106
Department of State pub. 114C
Address Delivered by the
Secretary of State at Washington, March 17, 1938
In the course of the daily press conferences
at the Department of State, I have occasion to see many of you and to touch
upon day-to-day
407
DOCUMENTS
developments in our foreign relations. Such information as I am able to
give you in these conferences must, of necessity, relate to specific questions
and, oftentimes, to isolated events. Yet upon you, representatives of the
press, rests a heavy responsibility in keeping our people currently and
accurately informed on the vital issues which arise in our country's relations
with other nations. I welcome, therefore, this opportunity to meet with the
members of the National Press Club in the calmer atmosphere of an occasion like
the present one, and to discuss with you some of the fundamental conditions and
problems presented by our international relations and our foreign policy. The
primary objectives of our foreign policy are the maintenance of the peace of
our country and the promotion of the economic, the social, and the moral
welfare of our people. Unfortunately, the means of attaining these objectives
involve today so many factors of great complexity that their real significance
is frequently misunderstood and misinterpreted.
By instinct and tradition our country has
been, throughout its history, sincerely devoted to the cause of peace. Within
the limitations imposed by time and circumstance we have earnestly sought to
discharge our responsibilities as a member of the family of nations in
promoting conditions essential to the maintenance of peace. We have
consistently believed in the sanctity of treaty obligations and have endeavored
to apply this belief in the actual practice of our foreign relations. In common
with all other nations we have, since the end of the World War, assumed a
solemn obligation not to resort to force as an instrument of national policy.
All this gives us a moral right to express our deep concern over the rising
tide of lawlessness, the growing disregard of treaties, the increasing
reversion to the use of force, and the numerous other ominous tendencies which
are emerging in the sphere of international relations.
On July 16, 1937, I issued a public statement
setting forth the fundamental principles to which our Government adheres in the
formulation of its foreign policy. On behalf of our Government I transmitted a
copy of this statement to every government of the world, requesting such
comment as each might see fit to offer. To our profound gratification an
overwhelming majority of those governments joined in affirming their faith in
these vital principles.
The most important of these principles, which
are indispensable to a satisfactory international order, are as follows:
Maintenance of peace should be constantly
advocated and practiced.
All nations should, through voluntary
self-restraint, abstain from use of force in pursuit of policy and from
interference in the internal affairs of other nations.
408
DOCUMENTS
All nations should seek to adjust problems
arising in their international relations by processes of peaceful negotiation
and agreement.
All nations should uphold the principle of
the sanctity of treaties and of faithful observance of international agreements.
Modification of provisions of treaties, when
need therefor arises, should be by orderly processes carried out in a spirit of
mutual helpfulness and accommodation.
Each nation should respect the rights of
others and perform scrupulously its own established obligations; in brief,
international law and the spirit which underlies it must be revitalized and
strengthened.
Steps should be taken toward promotion of
economic security and stability the world over through lowering or removal of
barriers to international trade according of effective equality of commercial
opportunity, and application of the principle of equality of commercial
treatment.
National armaments should be limited and be
progressively reduced; at the same time, realizing the necessity for
maintaining armed forces adequate for national security, each nation should to
that end be prepared to reduce or increase its own armed forces in proportion
as reductions or increases are made by other nations.
Apart from the question of alliances with
others, each nation should be prepared to engage in cooperative effort, by
peaceful and practicable means, in support of these principles.
The peace and progress of every nation are
just as dependent on international law and order, based upon the foregoing
principles, as the welfare, stability, and progress of a community are
dependent upon domestic law and order, based upon legal, moral, and other
recognized standards of conduct. No government faithful to the sacred trust
involved in the task of providing for the safety and well-being of its people
can disregard these universal principles. Every nation, whatever its form of
government, can support them. Every nation must support them, if civilization
is to survive. The longer the nations delay acceptance and observance of these
fundamental tenets of constructive statesmanship, the graver will be the
jeopardy into which all worth-while international relationships will be
plunged, and with them the welfare, the happiness, and the civilized existence
of all nations.
The crucial issue today is whether these
principles will be vitalized and be firmly established as the foundation of an
international order or whether international anarchy based on brute force will
inundate the world and ultimately sweep away the very bases of civilization and
progress. That issue is universal. No more than a community
409
DOCUMENTS
or a nation, can the world base its existence in part on law and in part
on lawlessness, in part on order and in part on chaos, in part on processes of
peace and in part on methods of violence.
On August 23 I made another public statement
reaffirming the principles which should underlie international order, peace,
and justice, if the world is to avoid a relapse into another dark night of
international anarchy and general retrogression. I called attention again to
the fact that if these principles are to be effective they must be universal in
their application. This statement was prompted by the fact that the progress
and possibilities of armed conflict were becoming more alarming both in the
European and the Far Eastern areas and that the basic principles to which I
have just referred were being challenged and the doctrine of armed force was
gaining supremacy in important regions of the world.
During the early months of the conflict in
the Far East I appealed on several occasions, in the name of our Government, to
both Japan and China to desist from using armed force and to resort to the
well-recognized processes of peaceful settlement for the adjustment of whatever
differences existed between them. I said that we would be glad to be of
assistance toward facilitating, in any manner that might be practicable and
mutually agreeable, resort by them to such processes.
On August 17, and with frequent reiteration
thereafter, I stated that we did not intend to abandon our nationals and our
interests in China.
From time immemorial it has been the practice
of civilized nations to afford protection, by appropriate means and under the
rule of reason, to their nationals and their rights and interests abroad. This
policy has been pursued by the Government of the United States throughout the
existence of our country.
Methods and means of affording protection
abroad vary according to the places in which and the circumstances under which
protection is called for. In the case of China, where unusual local conditions
were such that the protection afforded by local authorities did not suffice to
give security against excited and lawless elements, there have occasionally
been sent—not by this country alone but by a number of countries—armed forces,
to contribute to the affording of such protection as is due under the rules of
international law and the provisions of treaties. American forces thus sent to
China have at no time had any mission of aggression, and it has been the
practice of the American Government to withdraw such forces whenever and as
soon as the local situation so develops as to warrant the view that
410
DOCUMENTS
their withdrawal can be effected without detriment to American interests
and obligations in general.
In announcing our intention to afford
appropriate and reasonable protection to our rights and interests in the Far
East, I stated clearly that we are fully determined to avoid the extremes
either of internationalism or of isolationism. Internationalism would mean
undesirable political involvements; isolationism would either compel us to
confine all activities of our people within our own frontiers, with
incalculable injury to the standard of living and the general welfare of our
people, or else expose our nationals and our legitimate interests abroad to
injustice or outrage wherever lawless conditions arise. Steering a sound middle
course between these two extremes, we are convinced that a policy of affording
appropriate protection—under the rule of reason, in such form as may be best
suited to the particular circumstances, and in accordance with the principles
we advocate—is imperatively needed to serve our national interest.
Our decision in this matter is based not only
on what we firmly believe to be a specific and elementary duty of a government
toward its citizens, but also on other and broader considerations. Respect by a
country for the rights and interests of others is a visible test of the
fulfillment of obligations assumed by virtue of acceptance of international law
and of undertakings embodied in negotiated international instruments. It is,
therefore, a test of the observance of those fundamental principles of
civilized relations among nations, which, if firmly established, provide in
themselves the best means of protection against violation and abuse of the
legitimate rights and interests of every nation.
To waive rights and to permit interests to
lapse in the face of their actual or threatened violation—and thereby to
abandon obligations—in any important area of the world, can serve only to
encourage disregard of law and of the basic principles of international order,
and thus contribute to the inevitable spread of international anarchy
throughout the world. For this country, as for any country, to act in such
manner anywhere would be to invite
disregard and violation of its rights and interests everywhere, by every nation so inclined, large or small.
To respect the rights of others and to insist
that others respect our rights has been the traditional policy of our country.
This policy was admirably expressed by James Monroe when, in his message to
Congress on December 2, 1823, he said:
"Our policy . . . remains the same: . .
. to cultivate friendly relations . . . and to preserve those relations by
frank, firm, and
411
DOCUMENTS
manly policy, meeting in all instances the
just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none."
In a world in which the rule of force has not
as yet been firmly and surely supplanted by the rule of law, it is the manifest
duty of a great nation to maintain armed forces adequate for its national
defense. Writing on this subject, which was as vital to our national life 150
years ago as it is today, James Madison said:
"The means of security can only be
regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever
determined by these rules, and by no others."
It is the duty of the Federal Government to
insure the safety of our country and to determine what "means of
security" are, at any given moment, needed to provide against "the
means and the danger of attack." The responsible heads of our naval
establishment offer convincing reasons in support of the program, now before the
Congress, to render adequate the means of our national defense. No policy would
prove more disastrous than for an important nation to fail to arm adequately
when international lawlessness is on the rampage. It is my considered judgment
that, in the present state of world affairs, to do less than is now proposed
would lay our country open to unpredictable hazards. It would, moreover,
seriously restrict our Nation's ability to command, without purpose or occasion
for resorting to arms, proper respect for its legitimate rights and interests,
the surrender of which would constitute abandonment of the fundamental
principles of justice and morality and peace among nations.
The maintenance of these principles that are
of concern to all nations alike cannot and should not be undertaken by any one
nation alone. Prudence and common sense dictate that, where this and other
nations have common interests and common objectives, we should not hesitate to
exchange information and to confer with the governments of such other nations
and, in dealing with the problems confronting each alike, to proceed along
parallel lines—this Government retaining at all times its independence of
judgment and freedom of action. For nations which seek peace to assume with
respect to each other attitudes of complete aloofness would serve only to
encourage, and virtually invite, on the part of other nations lawlessly
inclined, policies and actions most likely to endanger peace.
In the present Far Eastern emergency, we have
consistently collaborated with other peace-seeking nations in the manner I have
just described. I have said often, and I repeat again, that in this
collaboration there is not a trace of alliance or involvement of any sort. We
412
DOCUMENTS
have scrupulously followed and we intend to follow the traditional policy
of our country not to enter into entangling alliances or involvements with
other countries.
When the Brussels Conference was called, this
country, as one of the original signatories of the Nine Power Treaty and in accordance
with its treaty obligations thus assumed, promptly accepted the invitation to
the Conference. Our delegation cooperated fully with the representatives of the
other Conference powers in examining the situation in the Far East and
exploring methods of bringing about peace by processes of agreement. The
Conference made a substantial contribution toward keeping alive principles of
world order and of respect for the pledged word. Its declarations placed a new
emphasis upon the deep concern of peaceful nations over any developments that
threaten the preservation of peace.
In connection with the Far Eastern situation,
this Government was confronted with the question of applying the existing
neutrality legislation, which was designed primarily to keep our Nation out of
war. After mature deliberation the conclusion was reached that in the
circumstances attending the controversy in the Far East—a type of circumstances
which the authors of the legislation could scarcely have visualized—application
of the law would be most likely to endanger the very objectives which the law
was designed to promote. Accordingly, exercising the discretion vested in him
by the law itself, the President has refrained from putting the provisions of
that law into operation. At the same time, in pursuance of our general policy
of avoiding unnecessary risks, the President announced, on September 14, 1937,
that "Merchant vessels owned by the Government of the United States will
not hereafter, until further notice, be permitted to transport to China or
Japan any of the arms, ammunition, or implements of war which were listed in
the President's proclamation of May 1, 1937," and that "Any other
merchant vessels, flying the American flag, which attempt to transport any of
the listed articles to China or Japan will, until further notice, do so at
their own risk."
Our Government pursues, in relation to every
world area alike, a policy of noninterference, with ill will toward no nation
and a sincere desire to be friendly with all. At the same time, we endeavor to
afford appropriate protection to American citizens and American interests
everywhere. During recent months, as throughout the past 100 years, the
Government of the United States has sought to exercise moral influence and to
cooperate in every practicable way with all peace-seeking nations in support of
those basic principles which are indispensable to the promotion and maintenance
of stable conditions of peace.
413
DOCUMENTS
We have affirmed on every possible occasion
and have urged upon all nations the supreme need for keeping alive and for
practicing sound fundamental principles of relations among civilized nations.
We have never entertained and we have not the slightest intention to entertain
any such notion as the use of American armed forces for "policing the
world." But we equally have not the slightest intention of reversing a
tradition of a century and a half by abandoning our deep concern for, and our
advocacy of, the establishment everywhere; of international order under law,
based upon the well-recognized principles to which I have referred. It is our
profound conviction that the most effective contribution which we, as a nation
sincerely devoted to the cause of peace, can make—in the tragic conditions with
which our people, in common with the rest of mankind, are confronted today—is
to have this country respected throughout the world for integrity, justice,
good will, strength, and unswerving loyalty to principles.
The foregoing is the essence of our foreign
policy. The record is an open book. We spare no effort to make known the facts
regarding our attitude, our objectives, and our acts. We are always ready to
furnish to the members of the Congress essential information. You, gentlemen,
have first-hand knowledge of our constant effort to keep the press and the
public informed.
There is one thing that we cannot do; and
that is, to prepare and to place before every government of the world a
detailed chart of the course of policy and action which this country will or
will not pursue under any particular set of circumstances. No man, no nation,
can possibly foresee all the circumstances that may arise. Moreover, to attempt
to make such a detailed chart of future action would merely result in impairing
our effectiveness in working for the one objective toward which we constantly
strive and on which, I am certain, there is not a vestige of disagreement among
the people of our country—the establishment of durable peace.
So strong, indeed, is the desire of this
country for peace that many measures have been suggested toward our keeping out
of war—some of them in complete disregard of both experience and
practicability. It has been urged that we apply the neutrality law
automatically in all circumstances, without adequate consideration of the
possible consequences of such action for our own peace and for the safety of
our citizens. It has been urged that we withdraw precipitately from any part of
the world in which violators of international decencies choose to assert
themselves. It has even been urged that we change the very basis of our
representative form of government in a frantic search
414
DOCUMENTS
for something which the proposers assume would make it more likely that
this country avoid war.
I take it for granted that all of us alike
are sincere friends of peace. This makes it all the more necessary for every
one of us to scrutinize carefully every measure proposed, lest in our attempts
to avoid war we imperil the chances of preserving peace.
The problem of the form of government best
adapted to this country's needs was one with which the founders of our Republic
came to grips in those stirring days when the structure of our independent
national existence was being given form and substance. After exhaustive
deliberation and discussion they decided upon the system of representative
democracy in preference to that of pure democracy as the system through which
the people could best safeguard their liberty and promote their national
security and welfare. The wisdom of the founders of this Nation in deciding,
with conspicuous unanimity, to place the conduct of foreign relations in the
hands of the Federal Government has stood the test of generations as providing
the most effective means that can be devised for assuring the peace, the
security, and the independence of our people.
What warrant is there, in reason or in
experience, for the assumption—which underlies such proposals as the plan for a
popular referendum on the subject of declaring war—that the Chief Executive and
the Congress will be at any time more eager and more likely to embark upon war
than would be the general body of citizens to whom they are directly
responsible? No President and no
Congress have ever carried this country into war against the will of the
people. On the other hand, there is not a vestige of doubt that the adoption of
a procedure like the referendum plan would hopelessly handicap the Government
in the conduct of our foreign relations in general and would thus disastrously
impair its ability to safeguard the interests of the Nation, in the forefront
among which is that of peace.
Likewise dangerous, from the viewpoint of the
preservation of peace, is the proposal that we retire from the Far East,
comprising the chief portion of the Pacific area. Unfortunately, many people in
this country have wholly misunderstood the position and policy of our
Government in relation to that situation. Some have visualized only our trade
and investment relationships with China, or our moral and cultural interests
there, symbolized by missionary, educational, medical, and similar activities.
Some have concentrated their attention solely upon the incidental and
exceptional facts of the existence of extraterritoriality and the maintenance
of some armed forces to assist in safeguarding our nationals against possible
mob violence
415
DOCUMENTS
and similar disorders—special rights which it is our policy to give up
and forces which it is our policy to withdraw the moment the unusual conditions
disappear.
All these are important. But the interest and
concern of the United States—whether in the Far East, in any other part of the
Pacific area, in Europe, or anywhere else in the world—are not measured alone
by the number of American citizens residing in a particular country, or by the
volume of investment and trade, or by exceptional conditions peculiar to the
particular area. There is a much broader and more fundamental interest—which
is, that orderly processes in international relationships based on the
principles to which I have referred be maintained.
As I have already indicated, what is most of
all at stake today, throughout the world, is the future of the fundamental
principles which must be the foundation of international order as opposed to
international anarchy. If we and others were to abandon and surrender these
principles in regard to the Pacific area, which is almost one half of the
world, we would have to reconcile ourselves to their certain abandonment and
surrender in regard to the other half of the world.
It would be absurd and futile for us to
proclaim that we stand for international law, for the sanctity of treaty
obligations, for nonintervention in internal affairs of other countries, for
equality of industrial and commercial rights and opportunities, for limitation
and reduction of armaments—but only in one-half of the world, and among
one-half of the world's population. The catastrophic developments of recent
years, the startling events of the past weeks, offer a tragic demonstration of
how quickly the contagious scourge of treaty breaking and armed violence
spreads from one region to another.
Those who contend that we can and should
abandon and surrender principles in one-half of the world clearly show that
they have little or no conception of the extent to which situations and
developments in any part of the world of today inevitably affect situations and
conditions in other parts of the world. The triumph of this seclusionist
viewpoint would inescapably carry the whole world back to the conditions of medieval
chaos, conditions toward which some parts of both the eastern and the western
worlds are already moving. Such is the fate to which extreme
isolationists—isolationists at any price—all those who contend that we should
neither protest against abuses nor cooperate with others toward keeping
principles alive, those who say that under no circumstances should we insist
upon any rights beyond our own territorial waters—such is the fate to which
blind
416
DOCUMENTS
extremism of this type would consign this country and the world.
The momentous question—let me repeat—is
whether the doctrine of force shall become enthroned once more and bring in its
wake, inexorably, international anarchy and a relapse into barbarism; or
whether this and other peaceful nations, fervently attached to the principles
which underlie international order, shall work unceasingly—singly or in
cooperation with each other, as circumstances, their traditional policies and
practices, and their enlightened self-interest may dictate—to promote and
preserve law, order, morality, and justice as the unshakeable bases of
civilized international relations.
We might, if we could reconcile ourselves to
such an attitude, turn our backs on the whole problem and decline the
responsibility and labor of contributing to its solution. But let us have no
illusions as to what such a course of action would involve for us as a nation.
It would mean a break with our past, both
internationally and domestically. It would mean a voluntary abandonment of some
of the most important things that have made us a great nation. It would mean an
abject retreat before those forces which we have, throughout our whole national
history, consistently opposed.
It would mean that our security would be
menaced in proportion as other nations came to believe that, either through
fear or through unwillingness, we did not intend to afford protection to our
legitimate national interests abroad, but, on the contrary, intended to abandon
them at the first sign of danger. Under such conditions the sphere of our
international relationships economic, cultural, intellectual, and other—would
necessarily shrink and shrivel, until we would stand practically alone among
the nations, a self-constituted hermit state.
Thrown back upon our own resources, we would
find it necessary to reorganize our entire social and economic structure. The
process of adaptation to a more or less self-contained existence would mean
less production and at higher costs; lower living standards; regimentation in
every phase of life; economic distress to wage earners and farmers, and to
their families; and the dole, on an ever-increasing scale.
All this we would be doing in pursuit of the
notion that by so doing we would avoid war. But would these policies, while
entailing such enormous sacrifices and rendering the Nation more and more
decadent, really give us any such assurance?
Reason and experience definitely point to the
contrary. We may seek to withdraw from participation in world affairs, but we
cannot
417
DOCUMENTS
thereby withdraw from the world itself. Isolation is not a means to
security; it is a fruitful source of insecurity.
We want to live in a world which is at peace;
in which the forces of militarism, of territorial aggression, and of
international anarchy in general will become utterly odious, revolting, and
intolerable to the conscience of mankind; in which the doctrine of order under
law will be firmly established; in which there will no longer be one code of
morality, honor, justice, and fair play for the individual in his relations
with other individuals, and an entirely different code for governments and
nations in their relations with each other. We want to live in a world in which
fruitful and constructive international relationships can serve as a medium for
disseminating throughout the world the benefits of the material, spiritual, and
moral progress of mankind.
To that end we will continue to give full and
sincere adherence to the fundamental principles which underlie international
order; we will continue to urge universal acceptance and observance of these
principles; we will continue, wherever necessary and in every practicable and
peaceful way, to cooperate with other nations which are actuated by the same
desires and are pursuing the same objectives; we will persevere in appropriate
efforts to safeguard our legitimate rights and interests in every part of the
world; and we will, while scrupulously respecting the rights of others, insist
on their respecting our rights.
To that end we will continue to strive,
through our reciprocal trade program and through other economic policies, to
restore the normal processes and to expand the volume of mutually beneficial
trade among the nations, which is indispensable to an increase of production,
employment, purchasing power, and general economic well-being here and
everywhere; we will continue to promote peace through economic security and
prosperity; we will continue to participate in the numerous international
scientific, technical, and other conferences and collaborative efforts, which
have been such powerful influences in assisting the stream of new ideas, of new
discoveries, of learning and culture, to flow throughout the world; and we will
continue to urge other nations to give their support to such policies and
efforts.
We believe that a world at peace, with law
and justice prevailing, is possible, and that it can be achieved by methods to
some of which I have referred. That is the cornerstone of our foreign policy—a
policy graphically described by President Roosevelt when he said:
418
DOCUMENTS
"There must be positive endeavors to
preserve peace. America hates war. America hopes for peace. Therefore, America
actively engages in the search for peace." [39]
The objectives of our foreign policy are as
easy to grasp as they are fundamental. The means we are using to attain these
objectives are the only means approved by reason and by experience. For the
sake of the best interests of our people, we must maintain our strength, our
courage, our moral standards, our influence in world affairs, and our
participation in efforts toward world progress and peace. Only by making our
reasonable contribution to a firm establishment of a world order based on law
can we keep the problem of our own security in true perspective and thus
discharge our responsibility to ourselves—to America of today and to America of
tomorrow. No other course would be worthy of our past or of the potentialities
of this great democracy of which we are all citizens and in whose affairs we
all participate.