811.04418/95: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Bingham) to the Secretary of State
[Received January 2—10:10 a.m.]
2. In my conversations with you and the President last summer I had occasion to express so fully and frankly my views it would seem to serve no useful purpose to go over the ground suggested by Department’s 507, December 28, 4 p.m. at this late date. I am no less strongly convinced today than at that time that it would be dangerous if the President were not given latitude (1st) in specifying, under any fresh neutrality legislation, what commodities should be embargoed, and (2d) the party or parties to whom the embargo should apply as an aggressor. Aside from the impossibility of gauging conditions in any future conflict it would be folly to consider putting ourselves in such a position as, for example, in a war between Canada and Japan, to be compelled by legislation to penalize our safety through treating both belligerents drastically and equally.
American legislation is being watched very carefully in this country particularly from the point of view of the President’s power to name an aggressor because it is realized that in any future European war [Page 169] America remains a vital source of supply for British needs. If the type of legislation enacted is such as to make clear that irrespective of the origin of the future conflict supplies from the United States will not be available, then a policy of national self-sufficiency preparation must be envisaged in order to render this country as independent as possible of the United States. Such a development, which would extend economic nationalism in this country, would tend to have a similar result in other foreign markets.