740.00111A.R.–N.C./87
The Ambassador in Brazil (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 18.]
Sir: With reference to my previous despatches regarding the Inter-American Neutrality Committee, I have the honor to report that although Dr. Fenwick was at first inclined to consider enforced observance of the American zone of neutral waters within the realm of immediate possibility, he tells me that he now clearly observes in all the American republics, including the United States, a lessening of the initial enthusiasm for the zone idea and increasing skepticism and reticence regarding its practicability. He therefore feels that the primary function of the Neutrality Committee will be to keep the zone idea alive, and to build up the legal position of the Americas with reference to it, without however contemplating any real action by the Governments to enforce it in the near future.
Elaborating upon his two suggested means of enforcement mentioned in my despatch No. 2820 of April 3, 1940, he says that the first one, namely the withdrawal of port privileges from belligerents violating the zone, may be included in the Committee’s recommendations in some form although it would not be expected that enforcement of the zone as such would actually be attempted by the Governments. With reference to the other means of enforcement, namely the detention of belligerent merchant vessels remaining in American ports after withdrawing from active trade, he says the Committee is considering their “immobilization”. “Immobilization” would be a new concept in international law, intermediate between “internment” of vessels (the crews would probably not be interned) and “asylum” (it would be involuntary on the part of the vessel). While this “immobilization” would be written into the Committee’s recommendations as [Page 296] one of the means of enforcing respect for the security zone, in Dr. Fen wick’s opinion it could also be justified on the basis of existing rules of international law, so that it might well be put into practice independently, even if the other recommendations regarding the security zone itself were ignored.
Dr. Fenwick expressed these ideas to me after he had had an opportunity to discuss them with the other members of the Committee. They are therefore indicative of the lines along which the Committee’s recommendations regarding the security zone are likely to crystallize.
Respectfully yours,
Counselor of Embassy