711.00111 Armament Control/168
Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Murray)21
In Ambassador Long’s telegram No. 714, October 15, 11 a.m.,22 he recounts the following statement, made by him to the editor of the Tribuna:
“I explained the position of the United States as a neutral, that the warning off ships was a neutral stand intended to relieve the American Government of any opportunity to become involved in a European conflict, that its one sided anti-Italian effectiveness was an incident of its application due to the fact that Ethiopia had no ships; and that in case the conflict should be enlarged the law as it now stands would enforce neutrality upon the United States in its relations with other belligerents.”
In his telegram No. 686, October 9, 7 p.m.,23 Ambassador Long has the following to say regarding the possible involvement of Great Britain in the present dispute:
“I desire to submit that while the action of Italy in the present conflict is in violation of a covenant to which the American Government is a party (the Kellogg Pact) a conflict between Italy and England would be a violation of the same treaty by both parties. Whereas the American Government would have enjoined upon it the policy of neutrality resolved by the Congress a prompt announcement of its position such as was done at the beginning of the Italo-Abyssinian war would help to relieve us of the Chargé of partisanship now generally circulated and which would be given substance and possibly construed as an unfriendly attitude if we withheld or delayed the announcement.”
The first statement quoted above would, taken by itself, not be a matter for comment. Taken, however, together with the expression of Ambassador Long’s views as set forth in the second quotation I think there may be some concern over the possibility that he may be endeavoring, in his conversations with the Italians, to interpret in advance the action which this Government will take if and when Great Britain becomes involved in the present Italo-Ethiopian war.
It seems to me that it is a very bold assumption indeed to state that “a conflict between Italy and England would be a violation of the same treaty (Kellogg Pact) by both parties.” Ambassador Long apparently assumes that even if Italy declared war on Great Britain, or attacked her without such a declaration, Great Britain would be guilty of violating the Kellogg Pact. Furthermore, under the provisions of the Neutrality Act, while the President would have the authority in such an eventuality to declare an embargo on the export of arms, ammunition and implements of war to Great Britain, his authority is permissive, and not mandatory as in the case of the original belligerents, Italy and Ethiopia.
Such being the case, it seems to me that it would be very unfortunate if the Italians were allowed to take it as a foregone conclusion at this time that if Great Britain becomes involved in war with Italy as a result of a united effort to impose sanctions, our attitude and action with regard to Great Britain would be similar in all respects to our present policy regarding Italy and Ethiopia.
Do you not think it would be advisable to clarify our position to the American Ambassador and suggest that he refrain from endeavoring at this time to forecast any action that we may think it necessary to take in the future?