The War in Spain
Frontier Patrols at Work.—The international patrol of Spain’s land and sea frontiers—an unprecedented type of international action—went into full effect at midnight on April 19. It was stated that about 500 observers were engaged in the land patrol and about 60 naval vessels in the sea patrol, representing all of the 27 nations who have participated in the work of the Non-Intervention Committee. Eleven European control ports were established, including Dover, Bordeaux, Madeira, Lisbon, and Gibraltar, at which vessels bound for Spain were to report for examination and to take on a neutral observer. Little difficulty was anticipated along the sea frontiers, though the Spanish Socialist government refused to recognize the authority of the patrol over vessels of Spanish register. In view of the U. S. munitions embargo, no action was to be taken against American ships.
Prior to the institution of the patrol, and thereafter also, considerable difficulty arose over General Franco’s blockade of Bilbao and the Basque coast of northern Spain. Upon warning of the blockade, the British government on April 10 advised British food ships not to attempt entry into Bilbao, and stated that within Spanish territorial waters they would proceed at their own risk. After the patrol was established, however, numerous British merchant vessels entered the port, and were in some cases provided with naval escort up to the 3-mile limit. A striking episode of the insurgent naval blockade was the sinking of the rebel battleship Espana by bombs from five Loyalist airplanes on April 30, five miles off Santander, while she was engaged in pursuit of a British vessel.
European Politics
Rexist Defeat in Belgium.—The critical by-election in Belgium on April 11, in which the leader of the Belgian fascists, Leon Degrelle, was opposed by Premier Paul Van Zeeland, resulted in a decisive victory for the Premier, who gained a majority of 276,000 to 69,000. In the contest, however, the premier was supported by a coalition of all the regular parties, and the Church also, through the Archbishop of Malines, voiced its opposition to Rex- ism as a menace to the country and to the Catholic faith. Hence the results were not altogether discouraging to the Rexists, who at present hold 21 of the 202 seats in the Belgian Chamber, and might expect to fare better in a contest in which the opposition votes were split among various parties.
Belgian Neutrality Status.—By an Anglo-French note published on April 24 Belgium was formally released from all obligations assumed under the Locarno treaties, but with the pledge on her part that she will “defend her frontiers with her forces ... to prevent Belgian territory from being used for purposes of aggression against another state as a passage or base operations by land, sea, or air.” Thus Belgium returns to her pre-war status, though France and Britain are still pledged to unite in resisting any violation of her neutrality. In this way the new agreement serves also to cement the Anglo-Franco Entente more firmly than in 1914. It is significant of this that the staff of British military, naval, and air attaches in Paris has been tripled in the past year.
During the last week of April Brussels was the scene of much diplomatic activity, including a visit from Foreign Minister Eden, a conference with the Oslo group of Northern neutrals, and a visit from Dr. Hjalmar Schacht to look into the possibility of securing for Germany copper, oil, and other raw materials from the Belgian Congo. Premier von Zeeland’s journey to the United States in June, for the receiving of a degree from Princeton, will be utilized also, it is stated, for conversations in Washington on economic and monetary problems of concern to the European Powers.
Austria’s Difficulties.—That Austria finds her seat on the “Rome-Berlin axis” not a very comfortable one was evident from the outcome of the April conference at Venice between Chancellor Schuschnigg and the Italian Premier. At this meeting Premier Mussolini took a medial ground between Austria and his new German ally. Should trouble develop between Germany and Austria, the Premier declared that Italy was no longer ready to rush troops to the Brenner Pass as in 1934. Restoration of the Hapsburg monarchy in Austria was not encouraged, since it might lead to just such a putsch on the part of the Austrian Nazis. If Austria planned such a restoration, she must abide by the consequences. On the other hand, a rapprochement between Austria and Czechoslavakia, for mutual protection against Germany, was not to be undertaken without the approval of both Italy and Hungary, her two partners in the protocols of Rome. In short, the effect of the conference was to leave Austria less confident of Italian backing, and more inclined to seek assurances elsewhere.
Meantime, as evidence of German- Italian cordiality, a whole series of diplomatic interchanges was planned between Berlin and Rome, including trips to Italy in May by General Goering, Minister of War von Blomberg, and Foreign Minister von Neurath, and a visit by Premier Mussolini to Germany probably in the month of June.
Rumanian Royalty at Odds.—Early in April Prince Nicholas of Rumania was deprived of his position as President of the Supreme War Council, and shortly afterward of his titles and rights of succession as a member of the Rumanian royal family. This action was taken by the Rumanian Crown Council at the instance of King Carol. Although the conflict between the King and his brother was attributed primarily to the latter’s marriage to the divorced wife of a diplomatic official, it was connected also with Nicholas’ alleged affiliation with Rumania’s strong Fascist and anti-Semitic organization, the Iron Guard, or as it is now termed, the “All for Country League.” Nicholas subsequently denied any connection with this organization.
Near East
Egyptian Capitulations Agreement. —The conference at Montreux, Switzerland, on the question of ending foreign extraterritorial rights in Egypt reached an agreement early in May by which all concessions hitherto granted to foreign nations will be abandoned in 1949, after a 12-year period of transition. The concessions consist chiefly of restrictions on taxation of foreign property and the right of trial in mixed courts for all cases involving foreigners. All of the twelve nations enjoying capitulatory privileges were represented at the conference, and the American delegation strongly supported the British and Egyptians in securing adoption of the new plan.
All Turkish capitulations were abolished in 1923, and England, in granting Egyptian independence in the treaty of last year, pledged support for similar action in her case. The capitulations have existed since they were first granted to France by Sultan Suleiman of Turkey in 1535.
United States and Latin America
Stiffer Neutrality Act.—The new neutrality measure, as finally approved by the conference committee, passed both houses of Congress on April 29, and was immediately forwarded to the President for signature in order to avoid a gap between its enaction and the lapse of the old Neutrality Act on May 1. Even so, two new proclamations were necessary, one continuing the Spanish arms embargo and the other requiring the registration of all manufacturers and shippers of arms. In the Senate the vote in favor of the new bill was 41 to 15. Opposition to it in public discussion came chiefly from peace advocates who believe that the road to peace is not through isolation but through more active American co-operation in international affairs. It has also been argued that the fear of American war-time embargoes may deter other nations from building up a peace-time trade with this country. The chief features of the new legislation are here briefly summarized.
- An arms embargo must be proclaimed by the President whenever “there exists a state of war between or among two or more foreign states”, or “civil strife of such magnitude ... or under such conditions that the export of arms . . . would threaten or endanger the peace of the United States.” This embargo must be limited to “arms, ammunition, or implements of war”; raw materials are specifically excluded.
- The President at his discretion can place the export of any other articles to belligerents on a “cash and carry” basis, and forbid the transport of such goods in American ships. This sweeping provision is limited to two years.
- American financial aid to belligerents is forbidden, except for Red Cross or similar purposes.
- Travel of American citizens on belligerent vessels is forbidden, except under regulations prescribed by the President.
- American vessels engaged in trade with belligerents shall carry no armament except “small arms and ammunition.”
- The provisions of the act shall not apply to an American republic at war with a non-American state; and under the terms of the act modifications may be made regarding trade across the Canadian frontier.
- The President may take measures to prevent the use of American ports as a base of supply for belligerent war vessels, and may prohibit the entry of belligerent submarines or armed merchant vessels into American ports or territorial waters.
Far East
Japan’s Milder Policy.—The parliamentary elections of April 30 in Japan resulted in a strong swing toward the radical or proletarian parties, and thus left the government support in the Diet even weaker than before. In view of the defeat it was not thought that the Hayashi cabinet could continue in power. In any case no departure is likely from the new and milder attitude which Japan has assumed in foreign affairs. In fact, with the shift of the assertive foreign office “spokesman” Eiji Amau to a quiet post as Minister to Switzerland, the old doctrine that Japan should have a controlling voice in foreign economic activities in China seems to have passed into abeyance. British interests have been pushed in Central and South China, and a British commercial mission even opened negotiations in the northern provinces which had come to be regarded as almost a Japanese preserve. In view of the growing spirit of unification and organized resistance in China, Japan is now proposing a policy of “mutual concessions,” and has even hinted that, in return for more favorable tariffs, a curb might be put on Japanese smuggling into the northern provinces.
At Nanking the movement toward national unity and a stiffer Japanese policy was seen in the appointment of the militant anti-Japanese leader Pai Chung-hsi to the War Ministry, and in the reorganized Council of National Defense with the “Christian General” Feng Yu-hsiang as a Vice Chairman. The new War Minister, who is also a member of the Council, was one of the leaders in the Kwangsi revolt of last year; and General Feng’s support of the Nanking government is likewise of recent date and significant of the new turn of affairs.
A Diplomat on Naval Strength.— In the April number of the new monthly magazine Amerasia, one of the more noteworthy articles is “The Great Aberration” by Samuel Flagg Bemis, Professor of Diplomatic History at Yale University and author of a recent excellent Diplomatic History of the United States. Although the article itself deals primarily with the Open door policy and its limited value in view of American unwillingness or inability to stand behind it, more immediate interest attaches to Professor Bemis’ view of present dangers in the Pacific. He writes:
The principal danger of war is some open insult by irresponsible and hot-headed people, who are convinced that the underbuilding of the American Navy is proof that the American people will not fight, not even to preserve their honor, and who think that as a result Japan can do about what she pleases in the Pacific or anywhere on its shores. The best augury for the peace of the Pacific, so far as the United States and the New World is concerned, is for the people of the United States to rouse themselves for the maintenance of an adequate navy, and to fall back after the complete emancipation of the Philippines to the line of Alaska-Honolulu-Panama, making that line impregnable against intrusion from any direction by sea or air. To do this requires an abandonment of that softening shibboleth: A Treaty Navy by 1942. A Treaty Navy, forsooth, to come into existence six years after the expiration of all treaty limitation on naval armaments. This is a peace of unmitigated pacifist folly in the midst of a world arming to the teeth.
The United States has done its utmost to bring about a limitation of armaments. It gave up a dominating naval armament in 1922. It underbuilt from 1922 to 1930. It pressed unsuccessfully for limitation of further categories in 1930 at London. In vain, it urged extension of the existing treaty ratios—which would have meant an extension of the existing de facto ratios—at London in 1936. It signed and ratified the ineffective London naval treaty of 1936, a gesture of invitation to further limitation, which nobody else has been willing to ratify. With two coasts to protect there is nothing else for the United States to do but resume its naval armaments.
If the United States meets the threat of the race in naval armament by building a navy adequate to defend its shores, and with them the shores of the New World, this does not mean that we are anxious to enter the wars of Asia or Europe. Nothing is more abhorrent to the pacific population of this republic. It means, however, if it is followed, that the people of the United States are determined to keep out of the New World the hateful, fateful power-politics of the continents of the Old World—Asia as well as Europe—and to protect the continents of the New World as a haven of refuge for Western civilization, and an asylum for liberty. . . .