The statement follows the lines of my memorandum to you dated January 7,
191527 and embodies
your amendments to that memorandum.
[Enclosure]
Proposed Statement for the Press
Since the outbreak of the European war and the invasion of Belgium by
the armies of the German Empire a great number of communications
have been received from individuals and organizations in this
country asking or demanding the Government to protest against the
violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany on the ground that such
neutrality was secured by the Hague Conventions to which the United
States and Germany were parties.
It seems expedient that the attitude of this Government in regard to
its right and duty as a party to the Hague Conventions in relation
to Belgian neutrality should be made public in order that the people
may not be deceived by the incorrect assumptions as to our duty as a
neutral power which constitute the foundation for criticism of the
Administration’s failure to protest to the German Government.
In the first place it should be pointed out that those who advocate
action by this Government fail to discriminate between a neutralized State and a neutral State. The neutrality of the two
classes is essentially different and is founded on different
principles.
The neutrality of a neutralized State (such
as Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, etc.,) is a matter of
conventional agreement between powers, which are interested in
preventing the State from being absorbed politically by any one of
such powers. The treaty, which declares the neutralization of the
State, is in fact a guaranty that the parties to the treaty will not
deprive the State of independence or invade its neutrality.
The neutrality of a neutral State is a
condition, in which all nations other than the belligerents find
themselves immediately upon the outbreak of an international
war.
The Hague Conventions have nothing to do with the neutrality of a
neutralized State or with the guarantees to preserve such
neutrality. Only the powers which are parties to the neutralization
agreement have a legal right to complain of its violation. To
agreements of that sort the United States is not and has not been a
party. It would be manifestly improper for this Government to
complain of the violation of a treaty to which it was not a
party.
So far, therefore, as the invasion of Belgium may be considered a
breach of guaranty by Germany to preserve its character as a
neutralized State this Government has neither the duty nor the right
to protest.
[Page 190]
As regards the violation of the neutrality of Belgium as a neutral
State the provision in the Hague Conventions relative thereto is
found in Article 1 of Convention No. V of 1907,28 entitled “Convention
respecting the Rights and duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in
case of War”. It reads as follows:
“The territory of neutral powers is inviolable.”
Article 20 of the Convention provides:
“The provisions of the present convention do not apply except
between contracting powers, and then only if all the
belligerents are parties to the convention.[”]
The right or duty to enter protest against a violation of a provision
of the Hague Conventions is not affirmatively set forth in the
documents themselves. If the right or duty exists it must arise from
the nature of the undertakings. It will not be questioned but that
this Government has the right to protest against any violation of a
convention in force when the interests of the United States or of
its citizens are involved. But this is not the case in regard to the
violation of the neutral territory of Belgium. It does not affect
American rights or interests, but those of the Belgians. It is
necessary, therefore, to consider the nature of the undertaking to
which the ratifying powers subscribed.
While the form of the Hague Conventions is that of a joint
undertaking, the adoption of that form was, in the view of this
Government, for the sake of convenience and not for the purpose of
binding the parties to joint action in case of violation by one of
them; and this is evidenced by the fact that there is no provision
authorizing joint action by the parties. The same end would have
been attained had each of the parties entered into an identical
treaty with each one of the other powers. To avoid so cumbersome a
method and the repetition of ratification and exchanges the form of
the Hague Conventions was adopted and provision was made for the
deposit of the ratifications at The Hague. In a word, the
undertaking is several and not joint. It
lacks entirely the element of a joint obligation imposed by the
guaranty of the treaties which neutralize the Kingdom of
Belgium.
In view of the several character of the undertakings incorporated in
The Hague Conventions the United States would have no right and
would even less be charged with the duty to make protest or demand
explanation as to an alleged violation unless the rights or
interests of the United States or its citizens are affected.
