File. No. 763.72112/502
The Venezuelan Minister (Dominíci) to the Secretary of State
Washington, December 14, 1914.
[Received December 16.]
[Translation]
No. 300]
Excellency: By reason of the wealth, power, and connections of the warring states the present European conflict affects the interests of all nations to a degree that makes it to-day a serious and urgent problem for the entire international community. The Government of Venezuela therefore deems it the duty of all members of the community to express fully their own opinions, so that an exchange of views may result in greater precision and uniformity of projects for alleviating the consequences of the present situation and perchance bringing it to an earlier and more favorable end.
Actuated by this consideration, the Venezuelan Chancellery has prepared the enclosed memorandum which I have the honor to forward to your excellency under special instructions from my Government. It believes that the task of defining neutral rights and duties in the light of the new conditions introduced by modern war should be entrusted to a congress of neutrals summoned for the purpose of considering their revision, now become imperative, which should then submit whatever conclusions it may reach to a congress of all the nations, so as to have them embodied in international law as an effective conquest of civilization and a pledge of peace for the future. The said congress might establish a new duty for neutrals, that of jointly mediating in conflicts of such magnitude as the present one.
The initiative in that congress belongs to the nations of America and my Government believes that the commission recently appointed by the board of governors of the Pan American Union is the proper body to study and prepare the program of questions to be solved by the congress of neutrals.
The Government of Venezuela would be very much gratified if, in the event of acceptance of the scheme it proposes, the initiative in calling the meeting should come from the United States of America, on account of the exceptional situation it now occupies with regard to both belligerents and neutrals and as a fitting climax to the work that President Wilson and Secretary of State Bryan have been carrying forward with strong and serene enthusiasm in the cause of universal peace.
I avail [etc.]
[Enclosure—Translation]
The Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Venezuelan Minister in the United States (Dominíci)
Memorandum
In time of war the duties of neutrality come into consideration at every turn. The neutrals themselves, in justification of some measure demanded or opposed by some one of the belligerents, plead the duties that their position as neutrals imposes upon them. But at the bottom of all this lies the fact that neutrals have not only duties to perform; they also have rights which they may claim. [Page 448] Like any other juridical situation, neutrality begets interdependent rights and duties. Modern writers on international law, notably Richard Kleen among them, have expounded the doctrine on this point with such clearness that its most remote consequences may be descried and clearly defined. In the light of pure doctrine then, it seems that the rights of neutrals, if they are to remain as sacred as those of the belligerents, must be conserved absolutely intact. It is generally admitted, however, that the neutrals, obliged as members of the International community not to hamper the belligerents in the freedom of their war operations, may be called upon to suffer, not a curtailment of their rights, but a certain temporary modification in the exercise of those rights. This proposition, elastic as it is, does not seem to come up to the standard of strict justice. Neither does it apply to a number of cases where the neutrals suffer, not a mere temporary modification in the exercise of their rights, but clearly a more or less pronounced impairment of those rights. Hence arise two tendencies which, upon the occurrence of a state of war, strive for predominance in international practice: on the one hand, the contention that the rights of war should be given the preference and that the interests of the belligerent should prevail; on the other, the aspiration to perfect and enlarge the rights of neutrals, without ignoring the legitimate rights of war, which aspiration has been steadily gaining ground in proportion to the progress of international law and whose aim is to bring about a reasonable equipoise of interests in greater conformity with justice. That these two tendencies exist, that the equipoise sought after is just, is shown in the history of certain great nations which, as their own interest might dictate at the moment, that is to say, according as they might be belligerents or neutrals, have stood for each of the two tendencies in turn.
An impartial examination of the question in time of peace when no circumstantial interest warps judgment, leads to the conclusion that in a conflict of neutral and belligerent rights, while they are both equally entitled to respect, the neutral rights at least have in support of their claim to preference reasons that surpass those of the belligerent. War is a disturbance, necessary in many cases, unavoidable in some, but a calamity in all, the effects of which the belligerents are the first to feel and deplore, the responsibilities for which they try to evade. When war occurs the belligerent, though he may be driven to it by exigencies and circumstances for which he may not be responsible, nevertheless represents and maintains in existence a departure from normal international conditions. The neutrals, on the contrary, continue to lead the regular harmonious life of peace and their rights should not on that account be inconsiderately impaired, or curtailed, or disparaged. To this very clear argument the belligerent may object that he is defending his own paramount right to existence and freedom. Important as this fundamental right may be and is, it is none the less true that it is limited by the doctrine and practice of nations. The prohibition upon the use of certain cruel or excessive methods of warfare against the enemy is a manifest restriction on the right of defense. Therefore, further restrictions on belligerent rights in the interest of the rights of neutrals would not be repugnant to doctrine or practice. Such restrictions are more and more imperatively demanded by the circumstances under which modern war is waged. There could no doubt be some talk of temporary modifications in the exercise of neutral rights in the wars of yore, when international life was undeveloped or not very intense, and the phrase might even be employed in connection with neutrals of our day if war were confined within a certain region or limited and restricted in a definite manner to two nations, provided these did not rank, because of their importance or position, among the strong factors in the activities of the world. But that expression can in no wise be accepted when dealing with conflicts like that which is now holding the world in concern and suspense, in which several of the wealthiest and most civilized nations are engaged, and that at a period of intense international life, when the internationalization of all interests is growing daily more intimate, complex, and inextricable, to the extent that the injury done to one people is keenly, immediately, and surely felt by the most remote peoples.
There is no more convincing proof of this than the general unsettlement which, at the very beginning of the present conflict, overtook and disconcerted the interests that are preeminently the most international, namely: commercial intercourse, economic activities, credit transactions, gold circulation, all that goes to make up the wealth of the world. The mere declaration of war was followed, together with the economic injury that belligerent nations and their [Page 449] subjects can not escape, by a like injury to the neutral states and their inhabitants, falling not only upon such of their interests as were involved in the territory and the people of the belligerent states but also upon their most vital interests within their own territories.
Thus the action of the belligerents, whether they declare or accept war, is felt in the territory of neutrals as directly as in their own.
It is also true that some thought has been given in times of peace to amending the laws of war in consideration of the interests that war may affect. But actual war develops so rapidly that the slow evolution of the laws bearing upon it must unavoidably lag behind, notwithstanding the boldest endeavors. An instance of this, very notable and of the highest importance, is found in the doctrine regarding neutral commerce in time of war. This doctrine recognizes the right of a neutral to trade with a belligerent except for a restriction which at first sight appears just and necessary: contraband of war. That is the law. The actual facts are quite another matter and tend to invalidate the law. Implements of warfare have multiplied to such a degree that the military art draws upon the most diverse industries. At the outbreak of a conflict, the whole industrial organization of a powerful state is brought into concerted action for the sole purpose of the common defense. War makes use of the most varied products, of the most dissimilar raw materials. Thus, due to the mere development of the machinery of war, the list of articles that are or may be considered contraband of war shows a tendency to lengthen and to grow to boundless proportions. Far away are now the times when ordinary gunpowder and its components, lead and some other metals were the only commodities open to distinct suspicion. In these days one is astounded at the number of articles which in earlier wars no one could have suspected would some day be put on the contraband list. Unfortunately the list, as it grows longer, includes materials of the widest application. The prohibition therefore affects not only the warlike industries but also, and in a serious manner, the industries of peace. The neutrals’ right freely to trade in the materials and products of these is on the road to annihilation.
These facts, arising out of the ever growing intimacy of the internationalization of interests, which is working a gradual evolution in even such strict principles as that of sovereignty, justify the belief that even though the sovereignty and integrity of neutrals subsist unscathed as to their persons, the same may perhaps not be said as to their interests, however vital and profound.
Hence, if the meaning of neutrality never was indifference, much less can it be called so in these days. Neutrals can not remain indifferent to the world-wide economic losses that will probably result from the present European war if it should last indefinitely, as there is some reason to apprehend. All will suffer equally, even though some countries may seem for the moment to profit by the war.
At the same time the vastness of the war, involving many of the great civilized nations of the world, jeopardizes, together with the most considerable economic interests, the precious fruits of civilization that are not the exclusive patrimony of this or that people but belong in common to all. The conclusion must be that, in opposition to the active right of the belligerents, arises the right of the neutrals to unite and organize, in the place of their previous passivity and by the grace of their new-found solidarity which for the moment unites them in defense of their injured interests, for effective and beneficent action in behalf of their own security.
There is no lack of precedents for an assertion of that right. History records cases of leagues of neutrals for the defense of freedom of commerce and navigation, such as that between Sweden and Denmark in 1693, and that even more important one which grew out of the manifesto of Catherine of Russia in 1780. While the principle now appears incontrovertible, its scope and mode of application demand more extended discussion. Its definition would fall to a congress of neutrals which would have to reconsider, as is now imperative, the rights and duties of neutrality, in the light of the innovations ushered in by modern war. Repudiating as contrary to equity and justice the proposition that the right of the belligerent should prevail over that of the neutral, the congress might set up a new duty, that of neutrals to unite in the presence of conflicts of the magnitude of the present one which works such direct and serious injury upon them, and to organize the protection of their own interests; the logical consequence whereof would be the [Page 450] further right of mediation which would be exercised at once, subject to such restrictions and limitations of time and circumstance as would keep it within the bounds of respect due to the rights of the belligerents. Mediation thus fortified would be much more efficacious than the customary mediation of international practice. While the latter has a certain appearance of officiousness and cannot be undertaken without the consent of both belligerents, the mediation of a league of neutrals, without entirely avoiding that appearance, offers the most decided advantage of representing, together with the good offices of impartial states, the voice of those who also work for the respect and the defense of their assailed interests.
The conclusions arrived at by the congress would be forthwith referred to an assembly of all the nations, and upon being unanimously accepted, as they must be, on the grounds of justice and convenience, since the belligerent of to-day will be the neutral of to-morrow, they would be embodied in the law of nations as an effective conquest of civilization and a pledge of peace for the future. One step farther in that direction would lead to the creation of a permanent body which would, at the first indication of a conflict, represent the league of neutrals and, by asserting its rights, might, in most cases, avert a rupture and, in all, limit the area, duration and scope of the hostilities.
In the case of the present conflict, which involves nations of Europe and Asia, the initiative in organizing a congress of neutrals belongs to the nations of America. Absolutely and unquestionably neutral, the American nations are called upon by their geographical situation, by their wide connections with all the belligerent peoples, by their character as pacific powers, by their traditional exertions in the cause of international arbitration, and by the serious jeopardy in which the war has placed their present conditions and their future advancement, to perform the great duty of mediation.