Pittman), United States Senate [40]
WASHINGTON, May 27, 1939.
MY DEAR SENATOR PITTMAN:
In harmony
with the conversations I have had during recent weeks with you and other
members of the appropriate committees of the two houses of Congress with regard
to pending legislative proposals for modifying existing peace and neutrality
legislation, I wish to offer the following comment.
These proposals are intended to aid in
keeping the United States from becoming involved in war. They contemplate,
primarily, a state of affairs in which relations in the world have ceased to be
peaceful.
Our
purpose must be, at all times, to endeavor to foster that state of relations
among nations which will maintain the fabric of world peace. In pursuance of
that aim we have done, and must do, everything possible within the limits of
our traditional policy of noninvolvement in overseas affairs.
In considering the present proposals for
legislation, we must keep in mind that, no matter how much we may wish or may
try to disassociate ourselves from world events, we cannot achieve
disassociation. The simple fact of our existence as a great nation in a world
of nations cannot be denied; and the substance of the legislation adopted in
this country inevitably influences not only this
[40] An identic letter was sent on the same day to Acting Chairman Bloom Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. (Probably should be footnote 40b. E-editor)
461
DOCUMENTS
country, but also other countries. The problem for us is not whether we
shall help any foreign country or any group of foreign countries. Nor is it
that of passing judgment upon or interfering in other people's controversies.
Rather, it is that of so conducting our affairs and our relations with other
peoples, both before and after the outbreak of war elsewhere, that we shall be
more, and not less, secure; so that we shall not become parties to
controversies; and so that our attitude and actions will encourage other people
to avoid, rather than to become engaged in, controversy.
Because of troubled conditions with which we
are all familiar, the Congress rightly is now considering the situation which
might obtain were a state of war to develop between other nations. In such case
the first concern of the United States is its own safety as well as the desire
and intent, which all of us resolutely follow, to remain at peace.
In the event of a foreign war, we would be
immediately faced with the problem of maintaining our neutrality.
When a war begins, that body of rules for the
regulation of international relations which applies in time of peace becomes
impaired. Under international law, the belligerent states then acquire certain
rights which do not appertain to states at peace; and at the same time states
which remain at peace become affected by a body of rules under which they have
the rights and obligations of neutrals.
In considering whether legislative
restrictions upon our freedom of action can advantageously be maintained or
adopted to ensure against our being drawn into war, we should, in my opinion,
avoid the error of assuming that provisions which are at the same time rigid
and of universal application, will serve our interests satisfactorily in every
situation which may arise. The course of world affairs is unpredictable. What
we should try to do for the purpose of keeping this country out of war is to
enact measures adapted to the safeguarding of our interests in all situations
of which we can conceive and at the same time imposing a minimum of abnormal
and unnecessary burdens upon our nationals and a minimum of disruption of our
peaceful economic life.
I believe it is important that the
legislation which may be enacted should conform, so far as possible, to
traditional concepts of international law adhered to by this Government.
International law requires that the domestic measures adopted by a neutral
shall be impartially applied to the contending parties in conflict. It does not
require that a neutral nation shall embargo any articles destined for
belligerents.
462
DOCUMENTS
If we go in for embargoes on exports, for the
purpose of keeping ourselves out of war, the logical thing to do would be to
make our embargo all-inclusive. Modern warfare is no longer warfare between
armed forces only: it is warfare between nations in every phase of their
national life. Lists of contraband are no longer limited to arms and ammunition
and closely related commodities. They include not only those items which
contribute toward making warfare possible, but almost every item useful in the
life of the enemy nation. A nation at war is no less anxious to keep cotton or
petroleum, or, indeed, any useful product, from reaching an enemy nation than
it is to keep guns and airplanes from reaching the enemy's armed forces. I
doubt whether we can help ourselves to keep out of war by an attempt on our
part to distinguish between categories of exports. Yet a complete embargo upon
all exports would obviously be ruinous to our economic life. It therefore seems
clear that we should have no general and automatic embargo inflexibly and
rigidly imposed on any class or group of exports.
Our conclusion that embargo on export of arms
is undesirable is not new, and experience has confirmed our belief.
On August 31, 1935, on the occasion of his
signing the Neutrality Act of 1935, the President made the following statement:
"The latter section (providing for an
embargo of export of arms) terminates at the end of February 1936. This Section
requires further and more complete consideration between now and that date.
Here again the objective is wholly good. It is the policy of this government to
avoid being drawn into wars between other nations, but it is a fact that no
Congress and no executive can foresee all possible future situations. History
is filled with unforeseeable situations that call for some flexibility of
action. It is conceivable that situations may arise in which the wholly
inflexible provisions of Section I of this Act might have exactly the opposite
effect from that which was intended In other words, the inflexible provisions
might drag us into war instead of keeping us out. The policy of the government
is definitely committed to the maintenance of peace and the avoidance of any
entanglements which would lead us into conflict. At the same time it is the
policy of the government by every peaceful means and without entanglement to
cooperate with other similarly minded governments to promote peace."
On November 6, 1935, I made the following
statement with respect
neutrality legislation:
"Any discussion of the avoidance of war,
or of the observance of neutrality in the event of war, would be wholly
incomplete if too much stress were laid on the part played in the one or the
other by the shipment, or the embargoing of the shipment, of
463
DOCUMENTS
arms, ammunition and implements of war.... To
assume that by placing an embargo on arms we are making ourselves secure from
dangers of conflict with belligerent countries is to close our eyes
to manifold dangers in other directions. ... we cannot assume that when
provision has been made to stop the shipment of arms, which as absolute
contraband have always been regarded as subject to seizure by a belligerent, we
may complacently sit back with the feeling that we are secure from all danger.
Our involvement in controversies is more
likely to arise from destruction of American lives. In this regard we can
effectively diminish our risks by keeping our nationals and ships out of areas
in which there is special danger. The rights of our nationals under
international law may properly be restricted by our own legislation along
certain lines for the purpose of avoiding incidents which might involve us in a
conflict. In indicating certain restrictions upon the exercise of our rights as
a neutral I do not wish to be considered as advocating the abandonment of
these, or indeed of any, neutral rights; but there is reasonable ground for
restricting at this time the exercise of these rights.
For
the reasons heretofore stated, it is my firm conviction that the arms embargo
provision of the existing law should be eliminated. I furthermore believe that
the most effective legislative contribution at this time toward keeping this
country out of war, if war occurs, would be made by enacting or reenacting
provisions on lines as follows:
To prohibit American ships, irrespective of
what they may be carrying, from entering combat areas;
To restrict travel by American citizens in
combat areas;
To provide that the export of goods destined
for belligerents shall be preceded by transfer of title to the foreign
purchaser;
To continue the existing legislation
respecting loans and credits to nations at war;
To regulate the solicitation and collection
in this country of funds for belligerents;
To continue the National Munitions Control
Board and the system of arms export and import licenses.
Provisions on the suggested lines would, I
think, help to keep this country out of war and facilitate our adherence to a
position of neutrality. They would make easier our twofold task of keeping this
country at peace and avoiding imposition of unnecessary and abnormal burdens
upon our citizens.
Sincerely yours,
CORDELL HULL
464