AMERICA AND OIL SANCTIONS

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21708, 15 February 1936, Page 15

AMERICA AND OIL SANCTIONS

ITALIAN EXPERTS DISMISS

POSSIBILITY

Action Not Expected

(BEITISH OmCIAX, WIEELEBS.) (Received February 14, 7.10 p.m.) RUGBY, February 13. There is little reaction yet to the experts’ report on oil sanctions. Italy officially contents herself with emphasising the experts’ miscalculation of her needs and resources. Italian military experts at Geneva say that the prospects of an embargo now have entirely vanished. The American comment that it “merely passes the buck back to America” finds an echo in a message from Geneva of the general impression that the United States will not move for an embargo, but may be annoyed ,at being saddled with the responsibility of deciding the fate of the embargo. The “Daily Telegraph” says that if America does not restrict her exports her shippers will probably take full advantage of the opportunity. In that case, though there is no thought of a blockade, a new cause of friction and ill-will would Immediately be created, reacting disastrously in all directions. On the other hand, the Geneva correspondent of the “Manchester Guardian” quotes the opinion that the United States is likely to discourage abnormal exnorts tfirougn fear that the league States would transfer their oil orders to Rumania and Russia, which are faithful to sanctions, and that the market might be permanently lost to the United States. League Action Urged The “Daily Telegraph” says: “The really important question is not whether an oil embargo should be imposed, but whether, assuming that it ought to be, it could be made effective. Obviously that will depend on the action of the United States, which at present is uncerbut the general opinion that President Roosevelt’s Neutrality Bill died at birth is confirmed by the action taken yesterday in the foreign relations .committee of the Senate, which extended the life of the old but expiring Neutrality Act to May 1, 1937. In the act there is no mention either of oil or of limitation. “The chances, therefore, of the United States exports of petrol being limited to the 1934 figures, which were only 6.6 per cent, of Italy’s imports, are very slight. What the experts have established is that the decision of the league depends on the decision of Washington.” The “Manchester Guardian,” on the other hand, says that the decision of the foreign relations committee must not be accepted as final, and it proceeds testate that if the league should decide to impose an embargo in any event, it would immensely strengthen the position of those Americans who would not wish their country to have the distinction of nourishing an unjust war. The “Manchester Guardian” adds: “The imposition of an oil sanction by the league Powers would reinforce the present sanctions. It is a strange reflection that if only the league had acted with determination when those other sanctions were imposed, the war might now, according to the calculations of the technical committee, have been within a fortnight of its end.” The “Daily Herald” also urges that the league Powers should impose an oil sanction. “The people of the United States.” it says, “are watching Geneva, not to see if it produces statistics, but to see if it takes action. Action, and swift action, is the only way- to secure American co-operation. Even should there .be no American cooperation, an oil embargo will make the waging of war more difficult and more expensive. That being so, let us get on with the job at once.”