Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
OCR
18
THE EMBARGO ON ARMS
WHAT IS THE LAW?
By Dr. Edmund von Mach
Author of “What Germany ‘Vants," etc.
THE Declaration of London of 1909 was intended to supply
a code of International Law for the International Prize
Court established by the second Hague Conference of 1907.
Since the latter introduced a Court of Appeals from the British
Courts, the British Government introduced the so-called Naval
Prize bill which was beaten in Parliament. The leader of the
opposition was T. Gibson Bowles, M. P., who issued a book on
the subject, “Sea Law and Sea Power” (London, John Murray,
1910), and argued that England had grown strong on her own
sea “rights," and that she should not lessen her power in the
forthcoming war by recognizing the freedom of the neutrals and
the “Rights of Man,” which are “in violation of the rights of
England.” (See Boston Evciiiiig Traaircript, March 17 and 24.)
To-day the British Courts do not feel bound by the Declaration
of London, and although the British Government disregards its
stipulations whenever it chooses, the fiction of the Declaration
of London is kept alive by Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Bryan.
VVhy? There are probably two reasons.
The Declaration of London laid the emphasis on the rights of
neutrals rather than on those of the belligerents. If England
succeeds in carrying this war through without being obliged
openly to renounce the Declaration, she may in a future war, in
which she happens to be a neutral, derive all the benefits which
the Declaration guarantees to neutrals. By disregarding it when
she is at war, and insisting on its observance when she is a
neutral, she will play the fine old game, “Heads I win, tails you
lose.” She has. moreover, the conviction that the only nation
which could call her bluff is America, and that America will not
do it. As Viscount Bryce says, the American press is pro-
British, there is nothing to fear.
The second reason why the Declaration of London has not
been openly renounced is because it legalized to a certain extent
the exportation of arms and munitions of war. Renounce the
Declaration of London and the exportaiton of arms becomes a
hostile act forbidden to those nations who wish to remain neu-
tral. Mr. Bowles is very explicit on this point (pp. 147 ff.) and
says:
"Great Britain has always denied that neutrals have or could have any
right to supply either to one or to both belligerents, that assistance in the
war which is provided by furnishing either with such means of resistance
or offence as are called contraband.’ She has always declared the law of
nations to be-as, in fact, it is-that for a friend of both belligerents to
place in the hands of one of them arms against the other is an abandon-
ment of the neutrality which forbids such an assistance to either."
This law, Mr. Bowles claims, is altered by the Declaration of
London, and, taking Sir Edward Grey to task for it, he says:
“It would be interesting to know whether Sir Edward would
apply to individuals the same principle as to nations-whether,
seeing two men locked in a deadly struggle, he would sympa-
thetically consider and actively support a friend of both who
should furtively hand a knife to one of them.”
Thus Mr. Bowlesl And what is America doing about it?
There is no doubt that England is no longer governed by the
Declaration of London and that this is resulting in enormous
damage to America. Unless relief comes soon all the American
textile mills and leather factories, for instance, will have to
curtail their work and eventually stop. g
Vhy then does America, if she is unwilling to stop the nefari-
ous trafnc in arms for moral reasons, not face the question from
a purely legal standpoint and say to England: 1. If you are
governed and wish us to be governed by the principles of the
Declaration of London, which permits the exportation of arms
and ammunition, then live up to its stipulations, and open the sea
to neutral traliic. Vile do not want to go to war with you on this
question, but unless you obey the law agreed upon as binding in
the Declaration of London we shall force you to do so by laying
an embargo on arms. >
2. If, however, you prefer to follow the reasoning of your
Parliament, and wish to declare the Declaration of London null
and void so far as you are concerned because your Parliament
refused you the ratification of The Hague Convention, then we
regret your step, but we cannot deny you a certain justification.
In that case, however, your own Law of Nations, as recently
enunciated by the leader of your parliamentary majority, for-
bids us to export arms and ammunition to you, if we wish to
remain‘ neutral. Andsince we are resolved to remain neutral,
we shall lay an embargo on the ammunition of arms.
England is no saint. America will commit no unforgivable
sin if she dares to speak up and boldly insist on her rights. To
insist on her rights is her duty, for she cannot be neutralif she
waives her rights in the interest of one of the belligerents.
THE FATHERL AND
THE MILITARY SITUATION
By the Military Expert of The Fatherland
REAT military events-great, not in the sense that they had
a decisive influence upon the warfare, but because of the
moral effect-have come to pass during these last few weeks.
Przemysl, the fortress which was to protect the passes of the
North-Carpatliian Mountains against the Russian hordes, has
fallen. Not by force of arms was the brave garrison compelled
to surrender; hunger alone made them lay down arms after
seven months of hardship and privation, all attempts to raise the
siege having failed. '
If we look at the matter objectively and impartially we must
say that the advantage growing out of this Russian success con-
sists chiefly of the fact that the besieging army of about 150,000
men has been released and may now be used for other purposes.
Przemysl, which is situated in front of the Carpathian Mountain
range, could have a strategic value only so long as it had free-
dom of action and could endanger the lines of communication
in the rear of Russian forces attempting to cross the mountain
ranges. From the moment the fortress was besieged this pur-
pose could no longer be fulfilled, and all the attempts of the
Austrians to recover freedom of action and to raise the siege
came to nought because of the insurmountable obstacles which
the steep and snow-blocked mountains put in the way of military
operations which might have become possible in spring. But it
seems to have been impossible for the Austrians to replenish on
time the food supplies of the fortress.
The release of the Russian armies will first be felt in the
Carpathians where, no doubt, Russia will try to force the Dukla
and I.upkow passes. It may, however, be expected that the
Russians will be retarded by the unfavorable weather condi-
tions Just as the Austrians were hitherto.
The moral result of the fall of the fortress is far greater than
.the‘ strategic gain, although it is hardly to be expected that the
entire press organs of the Allies and their American associates
are of the opinion that “at last" the time has come for Italy
and the Balkan States to join in the final destruction of
Germany.
Vile do not believe, however,-no matter how black the news
from Rome, Paris, etc., may look,-that Italy can leave the road
of neutrality which alone leads to the attainment of her true
interests. lVe would not believe it if only for the reasons that
a chivalrous nation will not blacken its name with a treason so
base that no ‘attempts at historical palliation could ever cleanse
it again. VVithout doubt the outcome of the fighting for the
Dardanelles will have a great influence on Italy's attitude. Rus-
sia, once in possession of Constantinople, would find Italy, which
has political aspirations in the Eastern Mediterranean on her
side. in a scheme to divide this sphere of influence amongst them
to the exclusion of England. As long, however, as the batteries
between Kale-Sultanie and Nagara are not put out of action
it is hard to see what Italian interests would be served if the
victory were hastened.
Austria will make concessions, she cannot help doing so, but
Italy will also understand that there is a limit to such “peaceful
sacrifices.” Finally, a nation before it enters upon the uncertain
ground of war, must ask itself with what certainty it may
depend on the success of its weapons. It must also be remem-
bered thatwar costs money and ammunition. Whether England
is in position to take upon herself the financing of Italy must
be doubted. But the manufacture of munitions costs money. W0,
and since England seems already unable to satisfy France she
will be less. able to meet Italy's demands.
Another important event was the English attack upon Nieuve
Chappelle. .Forty-eight English battalions were launched upon
three Prussian battalions. The English tried to break the Ger-
man‘ lineskin force. But the attack broke down entirely before
the strengthened German lines. The English have experienced
from their enormous losses what it means to try to break through
in force. In spite of the immense waste of ammunition the
attempt was unsuccessful.
It is ‘to be expected that the Allies, because of the unlimited
ammunition supplies from the United States, will be in a better
position than the Germans. On the other hand, it seems that the
labor question in England is not yet solved and that these unset-
tled conditions will interfere with the delivery of the required
war supplies. It is also doubtful whether government ownership
and the working of the factories by the State or even the grant-
ing of “medals” to workmen will change things considerably.
Anyhow, The Economist is of a negative opinion. Great deci-
sions are imminent! They will show that not the last dollar,
nor the greatest amount of ammunition of England, which fights
for ‘the purses of. her Colonial magiiates, will win, but the “will
to live” of a nation fighting for its existence!