First World War Centennial

CHAPTER XXI

UNNEUTRAL SERVICE

NO sooner does war break out than the most prudent of neutrals, if it happens to be a commercial nation of importance, is embarrassed with successive notes from the chancelleries of the belligerent peoples, pro­testing against unneutral service. As these charges, more or less veiled in diplomatic language, frequently balance each other, they need not necessarily be taken too seriously.

Thus where each nation is purchasing equal shipments of rapid-firing guns it is obviously absurd for either to protest against a practice which directly serves its own purposes.

Meantime the exigencies and fortunes of war are sure to develop situations that not unreasonably arouse belligerent suspicion that the enemy is being unfairly favored.

It may be in matters apparently trivial from the neutral standpoint.

It may be in matters so serious as to make the neutral appear to be in a sort of veiled alliance with the foe.

If there is ground for such accusations, nothing remains for the neutral but to retire from an untenable position.

If the charges are without warrant, and the neutral is clearly within its rights, it may not only be put in a most humiliating position by submitting to belligerent dictation, but provide precedents that will retard the pro­gress of the nations.

With portentous developments depend­ing upon correct action, or the contrary, it is therefore of inestimable importance that neutral governments should familiarize themselves with accepted principles, so that they may avoid breaches of defined rules unless there is competent reason for so doing.

In making such preparation two facts will become evident:

1. That there has been a distinct effort during the last generation to characterize the sort of impartiality which is expected of neutrals; and

2. That praiseworthy as the attempt has been to mark the limitations of neutral and belligerent intercourse, it has not been altogether successful.

Twenty-eight years ago Francis Wharton in his "Digest of International Law of the United States" (taken from administrative documents, the decisions of Federal Courts and the opinions of attorney-generals), sum­marized restrictions on a neutral in the form of the following duties, viz.:

1. The duty to restrain enlistments by belligerents. (This cannot be presumed with recent experiences in mind to include the prohibition of reservists sailing as individuals from neutral ports to rejoin the colors.)

2. The duty to refrain from "the issuing of armed expeditions."

3. The duty to restrain the fitting out and sailing of armed cruisers of belligerents (this emphatically includes the providing of ships of war by national act).

4. The duty to prevent the passage of belligerent troops over its soil (the latest authorities do not permit this, even if pro­vided for by treaty prior to the war).

5. The duty to prevent the use of its territory as a base of belligerent operations.

6. The duty to prevent belligerent naval operations in territorial waters (belligerent war vessels and their prizes may pass through neutral waters under the provisions of the recent London Convention).

7. The duty to prevent the sale of prizes in its ports, (by Articles 21 and 22 of the London Convention prizes may be brought into neutral ports if unseaworthy or because of special conditions.)

8. The duty to redress damages done to belligerents by its connivance or negligence.

In a general way the duties thus briefly affirmed with the comments thereupon are undoubtedly as well fitted to serve United States Cabinet officials desiring information in regard to national responsibilities in time of war, as the ordinary deportment book is suited to instruct young persons in polite manners.

So far so good, especially since the rules thus recapitulated still have force and have been recognized by the United States at least as entirely applicable to its conduct during the present war.

Meantime Article 3 of Convention V and Article 5 of Convention XIII of the Hague Conference of 1907, because they have to do with matters undreamed of at the time of Wharton's publication, suffice to show how impracticable it must ever be to com­prehend in any text-book or digest all the particular acts or classes of acts that a neu­tral must refrain from doing if it wishes to preserve cordial relations with belligerents.

These Articles, selected from the fifty-eight framed by the aforesaid Convention, respect­ing the rights and duties of neutral Powers on land and in maritime war, forbid the erection by a belligerent "on the territory of a neutral power of a wireless telegraph station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea," and hold the neutral responsible for permitting the occurrence.

Such an instance illustrates as admirably as would a dozen, the fact that a neutral must be guided by principles rather than by the letter of the law, and that common sense and a desire to do equity will be worth more than any digest however authoritative. Bear­ing this in mind it is well to note other restraints upon neutral activity than those marked by Wharton, but which have re­ceived certain if not final recognition. Among these are:

1. The duty to prevent a belligerent from setting up a prize court on neutral soil.

2. The duty to prevent a belligerent from using neutral territory as a base for manufac­turing arms or supplies (reference is made else­where to the proper resentment a neutral may show when belligerent plotting interferes with the industrial activities of private citizens). 3. The duty to prevent belligerent war­ships from making neutral ports a base for war activities. The rule is that not more than three at a time should be admitted to a given harbor and these can only remain for repairs, or to coal or provision—a sharp limit being placed on the time of their contin­uance and care being taken that they do not receive arms or military supplies.

4. The duty to intern belligerent ships that fail to obey orders to leave port.

5. The duty to refuse a belligerent the privilege of marching prisoners through neutral territory.

6. The duty to prevent its war or public vessels to directly aid a belligerent by carry­ing armed forces, stores, dispatches, or war material.

7. The duty to prevent its official agen­cies of whatever character from giving a belligerent news which may be used to the disadvantage of its opponent..

8. The duty to exact from belligerents such compensation as the occasion may demand for unpreventable acts which both violate its neutrality and injure the other belligerent.

9. The duty to secure the release of prizes taken or prisoners captured on its territory.

10. And generally, in accordance with Articles 8 and 25 of Convention XIII of the second Hague Conference, the duty of em­ploying the means at its disposal to prevent acts favoring or damaging a belligerent.

Such are certain of the obligations which are automatically imposed by war upon a state which announces its intention to remain neutral.

That they are sufficiently burdensome is apparent. Notwithstanding this there are those that would add to their number by making a neutral nation responsible for the acts of its subjects. This is preposterous. Even a small state cannot undertake to keep the surveillance of its people which any rule framed upon a like conception of its responsi­bility would require.

Belligerents must, therefore, rest con­tent with the fact that they have long been permitted to enforce their own police meas­ures against such neutral individuals as transgress their reasonable laws. For the temper of the world is changing with the elimination of time and space, and there is little humor for further concessions.

It was well enough for wrangling states, that were so disposed, to arm and pitch into each other during those golden times when three-quarters of the world were oblivious of what was happening in the other quarter. Belligerents could then dictate to peaceful neighbors without fear of armed protest. That time is long past, however, and war, always as much of a nuisance to those on its outskirts as it has been a tragedy to the peoples directly concerned, is bound to weigh with increasing heaviness upon neutrals. It is better that these latter, instead of giving further bonds to the quarrelsome, should either lay aside their neutrality when right­eousness and justice are shocked by the unconscionable aggressions of a militant state, or if there is equal guilt, refuse to give the combatants the consideration now vouch­safed.