An American Substitute for British Blockades

Login or Register to leave a comment.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.

IF Great Britain, acting on behalf of the League of Nations, should blockade the territory of a state that had gone to war in contempt of its peace pledge as a member of the League, what would the United States do? Sometimes the question is put thus: Is it conceivable that the American and British navies might some day clash because the United States stood for its full rights as a neutral? These queries, which are not infrequently heard, point to a major problem of American diplomacy.

Great Britain, like other members of the League, has accepted some heavy burdens. Among them is the duty, under certain circumstances, to prevent all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of a League member which resorts to war in disregard of the Covenant, "and the nationals of any other state, whether a member of the League or not." The matter of sanctions is broadly dealt with in Article 16 of the Covenant. At Locarno in October 1925, Messrs. Beneš, Briand, Chamberlain, Mussolini, Skrzynski and Vandervelde, informed Germany that Article 16 "must be understood to mean that each state member of the League is bound to coöperate loyally and effectively in support of the Covenant and in resistance to any act of aggression to an extent which is compatible with its military situation and takes its geographical position into account." Now the British Government doubtless would assert the right to judge for itself whether in a given case a British blockade against a covenant-breaking belligerent were essential or desirable; they might be slow to admit that any duty to the League demanded recourse to that particular measure. Nevertheless, it must be assumed that a British Government might sometime regard it as a British duty or privilege, and this possibility causes much perplexity on both sides of the Atlantic. Here is the reason...