The Southland Times TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1940. International Law and the Neutrals

Southland Times, Issue 24055, 20 February 1940, Page 4

The Southland Times TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1940. International Law and the Neutrals

ALTHOUGH the British public is solidly behind its Government and the Royal Navy in their firm disposal of the Altmarck incident neutral comment has been either guarded or mildly critical. Norway, of course, is in a difficult position and must show indignation in a dual effort to placate Germany and to divert attention from her own flagrant breach of neutrality. The shrieks of rage, accompanied by threats of reprisals, that have come from Berlin are merely amusing to British people; but they are no laughing matter for the Norwegians, who have already lost many ships in Germany’s indiscriminate sea warfare and may expect other and more serious losses if the Nazis intensify their campaign against the neutrals. In the circumstances the question of legality, around which much controversy is raging in various parts of the world, does not seem to deserve serious attention. The fundamental weakness of international law has always been the absence of a supreme authority: unless there is a rigid universal adherence to a code voluntarily accepted the entire legal system becomes worthless. In war time the observance of international rules usually lasts until one of the belligerents breaks them, and in the present conflict the Germans have pleased themselves in such matters from the beginning. Their true attitude has been made plain by the submarine attacks on neutral shipping, sometimes in neutral waters, and by the sowing of mine fields on the international trade routes. In an attempt to justify these methods the Germans have claimed that neutral ships which trade with Britain are committing unneutral acts. This is directly against international law; but even if it were worth argument it would still be necessary for the Nazis to explain why they are sinking merchant vessels without warning and without making any provision for the safety of the crews. Hundreds of neutral sailors have already lost their lives in ships that have been torpedoed or mined by the Germans whereas not a single neutral life has been sacrificed to British naval action. Indeed the Royal Navy’s record is on the other side of the ledger: it has saved many seamen cast adrift by the U-boat commanders.

The Nazi Viewpoint

The Nazis contradict themselves so frequently and are so hopelessly entangled among the lies of the propagandists that their official statements are usually worthless. Nevertheless, on this question of international law, especially in relation to sea warfare, they have shown a certain consistency. The outlook expressed in action by their ruthless submarine and mine campaign has also been defined verbally by a Nazi spokesman who was reported recently to have said that henceforth Germany “will make her own laws.” This declaration was phrased more politely in an official Note addressed last week to the American Powers on the proposal to establish a 300mile security zone. The opinion was expressed that “international law can be adapted to changing international conditions.” The weakness of Germany’s position is that she reserves to herself the right to take unilateral action in making these changes, and in doing so tramples heavily, not only on the accepted principles of legality, but also on the more precious and fragile principles of humanitarian conduct. Further, although the Nazis claim this complete freedom of action, even where it leads them to ruthless and brutal courses, they deny to any other Power the right to commit the smallest infringement of international law. In their opinion it is perfectly legal for their own ships of war to make tactical use of territorial waters along the coasts of neutral countries; but when a British vessel hunts down a supply ship known to be carrying prisoners its action becomes, in the words of the German Minister to Oslo, “a violation of international law unique in world history.” This kind of diplomatic nonsense has grown wearisome. The Altmarck incident was valuable in itself, for it delivered hundreds of British seamen from an intolerable captivity. But it is also valuable as an indication, given with the utmost clearness and firmness, that Britain will no longer observe all the rules while Germany breaks them whenever she pleases. Scandinavia’s Crisis

The incident may also help to convince the neutrals that a strict neutrality in present circumstances is no longer practicable. While their ships are being sunk they are suffering at least some of the losses of war; they will suffer still more heavily if the Nazis succeed in their policy of intimidation. It is now fairly plain that Sweden and Norway are being subjected to pressure from both sides. The Nazis are relying characteristically on threats of

force and violence and perhaps to an equal extent on economic isolation to bring them irrevocably within the German orbit. On the other side Britain is offering the protection of her convoy system and may be urging the Scandinavian States to throw in their lot with the Allies. (Mr Churchill’s recent broadcast appeal to the neutrals, seemed to reveal the Government’s mind on this matter.) It seems increasingly plain that in this war there can. be no neutrals within the danger zone, which now obviously includes the northern countries. The Altmarck episode may prove to be the beginning of an intenser phase in the struggle to gain the open support of Scandinavia.