765.84/2215: Telegram
The Chargé in Ethiopia (Engert) to the Secretary of State
[Received 7:47 p.m.]
147. Fragmentary reports of Secretary Hull’s recent reiteration of “sympathetic interest” in the League’s efforts have caused much satisfaction here as evidence of the United States Government’s continued desire to see that the principles of the Paris Pact be upheld. In my conversations with the Emperor and others, I have had occasion to explain that just as America’s moral influence would always be found on the side of all sincere efforts for the preservation of peace, so it could be relied upon to favor all genuine and unselfish attempts to shorten war.
I am often asked how it is that in 1933 the United States had expressed readiness not to interfere with any collective pressure that might be adopted against an aggressor state, while now our neutrality laws and arms embargo make no distinction between the aggressor and the victim. My reply is that our attitude in 1933 had been expressly contingent upon the signing of a general disarmament agreement and that when no such agreement was reached, we retained complete freedom of action. Am I correct?
[Page 777]Although officially our arms embargo has been a disappointment to the Ethiopians, privately they admit that in practice Italy is much harder hit than their country especially as they can now procure arms and munitions more quickly from Europe. It is also recognized that by abandoning our traditional policy regarding freedom of the seas we are indirectly facilitating the task of the League in imposing any economic sanctions that might lead to a blockade.
The general impression prevails that now that Italy has been definitely indicted as the aggressor, the United States will not insist too much on its normal rights as a neutral power if those rights might lead to disagreements with the powers engaged in applying international sanctions. In other words, it is hoped that we would tacitly acquiesce in, and not actively oppose, collective measures on the part of League members with a view to stopping the war as soon as practicable.
In order to avoid misunderstandings and possible disappointment, I have been very careful to emphasize the fact that our neutrality legislation has its origin in an overwhelming desire of the American people not to become involved in war and has no specific relation to the Italo-Abyssinian conflict. It was I explained the reflection of a fundamental policy not to be drawn into a European crisis rather than an attempt to cooperate in punitive action against an aggressor.