AMERICA AND WAR ORDERS

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 99, 21 January 1936, Page 16

AMERICA AND WAR ORDERS

Business Men’s Claims THE NEW-STYLE NEUTRALITY “Keep Out Of It” America's new style neutrality, which was conceived in a "take the profit out of the war” spirit, has now entered the realm of practical polities, with the business men vying with the isolationists for a public hearing (writes the New York correspondent of “The Observer''). Exporting interests viewed the pass-, ing of the law apathetically. They, were then associated with the industrialists in agitating against the breathing spell “threats” of the Government to business. Now they are so much alive to implications in the neutrality proclamations that they have tentatively projected a national conference to discuss them. The object is to ensure “neutrality with foreign trade.” The initiative has been taken by the conference on the port development of the City of New York. Tliis body sent, a protest direct to the President on his boat in Lower California waters. Mr. Roosevelt’s proclamations were dubbed “discriminatory.” In a barrage of succeeding statements and interviews, interested shippers have called attention to a prospective loss of £20,000,000 worth of trade annually. How the business men reached this conclusion is a mystery. All that has been done is to ban munition sales to the belligerents, warn Americans against travelling on belligerent vessels, and withdraw Government protection from the non-munition trade. Moreover, the total American exports to Italy last year amounted to only £13,000,000, aud for the eight months ended August this year to £8,000,000. Sales to Ethiopia, tire negligible. Perhaps the hopes sedulously circulated by the Italian Commercial Attache have been taken into account. That official lias been holding out prospects of wholesale diversion of Italian trade to America, while sanctions are in effect. 'The first special order is for mineral oils, but this has not yet been negotiated. The Aloisi Broadcast. Another tost for America’s aloofness is the British action in refusing to transmit to tlie United States the broadcast by Baron Aloisi destined for American ears. In Washington a murmuring is reported. ‘lt is noted that the ban synchronises with an agreement for a new and independent channel between continental Europe and the United States. For some time the Federal Communications Commission has been quietly working to offset what is called “British quasl-monopoly of trans-Atlantic facilities.” Recently Mr. 11. V. Kaltenb'orn < interjected in his news broadcast his own private protest against tlie British action. He called it “unjust,” insisting that the radio should be “as free as newspaper correspondence.” These are unhappy days for State Department officials. They are keeping their ears close to the ground for the impact of Yankee hard-headedness on popular idealism. The result so far is to leave the idealism unscathed. Business protests have certainly been far fewer and less representative than was expected. Outside New York the only criticism of the neutrality proclamations is from the Governor of impoverished and cot-ton-growing -Arkansas. Popular Feeling. Denunciations of Italy mount in Press and pulpit. But so does the cry to stay out of an imbroglio which many Americans contend is smeared with European politics. On the lecture platform such non-party leaders as Admiral Sims uphold the President’s hand. Even those public men who disinterestedly cling to what the shippers call “neutrality with foregiu trade” are silenced by- the popular enthusiasm. What puzzles the people is the European view of this new attitude. Americans associate new-style neutrality with true isoltHJon and aloofness. Foreign interpretations, as cabled back to the United States,.read co-operation instead of isolation. It all depends upon which side of the medal is on view. Certainly tlie proclamations are not regarded as even passive co-opera-tion by the-generality of Americans. Europeans are doubtless influenced by the internationalism known to exist in tlie State Department. Mr. Cordell Hull is as Kellogg-Paet minded as Mr. Henry L. Stimson or Frank B. Kellogg. In nobody, moreover, did Sir Samuel Hoare’s speech- at Geneva strike a more sympathetic chord. Business on Cash Basis. Several proscriptions are already in force, in addition to those mentioned in the Roosevelt proclamation. Business with Italy is practically on a cash basis. The Johnson Act forbidding loans to war debtors banned loans to Italy long before the Ethiopian dispute arose. Subsequently the Government import and export Bank refused to grant long-term credits ou cotton sale's to Italy. A week’s close observation would lead this correspondent to hazard Hie answers to three questions which must be besetting the sanctionist nations’ minds: —•

If there were a blockade of Italy would America protest? No. All comment takes for granted the abandonment of the century-old American insistence of freedom of tbe seas to neutral shipping, though the State Department will not formally acknowledge it. If the blockade led to physical sanctions, would the United States regard such action as war and treat tbe san<tionists as it has treated Italy and Ethiopia? Yes.. America’s new-style neutrality is based on isolationism and is not in any present mood to draw fine distinctions between physical sanctions and war. If America were invited to Geneva to discuss world action, as in the Manchurian case, would the United States accept the invitation? No.