EMBARGO ON ARMS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 14, 17 July 1939, Page 8

EMBARGO ON ARMS

The one-sidedness of an arms and ammunition embargo has been a cardinal point in the argument of opponents of the Neutrality Act, and it is natural that the RooseveltCordell Hull appeal to Congress should re-emphasise the "raw deal" that small countries or industrially weak countries receive under an arms embargo. When tlie Italian invasion of Abyssinia gathered way in 1935----36, it was pointed out that, relatively, an embargo on arms and ammunition was an infinitely greater deprivation to Abyssinia (an industrially minus country) than to Italy. To crush a country like Abyssinia, Italy need lean little on imported arms and ammunition. The embargo in the American Neutrality Act therefore affected her where she was relatively strong, and did not deny to her other imports in ivhich she ivas much weaker, and of which she was much more in need. The Abyssinians tried to substitute human flesh for the artillery and ammunition which they lacked, and China (industrially weak but strong in manpower) is doing the same today. Obviously the principle of the embargo on arms and ammunition offers nothing to such a country when engaged in repelling aggression. The American embargoists do not deny this, but are determined, at any cost in principle or consistency, to keep out of war. And if they cannot beat the Roosevelt policy on a Senate vote, they propose to beat it by "filibuster" obstruction, exploiting the procedure of a democratic Congress in order to win a totalitarian victory.