Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Lansing Papers, 1914–1920, Volume I

763.72111/4332½

Memorandum by the Secretary of State

December 1, 1916.

Neutrality is a state which becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the longer it lasts. The government charged with its maintenance has no easy task, for as a foreign war progresses the citizens of the neutral country become more and more partisan in their sympathies and less just in viewing the impartial attitude of their own government. Neutrality—that is a real neutrality—satisfies no one who supports the one belligerent or the other, so that they constantly criticize the attitude of the government and complain that it is failing to perform its duty.

When so tremendous a struggle is being waged as the present one which is sapping the energies and eating into the very fibre of the great empires of Europe, and when all nations the world over are affected in their industrial and commercial life by the war, it is to be expected that individuals in neutral countries should become increasingly strong in their sympathies and desire earnestly the success of those powers whose cause they advocate.

And this partisanship is naturally more intense and more irreconcilable to impartiality in a nation like ours which has drawn its blood from the various nationalities of Europe, which are now arrayed against each other in the most bitter and most desperate strife in the annals of history. It is natural that ties of blood should affect the sentiments and through the sentiments the individual judgment of the American people, and make of them sympathizers with the nation from which their ancestors came. We are still a young nation in which national characteristics are in the making. We are only gradually absorbing the millions of people who themselves or whose forebears left the lands of their nativity to find here refuge from oppression or opportunity to win the just reward of their industry. Comparatively few of our citizens have lost touch with the lands across the sea or do not feel the call of kinship and the sympathy which springs from pride of origin.

However intense may be the feeling which would inspire every American if this Republic was in conflict with another nation, it is not strange, when the United States is but a spectator of a war so great that it involves nearly all countries from which we have drawn our people, that every American should become a partisan under the impulse of relationship. Nor is it strange that the people of the United States, thus divided into partisan groups, view the policies of their government with prejudiced eyes and are bitterly critical of any course of action which bears hardly upon the belligerents with whom they sympathize, complaining that the strict neutrality of the Government is unworthy of the United States in view of the great principles at stake in the war.

Thus this Government striving to preserve a free and open mind toward both sides and to resist with equal vigor encroachments upon the rights of Americans by either pleases no one, not even its own citizens, while belligerent public opinion is naturally hostile and contemptuous because the official attitude of this country does not coincide with the viewpoint which forms the basis of that opinion in judging of the merits of the conflict, and which denies all justification to the enemy.

For two years and a half this Government has faced this situation and patiently endured the denunciations and invectives of partisanship at home and abroad. It has done this because it believed that its first duty was to the millions who had confided to it their welfare and their interests, and that the welfare and interests of this great people were best served by keeping the United States at peace. But another duty has impressed itself more and more as the war increased in magnitude and the combatants became more desperate in their efforts to vanquish one another, and that was the duty to preserve one great nation in the world free from the terrible results of the world war, so that its energies might be devoted to the restoration of wasted resources, to the rebuilding of new enterprises on the ruins caused by the innumerable lives sacrificed and by the destruction of vast treasures.

Determined as this Government was to remain neutral because of its duty to the American people and its duty to the future of mankind it realized that it had undertaken no light task. Not alone was it compelled to endure the taunts of cowardice, of heartlessness, of lack of moral fibre, of vacillation, of partiality for one or the other of the belligerents, of every possible motive which was dishonorable and pusillanimous, but it had also to deal with conditions of warfare utterly new, to which the rules which common assent had established could not be applied, or, if applied, were found ineffective.

New means of communication, new methods of locomotion, new engines of destruction which had never been listed in actual war, were introduced and put into practical operation. How these various changes increased the efficiency of the military and naval forces of the warring nations and how manifestly inadequate the old codes of warfare were and the accepted rules defining the relative rights of belligerents and neutrals became almost at once apparent. The whole magnificent system of international law applicable to a state of war which had been constructed with such pains and toil, came tumbling to the ground in a few months. Only the foundation stones of principle were left on which to build temporary structures which would at least give partial shelter from the fury of the tempest which seemed to be sweeping every right from its former place in society.

Relying apparently upon the fact that many of the rules of conduct universally accepted were impossible of application because of changed conditions, the belligerents went further and violated other rules which could have been applied and ought to have been applied. These violations of established rules, some of which were possibly justifiable but many of which were not, were seized upon by their adversaries as ample excuses for violations on their part. Thus every new breach begat another, which in turn begat others, until the standards of right sanctioned by treaties and usage, were torn to bits, and the belligerents ignored more and more the former practices of nations at war.

In stating this situation and the positions taken by the warring powers I do not intend to condemn the course pursued by either side, so far as they affect their respective rights. It is not the part of a neutral to sit in judgment or to compare the conduct of belligerents in carrying on hostile operations against one another. It is practically impossible for those having the administration of foreign affairs not to make such a comparison and not to form a judgment as to the justifiable character of violations of recognized rights, but it is nevertheless their duty to refrain from giving official sanction to such opinions or from in any way departing from the position of an impartial spectator, who while he may deplore the conduct of one combatant more than that of the other remains silent and strives to keep the official mind of the government free from prejudice, even though the public opinion of the nation may denounce acts as beyond the pale of right or of humanity.

When, however, the acts of belligerent[s] seriously infringe the rights of neutrals, a neutral government cannot permit such acts to be passed over in silence. It is a duty, which a government owes to its citizens and for which it was established, to protest against such violations and to endeavor to prevent their repetition. Without passing upon the question as to whether new conditions have made certain belligerent acts, previously condemned, justifiable, or upon the question as to whether they are warranted by way of retaliation for alleged lawlessness on the part of the enemy, a neutral is bound to decide as to their legal character if they impair recognized neutral rights, and in reaching a decision it can only apply existing rules, even though they seem obsolete and insufficient.

It is obvious that, with the belligerent nations engaged in what they believe to be—and what indeed may be—a death struggle, a struggle in which they are determined to employ every means to weaken their opponents, a neutral government seeking to preserve the rights of its citizens, I refer particularly to their commercial rights, has well nigh a hopeless task. What can be done to keep inviolate those rights? Appeal to the established rules governing a belligerent’s treatment of neutrals? In the intensity of this extraordinary war the ears of belligerents are deaf or at least dull to neutral appeals, if they are convinced that they are working injury to their enemies. Threaten the offending government with retaliation? Would that have any more effect than an appeal to legality unless the threat was carried out? And if the threatened retaliation did not bear with equal force on both belligerents would it not be held with more or less reason that it was unneutral?

On the other hand to threaten without putting the threat into operation would seem to be worse than useless. It would be humiliating and result in a loss of esteem in foreign lands and at home.

In this situation what course lies open to a neutral nation physically unable to give effect to a declaration that it will maintain its rights at all hazard? Is it wise to make such declaration with the possibility that it will accomplish nothing and only bring discredit upon the one that makes it? I do not believe the most optimistic opportunist would counsel such action. But if not that, then what? Do you not perceive the great difficulty of the problem and the perplexities which face those who have to solve it?

Viewed from every angle is not the most sensible course for a neutral government to show patience and treat the warring powers as if the circumstances of the war had made them in a large measure irresponsible for their improper acts? If such a policy is adopted, a belligerent government must be frankly notified that its conduct is in flagrant violation of neutral rights, that its conduct cannot be forgiven or condoned, and that it will be held responsible for any resulting loss or damage. Of course such a notification amounts merely to a reservation of rights to be determined at some later time, and probably will not have the effect of causing a belligerent to change its policy. But what else can a neutral government do if the nation itself is unwilling or unprepared to have its rights enforced by action? As a reservation of rights, on which to found claims to be adjusted when the war is over, a representation of this sort is manifestly desirable, but as a means of improving a difficult or unpleasant state of affairs it will amount to nothing at all. This might just as well be admitted and understood so that hopes may not be built on so weak a foundation.

To guide the course of this Government with intelligence it is necessary to look at the situation not only from the point of view of the neutral but also from that of the participants in the struggle. And first let me say, that the warring nations and their governments are wrought up to the highest pitch of nervous tension. They are desperate. One supreme purpose controls their conduct. It is to win the war. National independence is to them the prize of victory. To preserve that independence is the supreme motive. Put yourself in their place and then decide what regard you would pay to the rights of other nations, if to do so interfered with efforts to injure your antagonist. You might attempt to pacify a neutral, whose friendship you desired, by certain minor concessions, but would you cease in pursuing a practice which you considered essential in the least degree to gaining an advantage over your enemy unless that practice so seriously affected the rights of a neutral nation that its continuance would force that nation to enter the war as an enemy? I do not say that this attitude is right but I do say that we ought not to be surprised that it is under present conditions the one taken by belligerents.

I think too that we should also accept as a logical consequence that a nation, obsessed with the idea that its life hangs in the balance, that it is engaged in a struggle for life, feels a natural irritation that a neutral nation does not see things in the same light that it does and is not as strongly impressed with the righteousness of its cause as are its government and people. A belligerent government, straining every nerve to conquer on land and sea and in the air, putting forth herculean efforts and making tremendous sacrifices of life and treasure, is in no frame of mind to consider calmly and judicially a request or demand by a neutral which, if granted, would seem to surrender some gain, be it ever so slight, over the enemy. It would be folly to expect a just and dispassionate discussion of a question in such circumstances.

Continue to put yourself in the frame of mind of a belligerent and then answer these questions: What does a government, whose people are dying by the tens of thousands for the sake of their country care about a legal right of neutral property? What is the observance of law, however sanctioned by the world, compared to a nation’s life? How much do commercial interests weighed against a possibly greater sacrifice of life by prolongation of a war? Answer these questions from the belligerent’s standpoint and you will perceive very clearly the attitude of the governments of warring Europe in their dealings with the United States.

Can you in your heart blame them for their indifference to our legal rights or for their attempts to justify their illegal acts? Can you blame them for making bitter complaints that we, as a people, are mercenary, selfish and unsympathetic when we insist that our rights shall be respected, when insistence appears to be favorable to their enemies? They would not be human if they felt otherwise. We must accept it as a natural consequence of present conditions, and deal with it as best we may.

The conditions are abnormal. Public opinion in the countries at war is abnormal. The state of mind and point of view of belligerent governments are abnormal, and the relations of neutral nations with those which are fighting are consequently abnormal. Manifestly the situations which arise cannot be treated in a normal way. This needs no evidence, the facts are too patent to require proof.

In spite of this temper of the belligerents, which is so essentially human, and in spite of these abnormal conditions which have presented a situation of the greatest delicacy in our international relations, there have been numbers of Americans who seem to have failed to comprehend the conditions or to apprehend the mental attitude of the peoples who are at war. Many of these Americans have been engaged in European trade or have industrial enterprises dependent for their materials on imports from belligerent countries. The personal interests of these people seem to have blinded them to the true state of affairs and to the national interests affected, which are so much greater than their own. They appear to have lost their sense of perspective, and to be unable to understand the reasons which have caused this Government to hesitate in peremptorily demanding that every neutral right previously admitted be strictly observed. They not only call upon the Government to protest and threaten, but numbers have insisted that it should go to extremes in defending their rights. The possible consequences of so radical a policy do not seem to worry them, possibly because they expect that the protests and threats will be heeded, which is further evidence of their failure to realize the situation.

I do not wish to judge too harshly those Americans who have maintained this attitude. Very likely we ought to expect persons, who are suffering financial loss while they see many of their fellow citizens prosperous as a result of the war, to resent bitterly the illegal conduct of the belligerents and to feel that the Government was will-fully deaf to their appeals and was failing in its duty as their protector. I can understand their frame of mind. They honestly believe that all this Government has to do is stiffen its back and emphatically demand respect for the rights of its citizens, with the result that the belligerent governments, though they may bluster and fume, will submit rather than have the dispute become actually serious.

Of course these complainants, however legally right they may be, have entirely misunderstood the temper of the belligerents. The Government, however, with a much wider horizon and feeling responsibility for the general welfare, takes into consideration all the circumstances. It realizes that the belligerents have but one object and that they will subordinate everything to military exigency. It knows that the course which the complainants demand would aggravate a state of affairs already very difficult. You might as well try to drive with an ox-whip a bull which has been maddened by the banderilleros and which stands in the ring with blood dripping from the colored darts, as to force in this way a belligerent to live up to rules which interfere with the necessities of the conflict.

Furthermore, a stern, unbending policy would close the door to all compromise, through which some measure of relief may be found. Of course this Government cannot compromise a right but the individual, who is suffering may, as has been done in very many cases. And then we must look into the future and as a nation save out of this wreckage with all its passions and hatreds some friendships on which to build anew the normal trade and commerce between this country and the great European markets.

Why not look at this matter squarely and admit the truth? It is almost a certainty that none of the belligerent governments, which are infringing the neutral rights of Americans is going to change its policies because of diplomatic pressure however vigorous it may be, unless it is firmly convinced that this country intends to declare war if its demands are not complied with. Unless the United States is prepared to back up its threats with force, is it wise to make them? Does any American, who comprehends the situation and has the good of his country at heart, advocate such a course? And, if it is adopted, what would be the result? Would it tend to advance the honor and dignity of the United States or would it have a contrary effect? Of course, even without the physical power to enforce its demand, a nation may be compelled because of gross insult or wrong to sever friendly intercourse with another nation and so invite more radical action, but to do so when the issue may be honorably avoided, would be condemned by men who take a commonsense view of international affairs and do not permit selfish interests to influence their judgment.

A policy of moderation is never pleasing to those who mistakenly believe threats will be heeded. It is not pleasing to the unthinking element of the population who applaud vigor of language as evidence of national greatness and who consider it is patriotic to bluster and brag and abuse. But, for the matter of that it is not agreeable to the government which adopts it as the wise and sane course to pursue. It is a difficult policy, a policy of patience, a policy of extreme forbearance, which under normal conditions would be humiliating and incompatible with the dignity of a self-respecting nation.

But at the present time, when half the world sees red, when great empires are staggering under the sledge-hammer blows of their adversaries and exerting every effort to resist the onslaught, and when governments and individuals are laboring under intense excitement, commonsense, as well as generous sentiment, demands that a neutral should not threaten a belligerent with radical action unless he change his conduct when the neutral is convinced that no change will take place. Is it reasonable to expect that nations struggling for their lives will be willing to step aside and let a neutral pass when those nations are firmly convinced that their enemies would be benefited if they should do so? Ought not a neutral government to seek to give just proportion to its commercial interests in comparison with the great enterprise of war? Is not that the sensible, practical and rational way of viewing the present situation and of dealing with the difficult problems which it presents?

A neutral in time of international war must always show forbearance, but never, since neutrality has been recognized as a legal state, have the patience and forbearance of neutrals been put to so severe a test as in the present conflict. The arbitrary and illegal conduct of the belligerents have very naturally aroused intense indignation. To curb the desire to resist this conduct, to suppress the indignant feelings aroused, to remain cool and self-possessed under great provocation—that is the difficult task which a neutral government has been called upon to perform in spite of repeated storms of criticism and abuse.

It seems to me that neutrality is like a slender cable stretched above a seething torrent of war. Along this swaying narrow bridge a neutral nation must walk from shore to shore, from peace to peace. It is no easy matter to keep one’s equilibrium. With a long balancing; rod weighed at either end with belligerent rights and carrying on his back the rights of the neutral he sets forth on his precarious journey. He bends a little to this side, then a little to that, recovers his poise, and cautiously takes a step forward. He hesitates; the cable trembles and sways; with increased care he again puts his foot out and feels it firmly fixed before he moves; the balancing rod dips dangerously first this way and then that; again he stops; again slowly advances.

This is the task of preserving neutrality as I see it reduced to physical terms.

The neutral must keep his eyes on the swinging cable which stretches away into the mists where lies the firm ground. He must not lean to either side. He must always move with extreme caution and with the certainty that the step taken will not destroy his balance and plunge him into the gulf. The roar of the rushing waters beneath must not affect his calmness; the dashing spray must not dim his vision. He must be prepared to resist the fierce gusts of passion and abuse which beat in his face. He must always look forward, not downward. Above all he must keep his head even though he is wet by the leaping red waves and though the cable grows slippery with bloody foam.

His goal is the distant shore of peace. To reach it without falling into the gorge where the raging flood of relentless war is engulfing millions of men and great nations and sweeping away the standards of life, the very foundations of civilization, is the supreme purpose of the nation which travels the difficult way of neutrality.

I do not think that I have overdrawn the perils and difficulties which beset a government striving to maintain its neutrality; I doubt if the picture can be overdrawn. With a just appreciation of the forces constantly exerted from within as well as from without to compel the abandonment of a policy of impartiality toward the nations at war, no true American will too harshly judge or be too ready to criticize publicly his own government’s conduct of foreign affairs, he will not be eager to believe that the government is pusillanimous, and he will not be one of those who cannot curb their tongues but who seek by abuse and ridicule to excite contempt and condemnation of the government which they are bound to support.

Patriotism, real American patriotism, ought to restrain every loyal citizen from giving free rein to his passions and from open and hostile criticism of his own government in any dispute with a foreign power, and especially if the dispute is of so serious a nature that it may result in a resort to arms. To impress a foreign government with the idea that the United States is a divided nation is to encourage that government to pursue a policy which may bring disaster on the Republic and force an issue which the American Government is seeking to avoid. To encourage a foreign government to continued aggression or to anger it so that it will not cease from aggression is an unpatriotic and disloyal act on the part of an individual citizen. The responsibility lies with the government and to place obstacles in its way is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It is not treason to do so unless a state of war exists, but it comes as near treason as any act can in time of peace.

Thus do I view the state of neutrality; a difficult state, in which a government is tried to the uttermost; a state, the preservation of which wins the favor of decreasing numbers the longer it exists; a state, which invites greater and greater resentment from the people of a neutral nation as day by day more individuals are added to those who complain of rights violated and injustices perpetrated by the belligerents.

Even if a government succeeds in passing through the tempest and shielding the nation from the dread consequences of war, it cannot expect the plaudits of a grateful people. In the avoidance of conflict there is nothing to excite hero-worship or to stir the emotions with patriotic fervor. There may be a flicker of thankfulness that the nation has been spared, but no outburst of rejoicing like a paean of victory. What praise is given will be given grudgingly, it will be mingled with complaints at the methods employed and possibly with regrets that the might of the nation was not exerted in behalf of one belligerent or the other.

So the restoration of peace will find the neutral government which has won a greater struggle than that waged on the battlefield, a struggle which has required the exercise of those traits of human nature which appeal least to the average man, the traits of patience, self-control and forbearance.

It is only in the realization of duty performed and in the confident hope that history will some day do tardy justice, that those, upon whom lies the burden, will find a full recompense for having been faithful to the end and attained the goal in spite of every obstacle which has been placed in their way and of every influence which has sought to force them from the path leading to the peace and prosperity, which their countrymen have enjoyed as the result of their efforts.