File No. 656.119/281
The Minister in the Netherlands ( Garrett) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 31, 6.16 a.m.]
2228. The Minister of Foreign Affairs sends me a statement which he writes will appear this evening in the Staats Courant. Translated it reads as follows:
Declaration of the Dutch Government with Reference to the Proclamation and Statement Annexed of the President of the United States, Dated March 20, This Year
The Dutch Government and the whole Dutch people have taken note with painful surprise of the proclamation and statement of the President of the United States of March 20, relative to the seizure of part of the Dutch mercantile marine. The seizure en masse of a neutral mercantile fleet, although merely for the duration of the war, is an act which is indefensible from the point of view of international law and apart from legal considerations is unjustifiable when taken against a friendly nation. Furthermore the manner in which the act of violence is defended in the President’s statement does not contribute to making it any the less grievous, for the defense has clearly been set up under the influence of an entirely wrong conception of the facts.
The manner in which the Dutch mercantile fleet has been treated for months past in the United States, the interminable difficulties placed in the way of our vessels’ departure from American ports, the continually repeated refusal of bunker coal, the enforced unloading of cargoes already purchased; all of this may not be in conflict with the rights of the United States with the exception of one case, that of the Zeelandia, which entered an American port with her own bunker coal and has been detained there illegally ever since, but it was nevertheless in conflict with the traditional friendship between the two countries. This, however, is merely said in passing. On this point, however, the statement is silent. According to the Presidential statement, Holland is said not to have fulfilled entirely, because of German pressure, the provisional agreement which has been proposed in order that, pending a definite agreement relative to tonnage and the rationing of our country, our vessels lying in American ports should no longer lie there idle but be given an opportunity of making a voyage of 90 days at the most. This is absolutely incorrect, as [is] the assertion that Germany is said to have threatened to sink the two vessels which were to leave here in return for the two vessels leaving for Holland with America’s approval and that Germany made more and more serious threats in order to prevent compliance [Page 1438] with the modus vivendi as well as the conclusion of a permanent agreement.
The true state of affairs is as follows:
After the War Trade Board had urged that the Dutch vessels in American ports should make a voyage pending the definite agreement the Dutch Government proposed that some of these ships should travel in the service of the Commission for Relief in Belgium, that work of relief which the Netherlands has always promoted with all energy for the sake of the suffering population of Belgium and northern France. When the report came that Germany raised difficulties against America’s demand that each time a Dutch ship should leave here in exchange for the departure of a relief ship from America, the Netherlands Government was of the opinion that it was bound in good faith immediately to warn the American authorities in order that the said ships which were on their way to Argentina would be able to make for some other destination which had the direct result that these ships were kept in the service in exact agreement with the provisional arrangement. And concerning the sailing of a part of the ships to the French harbor of Cette, a Swiss interest which finds great favor in Holland, the shipowners entirely agreed as soon as France had guaranteed that the ships would not be detained in Cette. Also, for this service various vessels had been chartered. The chartering and sailing of all the ships experienced no serious delay on account of the said objections while, for the rest, Germany had no influence whatsoever, nor did it attempt to gain any influence in the carrying out of the provisional arrangement which, moreover, for the rest only concerned the shipping between overseas countries; what really did prevent the carrying out of the provisional agreement was the extremely slow, and sometimes absolute absence of, overseas telegrams to and from the owners. The cause of this is still enveloped in mystery.
It is a fact that the greater part of the ships had been chartered under the provisional arrangement through the intervention of the so-called War Trade Board and a part was already sailing to South America but was again detained while en route by the American authorities while in the Pacific Ocean; the vessels between the west coast of the United States and the Netherlands Indies continued to sail regularly without any direct or indirect interference on the part of the Dutch Government. The vessels now taken in British ports both in and outside of Europe and in the Portuguese port of Saint Vincent were prevented from sailing by the British and Portuguese authorities themselves.
The assertion that Holland was powerless under German compulsion to fulfill the provisional agreement is as appears from the foregoing contrary to the facts. The inaccurate information furnished the President of the United States appears unerring on a point of still greater importance; namely, where mention is made in the statement of the new requirement that the Dutch ships would have to sail through the danger zone and of the seizure following upon Holland’s reply. After the inaccurate assertion that Holland was not able to fulfill the provisional arrangement, the statement says without further ado that on March 7 last, Great Britain made a final proposal to Holland to which Holland replied with a counter proposal [Page 1439] that was not acceptable. Really, so the statement continues, even if it had come to the effecting of an agreement, the Dutch Government would practically not have been able to carry this out, therefore seizure was decided upon. In this explanation is missing, however strange this may be, an extremely important link that is indispensable in order to put the matter in its true light, What did really take place? On February 22 last, with a view to the threatened need of food here in this country by the summer, the Dutch Government asked the American Government for an advance of 100,000 tons of wheat on the quantity of 400,000 tons to be definitely fixed.1 On March 6 the Associated Governments replied, it is true, affirmatively with regard to the 100,000 tons, although regarding the 400,000 tons no definite answer was given; but to this apparent accommodation the objectionable condition was added that the Associated Governments should immediately obtain the disposal of the whole of that part of the Dutch mercantile marine which according to the London draft agreement would eventually come to them on the conclusion of a definite arrangement. The Dutch Government, being compelled to do so, intended to agree to this as soon as it could obtain the assurance that not only could it firmly rely upon the 100,000 tons advance but also on the full 400,000 of grain as an accepted basis for the definite arrangement. It was able to entertain this stipulation because it was definitely and expressly fixed at the conversations in London and also since then that the Dutch vessels would only sail outside of the danger zone and thus need not in any case perform war services for one of the contending parties which would not be compatible with neutrality.
Suddenly on March 7 last, the London arrangement mentioned was broken when the agreement was withdrawn, which had been come to on the cardinal point, namely, that the ships about 500,000 tons to be given up in exchange for the advance of 100,000 tons of wheat should not be used in the danger zone. The particularly objectionable character of this lay in the fact that allowing the use of Dutch vessels in the danger zone would lead to a breach of neutrality, not on account of the zone itself—this has nothing whatever to do with neutrality—but because it was clear that sailing through the zone, situated as it is around the Associated countries of Europe, would mean at all events for a considerable part the transport of troops and munitions of war from America to her allies in Europe; while moreover the Dutch vessels, if they were armed, would run the chance of coming into armed conflict with German war vessels.
Holland as neutral country could not allow that her ships should be used in the danger zone unless the Associated Governments were able to guarantee that they would not be armed and would not carry troops or war material. On the ground of the foregoing the argument used in the presidential statement according to which seizure was necessary, because Holland was not able to fulfill the obligation entered into, cannot be maintained. It is contrary to the actual facts of the case. The only correct presentation is this: The powers interested felt themselves compelled, owing to the loss of ships, to supplement [Page 1440] their tonnage by obtaining the use of a very considerable number of ships which did not belong to them but to Holland. It appeared to them that the Dutch Government was not able to grant permission to its ships to sail for Associated interests otherwise than upon conditions dictated by neutrality, but in the opinion of the interested Governments not sufficiently in accord with their interest; hence, they decided to proceed to the seizure of the Dutch mercantile marine inasmuch as this was within their power.
The Dutch Government considers itself obliged, especially in such serious circumstances as the present, to speak with great frankness; it is giving expression to the feeling of the whole of the Dutch people when it says that it sees in the seizure committed an act of violence against which it protests with all the force of its conviction and its injured national feeling. The statement in the President’s declaration saying that this action offers Holland in a great measure the opportunity of providing itself with bread cereals is only apparently the case. After the experience obtained with regard to Dutch vessels in British and American ports it would really be unwarrantable to allow other ships to sail to these ports without a proper guarantee that this experience would not be repeated.
The American Government has always appealed to right and justice. It has always set itself up as the protector of small nations. That it now cooperates in a deed in diametrical opposition to these principles is a manner of acting which cannot be balanced by any expression of friendship or assurances of any mild application of the wrong committed.
Statement is dated today and signed by the Premier and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.