77
Department of State pub. 925
Address Delivered by the
Secretary of State at New York, September 15, 1936
Our foreign relations are largely shaped by
the physical geography of our country, the characteristics of our people, and
our historical experience. Those who are in charge of the conduct of foreign
policy must suit their actions to these underlying facts with due regard to the
shifting circumstances of the times. This is particularly true in a democracy,
where even in the short run the policies of the government must rest upon the
support of the people.
We inhabit a large country which provides the
basis for satisfactory and improving conditions of life. We do not seek or
threaten the territory or possessions of others. Great oceans lie between us
and the powers of Asia and Europe. Though these are now crossed much more
quickly and easily than they used to be, they still enable us to feel somewhat
protected against physical impacts from abroad. We are a numerous, strong, and
active people. We have lived and developed in deep traditions of tolerance, of
neighborly friendliness, of personal freedom, and of self-government. We have
had long training in the settlement of differences of opinion and interest
among ourselves by discussion and compromise. The winds of doctrine that are
blowing so violently in many other lands are moderated here in our democratic
atmosphere and tradition.
Our contribution must be in the spirit of our
own situation and conceptions. It lies in the willingness to be friends but not
allies. We wish extensive and mutually beneficial trade relations. We have the
impulse to multiply our personal contacts, as shown by the constant American
travel abroad. We would share and exchange the gifts which art, the stage, the
classroom, and the scientists' and thinkers' study contribute to heighten life
and understanding; we have led the world in promoting this sort of interchange
among students, teachers, and artists. Our wish that natural human contacts be
deeply and fully realized is shown by the great number of international
conferences in which we participate, both private and intergovernmental. In
such ways we would have our relations grow.
In deciding upon the character of our
political relations with the outside world we naturally take into account the
conditions prevailing there. These, today, are not tranquil or secure, but on
the contrary in many countries are excited and haunted by mutual dread. In less
333
DOCUMENTS
than 20 years events have occurred that have taken away from
international agreements their force and reliability as a basis of relations
between nations. There appears to have been a great failure of the spirit, and
out of this has come a many-sided combat of national ambitions, dogmas, and
fears. In many lands the whole national energy has been organized to support
absolute aims, far reaching in character but vaguely defined. These flare like
a distant fire in the hills, and no one can be sure as to what they mean. There
is an increasing acceptance of the idea that the end justifies all means. Under
these conditions the individual who questions either means or end is frightened
or crushed. For he encounters two controlling rules—compulsory subordination to
autocratic will and the ruthless pressure of might. The result is dread and
growing confusion.
Behind this lies the knowledge that
laboratories and shops are producing instruments which can blow away human
beings as though hey were mites in a thunder storm, and these instruments have
been placed in the hands of an increasing number of young men whom their
leaders dedicate to the horrors of war. When Foreign Offices engage in
discussion with each other today, they have an inescapable vision of men living
in concrete chambers below the earth and concrete and steel forts and tanks
upon the earth and operating destructive machines above the earth. They have
strained and striven in many negotiations since the war to dispel that vision,
but it appears to grow clearer and clearer.
The world waits. You may be sure that in most
human hearts there is the steady murmur of prayer that life need not be yielded
up in battle and that there may be peace, at least in our time.
It is in these circumstances we must shape
our foreign relations. It is also these circumstances that present to us the
problem of seeking to achieve a change in the dominant trend that is so full of
menace.
I find as I review the line of foreign policy
we have followed that we come close to Thomas Jefferson's
expression—"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations,
entangling alliances with none." It is dangerous to take liberties with
the great words of a great man, but I would add—settlement of disputes by
peaceful means, renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy.
I think that the term "good
neighbor" is an apt description of that policy. We have tried to give full
meaning to that term. The good neighbor in any community minds his own
essential business and does not willfully disturb the business of others. He
mends his fences but does not put up spite fences. He firmly expects that
others will not seek to disturb his affairs or dictate to him. He is tolerant,
334
DOCUMENTS
but his toleration does not include those who would introduce discord
from elsewhere. He observes his agreements to the utmost of his ability; he
adjusts by friendly methods any troubles that arise; he mingles freely in the
give and take of life and concerns himself with the community welfare. All of
this is in contrast with the hermit who isolates himself, who ignores the
community, and, in his resistance to change, decays in a mean and bitter
isolation. But the role of the good neighbor is a positive and active one which
calls upon the energies, the friendliness, and the self-restraint of man or
nation.
In affairs between nations the neighborliness
obviously is less direct than between individuals in the local community. Its
expression takes the form of just and fair dealings, without encroachment upon
the rights of others, or oppression of the weak, or envy of the more fortunate.
It contemplates liberal economic relations on the basis of mutual benefit,
observance of law, and respect for agreements, and reliance upon peaceful
processes when controversies rise.
In the everyday work of the Department of
State dealing with critical issues, we have resolutely pursued this course.
We have tried to bring together American
opinion and opinion in other countries in a common determination against the
use of force for the settlement of disputes or for other national purposes. n
that connection we have sought to maintain the vitality of the international
agreement to renounce war which was signed by virtually all countries of the
world when Mr. Kellogg was Secretary of State. But strong nations have chosen
to proceed in disregard of that agreement, and this basis for international
trust has thus been greatly impaired. We have tried to soften quarrels between
other countries when they have arisen.
At times there has been criticism because we
would not depart from our traditional policy and join with other governments in
collective arrangements carrying the obligation of employing force, if
necessary, in case disputes between other countries brought them into war. That
responsibility, carrying direct participation in the political relations of the
whole of the world outside, we cannot accept, eager as we are to support means
for the prevention of war. For current experience indicates how uncertain is
the possibility that we, by our action, could vitally influence the policies or
activities of other countries from which war might come. It is for the
statesmen to continue their effort to effect security by new agreements which
will prove more durable than those that have been broken. This
335
DOCUMENTS
Government would welcome that achievement. It would be like full light
overcoming dense darkness. It is difficult to see how responsible governments
can refrain from pushing compromise to its utmost limits to accomplish that
result.
Of late we have increased our defense forces
substantially. This has appeared essential in the face of the universal
increase of armaments elsewhere and the disturbed conditions to which I have
alluded. We would not serve the cause of peace by living in the world today
without adequate powers of self-defense. We must be sure that in our desire for
peace, we will not appear to any other country weak and unable to resist the
imposition of force or to protect our just rights. At the same time I would
make clear with the utmost emphasis that we stand ready to participate in all
attempts to limit armaments by mutual accord and await the day when this may be
realized.
I need say little of our relations with our
great neighbor Canada. The American people and the Canadian people have lived
in unbroken friendship. A new index of that friendship is the trade agreement
signed last year. I have had to reckon with a number of attacks on this or that
schedule of the agreement. In virtually every instance I have found, and I do
not wish to be partisan in this remark, that the criticism represents
misjudgment or distortion of the facts. I have watched the malicious attempts
of some to juggle a few minor figures in the trade returns in such a way as to
prejudice the minds of particular groups against an agreement which was the
first step taken within the past half century to enable the American and
Canadian peoples to obtain greater mutual benefit from their work and trade.
We have confirmed our good-neighbor policy by
our actions in dealing with the American republics to the south of us. This
Administration has made it clear that it would not intervene in any of those
republics. It has endorsed this principle by signing at the Montevideo
Conference the inter-American convention on the rights and duties of states; it
has abrogated the Platt Amendment contained in our treaty with Cuba; it has
withdrawn the American occupying forces from Haiti; it has negotiated new
treaties with Panama, which, while fully safeguarding our rights to protect and
operate the Canal, eliminate the rights we previously possessed to interfere in
that republic. In all this we have shown that we have no wish to dictate to
other countries, that we recognize equality of nations, and that we believe in
the possibility of full cooperation between nations. Later this year there will
be held in Argentina a conference between
336
DOCUMENTS
the American republics, which has been warmly welcomed, and there is general
confidence that further ways can be found to assure the maintenance of peace on
this continent.
Certainly the economic troubles that have
pressed so hard on the world during these past few years are one of the main
causes of the disturbance of spirit and upset of relations that have taken
place. This Government has taken the lead in trying to bring about changes in
the international trade situation which would improve conditions everywhere.
The needs of our own domestic situation have coincided completely with this
undertaking. By 1933 a serious emergency had arisen in our trade relationships
with other countries. We had repeatedly increased the barriers to the entry of
foreign products into this country, and the sale of American goods abroad was
being subjected to increasingly drastic retaliation and restriction on the part
of other governments. In addition, we had most substantial investments in
foreign countries which our previous policy had thrown into great jeopardy. Many
branches of American agriculture and industry required a revival of our trade
with other countries if they were to escape continued depression, idleness of
resources, and unemployment. The other countries had no smaller need.
Under the authority conferred by the Trade
Agreements Act of 1934, we have entered into numerous commercial agreements
whereby most carefully selected and limited reductions have been made in our
own tariffs. In return, we have secured reductions of the barriers imposed
against American goods by other countries and assurance of various kinds
against the operation of the trade-control systems that have come into
existence elsewhere. The vast decline in our foreign trade has ceased. A
substantial and steady increase is being recorded. During 1935 our sales abroad
exceeded those of 1932, the lowest year, by 671 millions of dollars. The trade
records of 1936 to date indicate that this figure will be surpassed. This has
been an extremely wholesome factor in the improvement in our own conditions and
in building up the world's purchasing power. Our imports of foreign goods have
similarly increased, reflecting chiefly the enlarged American demand for raw
materials, arising from the improvement of productive activity in the United
States and our increased purchasing power.
In the negotiation of these agreements the
principle of equality has been maintained in the belief that trade conducted on
this basis brings the greatest economic benefit, has the greatest possibilities
of expansion, and involves the least conflict. We are vigorously striving to
secure similar equality of treatment on the part of other coun
337
DOCUMENTS
ries with which we have negotiated. In connection with this program we
have refused to be drawn into a system of bilateral balancing between pairs of
countries because this system is comparatively sterile and requires direct
government management of international trade, which soon extends to management
of domestic production. At the same time, we have been alert to the problem of
protecting our trade interests against the incidental disadvantages that we
might suffer from the practice of such a system by other countries.
The trade policy this country is pursuing
fits well into our domestic economic situation and policies. I am willing to
leave this judgment to the arbitration of facts. Certainly by now it should be
clear, even to those engaged in industries that have been the most direct
beneficiaries of excessive tariffs, that this alone will not bring them
prosperity. It should also be apparent that they can thrive only when other
branches of production thrive, including those that habitually dispose of a
large part of their products in foreign markets.
The rebuilding of international trade offers
a splendid opportunity for governments to improve the conditions of their
people and to assure them the necessary means of acquiring the essentials of
well-being and the raw materials for production. If this result can be
achieved, one of the fertile causes of dissension and possible war would be
weakened or removed. The plans and hopes of millions of individuals now appear
to have no place except in military formation. An improvement of economic
conditions would guarantee anther place. Advancement in this direction need not
await a solution of all political difficulties. Terms have been found by which
advance can be made even in the face of the monetary uncertainty which still
exists. A great opportunity awaits great leadership.
In trade interchange baleful elements enter
particularly the race in arms, ammunition, and implements of war. This trade is
at present mainly incidental to the preparation for war. However, in some times
and circumstances, it may itself be an element in stimulating or provoking war.
Therefore, we have established a system requiring full disclosure regarding
American trade in this field by placing those engaged in it under a license
plan. Whether and to what extent it may be wise to regulate or restrict such
trade between ourselves and other nations, for reasons other than the
protection of military secrets, is a matter on which we are constantly weighing
our current experience. Our existing legal authority is limited. But, as in the
present Spanish situation, we assert our influence to the utmost to prevent arms
shipped from this country from thwarting national or international efforts to
maintain peace or end conflict. But aci-
338
DOCUMENTS
tion of that character cannot best be governed by inflexible rule, for,
to a large extent, it must be determined in the light of the facts and
circumstances of each situation. This much is certain—we are always ready to
discourage to the utmost the traffic in arms when required in the interest of
peace.
Up to this point I have dealt with the
principles of our policies and relationships with other countries when peace
prevails. Lately, after a lapse of almost 20 years, we have been called upon to
consider with great seriousness the question of what these relationships should
be if war were unhappily to occur again among the other great countries of the
world. We must squarely face the fact that to stay clear of a widespread major
war will require great vigilance, poise, and careful judgment in dealing with
such interferences with our peaceful rights and activities as may take place.
Legislation recently passed provides some of
the main essentials in a wise anticipatory policy. I have in mind the
resolutions of Congress of 1935 and 1936 which, in addition to providing for
the licensing of all imports and exports of arms, ammunition, and implements of
war, prohibit their shipment to belligerent nations. Those same resolutions
prohibit the flotation of loans and the establishment of credits in our market
by belligerent countries, and otherwise strengthen our existing neutrality
laws. On some of these matters the Congress by law has modified policies
formerly pursued by this Government in times of war abroad. There are other
vital aspects of this problem which will continue to receive the careful
attention and study of the Department of State.
The problems arising during a period of
neutrality are so great that they constantly renew in one the determination to
spare no reasonable effort to play a full part in the encouragement of the
maintenance of peace. We have sought to demonstrate that we are interested in
peace everywhere. Surely this endeavor must continue to command our full
abilities if war elsewhere can create such difficulties for us, if it can
change for the worse the world in which we must live, if it can threaten the
civilization with which all of us are concerned.
I cannot believe that the world has
completely changed in mentality and desire since those great decades when the
principles of liberty and democracy were extending their reign. I believe that
this was a natural evolution of our civilization. I do not believe that with
the great and growing facilities for education and for personal development
people will permanently abandon their individual liberties and political
rights. In my judgment it is not a basic defect of democratic institutions that
has led to their decline in so many places but rather
339
DOCUMENTS
the onset of weariness, fear, and indifference, which can and must be
dispelled. These are the heritage of the last war. They must not be permitted
to bring on another.
Let me return to a remark that I made in the
beginning—that the direction of our foreign policy must be acceptable to the
people. Our task is to formulate out of the wishes and wisdom of a popular
democracy a sound foreign policy which will ensure peace and favor progress and
prosperity. In the conduct of that task we must be able to distinguish between
the sharp voice of excited or prejudiced minorities which may from time to time
arise and the fundamental and more lasting welfare of our nation. We must be on
guard against the hasty, excited impulse, the quick upsurge of passing emotion.
Satisfactory foreign policy must be able to
count upon the qualities of patience, of sympathetic understanding, of steady
poise, and of assured inner strength among the people. In the past crises of
our history Americans have shown that they possess these qualities in full
measure. I do not doubt that they are still present as a firm support. Against
the walls of our democratic methods and institutions storms from elsewhere beat
violently. Let us avoid flabbiness of spirit, weakness of body, grave dissent
within our own numbers, and we shall have nothing to fear from these storms. We
must keep before us the knowledge that our democracy was builded on the solid
qualities of hardihood, individual self-reliance, full willingness to put
general welfare above personal interest in any great matter of national
interest, forebearance in every direction, and abiding patriotism. They alone
can furnish the necessary assurance that our foreign policy and our foreign
relations will continue to bring peace with the whole world and will not fail
in that leadership appropriate to a country as great as ours.