711.00111 Armament Control/430: Telegram
The Ambassador in Italy (Long) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 21—9:15 a.m.]
848. Your No. 204, November 19, 7 p.m. Mr. Suvich invited me to talk to him last evening at the Foreign Office. When I met him he referred to your statement of November 15 concerning commodities essential for war purposes. He said that the Italian Government had watched the policy of the Government of the United States and had hoped and expected that its proclamation of neutrality would be observed as a real neutrality; that your statement of the 15th seemed to the Italian Government to be a departure from the strict line of that neutrality; that the expression of the officials of the American Government had indicated a policy to stop the sale to Italy of articles which were important to them and not prohibited by law; that the execution of that plan on the part of the American Government coming at this time when sanctions are being applied by other governments gave the impression to Italy that the United States was taking a position at variance with neutrality, in opposition to Italy, and in line with the governments who were applying sanctions. He would be glad to be enlightened to the contrary.
He referred to the Congressional resolution of neutrality and said that it was his understanding that the Congress had enumerated particular implements of war in its legislation and that the Italian Government had been under the impression that the President’s proclamation of neutrality had been issued on the authority of that legislation and he wanted to ask whether the Italian Government might feel justified in believing that by reason of recent expressions of the [Page 823] officers of the American Government, which seemed to exceed the bounds of Congressional authority, they were proceeding on a course opposed to Italy.
I said that the point of view of the American Government could not properly be understood by people in any country in Europe who were living in a condition where there was a constant threat of war, of conflicting ambitions and involved national and international prejudices; that it was necessary to be an American or to be for a long time in America before one could understand the motives and actual state of mind of the American people and of the American Government; that we had had many unpleasant experiences as a result of the last war and were determined to keep out of all future wars in Europe; and that we had independently adopted for ourselves a course which was definite and which was considered from our point of view to be the wisest for our own safety and welfare and for the welfare of the world. I further said that no two nations at war were ever on exactly an equal footing and that a policy of strict neutrality must apply to the detriment of one more than to the detriment of another and that while Italy might feel that in the present circumstances American policy would interfere with her more than with Abyssinia that the unequal effect was a circumstance which would always appear in any struggle between any two governments; that the American policy was being formulated in an effort to give evidence of her real desire to keep out of war and to prevent that she be used to contribute to the continuance of a war. I called attention to the fact that popular opinion in America was overwhelmingly against Italy; however, the Government was not swayed by the emotions of the populace but was calmly working out a long range policy to keep us out of all wars. I then referred to the substance of yours under reference except paragraph 3 but including last sentence of that paragraph which I had previously received and which was helpful.
Mr. Suvich then said that he understood the American point of view but that they could not overlook the fact that in these particular circumstances the American action was giving special help to the countries which were applying sanctions against Italy. He mentioned the Canadian resolution proposed to the Committee of Coordination providing that there be included on the embargo lists raw materials similar to those mentioned in your statement of November 15th. He said that that resolution had been adopted provisionally; that it would not become operative unless and until states not applying sanctions should adopt similar procedures and that the promulgation of a policy by the American Government in harmony with the Canadian proposal at this time would be a distinct help to the governments aligned against Italy and consequently and to the same extent antagonistic to Italy.
[Page 824]Mr. Suvich then proceeded to say that you had made another statement of which I have not been advised but of which I have seen some reference in the European press to the effect that the American Government would take the aggressive and withhold any financial benefits which might be accruing to American shipping firms which carried goods from America to Italy and intended to discourage the carrying of merchandise to Italy. He said that this seemed to go farther than the threat of export prohibition upon war materials and that the Italian Government might feel justified in the thought that this was a policy directed primarily at Italy.
Mr. Suvich said that he regretted the necessity for taking up this subject; that he did it only after careful deliberation but that he felt that he must call to the attention of the American Government that our relations would not probably be on the same friendly basis if America pursued a policy the practical effect of which would be to assume a position which would make substantially a common front with the governments opposing Italy.
He mentioned the long historic friendship with America which Italy considered traditional and was shared with the Government by the entire populace; he said that he would look with distinct apprehension upon any development which could challenge that friendship or drive into the friendly relations between the two Governments a different element. He realized the high ideals of the American Government in its foreign relations and understood their desire to keep entirely aloof from any European conflict but he was unable to reconcile the statements of neutrality and the status of our historic friendship with expressions which seemed on their face to indicate a policy of the American Government which was a departure from neutrality and antagonistic to Italy. He said that in theory the suggested policy of the American Government would apply equally to Italy and to Ethiopia but in practice such a policy would operate only against Italy.
He mentioned particularly the effect which the stoppage of sale of gasoline would have. In that case the use of motor cars might have to be banned throughout Italy and as they were run principally by American gasoline the temper of the people would be principally directed against America. This he feared would be the case all over Italy wherever there were motor cars and he was anxious to prevent any popular feeling against America.
He felt it was the duty of the Italian Government to speak frankly. He realized that some people in Italy and in some other countries were a little excited but he viewed the matter very calmly and dispassionately and wanted to call it to the sober attention of the American Government.
[Page 825]Mr. Suvich was very calm and unemotional. While there was no doubt it was a serious conversation, I would not like my unfortunately direct literary style to convey the erroneous impression that he was abrupt, curt or particularly emphatic. On the contrary he was suave and courteous in every respect and questioning rather than declaratory.
To my surprise Mr. Suvich did not mention our treaty with Italy of 1871.33 I have devoted a good deal of thought to this general question and have tried to interpret your policy and to prepare myself to answer if necessary any inquiries which might be suddenly proposed to me. In the course of my studies I have tried to reconcile the policy of restrictions on exports of materials other than implements of war with the provisions of the treaty of 1871 specifically articles 6 and 15. Every government of any importance in the world except the United States and Egypt either is or at some time has been a member of the League of Nations. The Covenant of the League supersedes, as regards all of these other governments, treaty provisions inconsistent with the Covenant and consequently those similar to that in our Treaty of 1871. However, our treaty is still in full force. I doubt very much that the present officers of the Italian Government are ignorant of its provisions. I would be glad to have your guidance in regard to this matter.
In conclusion I refer to the third sentence of paragraph 2 of yours under reference. But in Europe they are so considered. It may be difficult at the distance of America to appreciate it but American present policy is so closely in line with League policy that notwithstanding its independent origin the non-Italian press of Europe including the Paris Herald comments upon it as being in support of Great Britain and Geneva and as directed [against?] Italy. In diplomatic circles the same opinion is held.
I have no desire to offend you by the frankness of my statements, by insistence or by prolixity in cables but I feel very deeply the importance of this moment. I realize well that this impression is different from your concept of it. I appreciate the position in which you find yourself in regard to your desire not to vitiate the action of other governments on the application of sanctions. But not only has America no possible obligation similar to article 16 of the Covenant but she has a treaty obligation prohibiting any such action. For this reason, I warn you that Italy will assume toward America an attitude entirely different from that assumed toward other governments members of the League and that a continuance of your present policy will [Page 826] result in an entirely different relationship between the United States and Italy—and when the change comes it will come very abruptly.
I quite approve of your policy but I think it is misnamed. It should be known as non-intercourse with belligerents—anywhere at any time. And in the face of being considered presumptuous I go so far as to counsel you as follows; (1st) if the treaty of 1871 is of continuing force that we observe a neutrality under it until our obligation in regard to it is terminated by denunciation; (2d) if the Treaty is not in force that we discard the doctrine of neutrality for a doctrine of non-intercourse after adequate legislative authority has been given to impose embargoes. Popular clamor at home is not to be weighed in the same scales with treaty obligations.
- Treaty of Commerce and Navigation signed February 26, 1871, William M. Malloy (ed.), Treaties, Conventions, etc., Between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1776–1909 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1910), vol. i, p. 969.↩