NEUTRAL ZONE

Grey River Argus, 17 January 1940, Page 7

NEUTRAL ZONE

PAN-AMERICAN STAND British Representations Rejected [Per Press Association.] WASHINGTON, January ISThe State Department has revealed that the United States, on December 1, rejected the British protest,, inat the American Neutrality Act discriminates against British ships. The United States replied that American vessels would not receive preferential treatment over- other neutrals, and the transfer requirements would imply to all belligerents. alike.

RIO DE JANEIRO, January. 15.

It is reliably stated that the British reply to the Pan-Amer!can. protest of December 23, against the violation of the neutrality zone, suggests the enforcement of the zone by new methods. The British express sympathy with the principle of the zone, but term it unenforceable as pt present constituted. _ J RUGBY, January 15.

The British Minister at Panama has delivered to the Government of the Republic a reply to the communication sent by the acting-President of Panama to the King, on December 23, on the subject of the Pan-American proposals for establishing an extensive security zone around the Amerilan coast. The text of this communication, arid the text of the reply, will be issued for publication tomorrow.

WASHINGTON, January 15. Mr Henry H. Arnold told a United Press of America representative that the development of bombers was bringing South America within tactical ;rad us of the belligerent's. He hinted that freedom from menace by foreign aircraft was temporary. H? did not mention Germany, but envisaged the possibility of a belligerent acquiring bases in South America through- internal coups, thus projecting the immediate problem of national defence. The Canal Zone could rely on bombers to prevent the establishment of bases, which was not permissible in the United States.

BRITISH REPLY

To Protest of the Americas CLAIM TO BELLIGERENT PRIVILEGES. [Aust. & N.Z. Cable Assn.j (Received January 16, 9.30 p.m.) LONDON, January 16. The British''Government has sent a reply to the Pan . American" Republics’ protest'that the, belligerent naval 'activity has violated the threehundred mile neutral zone; The reply declares that the British Government reserves full belligerent rights therein, until it is assured that the security scheme will operate successfully. Britairi, denies the right of the Pan American Republics unilaterally to withdraw certain privileges in that zone to' which belligerents, she says, are entitled under international law.

The Pan American Republics’ protest stated that measures were being discussed to strengthen'the zone, and that these included the prevention of belligerent ships from taking on supplies or repairing damage after warlike acts in the said zone.

The British Note, emphatically repudiates the suggestion that the activities of British warships have justified the adoption by neutrals of punitive measure.

Britain adds that if the American States adopted such a scheme of sanctions, they would be offering for German warship supply ships a vast sanctuary, from which to attack allied shipping, and in which German ships could take refuge to avoid combat.

The British Note suggests that the most effective method of safeguarding the American zone would be to forbid the passage of any German warships in it; It also suggests that if the allies were to give up tne right to capture the German shipping taking refuge in American Waters, this shipping should be laid up, under the Pan-American States’ control, for the duration of the war.

The exchange of Notes specifically instances the Graf S?pee encounter, and the British capture of German merchantmen.

Pan-American Conference

TO STRENGTHEN NEUTRALITY. NEUTRAL RIGHTS REASSERTED. (Received January 16, 11.5 p.m.) NEW YORK, January 15. The Rio De Janiero correspondent of the Associated Press of America says: President Vargas opened a conference of the Inter-American Neutrality Committee. This conference is aimed at strengthening the neutrality zone. Senor Vargas proclaimed the American countries’ right to establish the safety zone around their shores, even if it Were not recognised by tlie existing international law, which, he asserted, was subject to revision in the light of these modern develonments;

“It is subject to revision,” he said, “on . general principle that nothing justifies the assumption of belligerents’ interests prevailing over neu--trals’ interests.”

He added: “We will do what we can to keep distant from the American seas armed clashes resulting in damage to our sovereignty.”