AMERICAN NEUTRALITY

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 123, 27 May 1933, Page 13

AMERICAN NEUTRALITY

DAVIS DECLARATION !

IMPORTANCE EMPHASISED

STATEMENT BY SIMON

(Brills!] Official Wireless.) May 27, noon.)' RUGBY, May 26. Recent developments at the Disarmament Conference were examined by Cabinet at a special meeting this afternoon, at which the Foreign Secretary (Sir' John Simon), who returned from Geneva last night* attended. An •important statement was made liy;' Sir John Simon in the debate qiv foreign affairs in the House of Commons, when he declared that the United States peace declaration constituted a. fundamental change in her position in regard to the old doctrine of. neutrality. >■ The fundamental principle of; that doctrine before- 1914 was obliga* tion on neutral States to show com« plete impartiality between two contesting Powers. At Geneva, Mr. Norman Davis, the American representa* tive, indicated that, so far as America was concerned, lie was prepared to assert that the law of neutrality wax being modified, and the United States Government was ready to contribute in other ways to tho organisation of peace. It was willing to consult •with other States in the event of a threat to peace with a view to action. ' INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. It was of tho 'ftrs,t importance, said! Sir John Simon, that they should not exaggerate or distort the declaration by; one hair's breadth. The United States' insisted that it must preserve its owa independent judgment as to what was right and what was wrong id connection with the. dispute. They had no) grounds whatever for complaining; about this. But, if in gome future conflict, thai nations in consultation decided to take action that would prevent sustenance and succour going to the wrongdoer,* Mr. Davis's declaration meant that th» Government of the United States, if it agreed with the view of those other States in consultation, would refrain from any action tending to defeat tho action which .those States might take. In other words, the old idea of standing with folded arms between a nation which was an aggressor and a nation Which was oppressed, had gone. It was impossible to exaggerate the import* ance of this. Sir John Simon explained that in view1 of declaration, alterations in . thai security part of the Draft Convention became necessary, and he had prepared a new draft providing that in the event of a breach or threat of breach atf invitation for an immediate consultation might be made by the League of Nations. They had reason to believe the United States would be prepared to enter into such consultations, the object of which would be:— 1. To exchange views for tho pur* pose of preserving peace in the eVent of a, threat or a breach, of the Paris Pact. .' 2. To use good offices for tho'.restoration of peace in the event of ail actual breach of the Pact. 3. In the event that it proved impossible thus to preserve peace, the object of the consultation would b» to determine which party or parties to the dispute' are to be held re* sponsible. ' SOME STOBM SIGNALS. He was happy, indeed, to find that Mr. Davis accepted these proposals and that the United States proposed to associate herself with this part of th« Treaty by a unilateral declaration^ there being constitutional difficulties in, doing so in any other way. , x Sir John Simon, While claiming that real progress had been made at Geneva, admitted that there were extremely dis* turbing storm signals about., He welcomed the statesmanlike and moderate tone of the German Chancellor's Beichstag declaration and the withdrawal of) tho German amendments which, if per--istcd in, would have had a shattering effect on the prospects of the Disarmament Conference, and he declared tb.atj a good spirit was being displayed ; iai the determination to discuss the British; plan artielo by article. -'■■~ , In the subsequent debate the Opposi* tion leader, Mr. George Lansbury, qties* tioned the efficiency of tho new Com ventionsj when, as in the case of. Japan,; the old ones were not being observed. Sir , Austen Chamberlain said that he regarded Sir John Simon's speech! as the most encouraging it had been mi the power.of^iny Foreign Secretary ioj make for many years. He was not sat* isfied that it was practicable or desirable to design formulae to be applied1 in finding tho aggressor in case .of ■ breach of peace. It was not difficult to, recognise an act of aggression though: it might be impossible to . defln« "aggressor." While; welcoming Heir Hitler?s speech which, if taken on its face value, as he would like to take it, was a happy omen for hopeful relations between Germany and the world* he was surprised there had been no direct repudiation of the statements of some- of the Chancellor's colleagues. He hoped that he could take the speech: as a silent repudiation of the German. Foreign Minister's re-armament threat and of tho terrible- speech o£ tho Vice* Chancellor, Herr yon Papen.