We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Since the outbreak of the Korean War, the free world has made erratic but continuous progress in its effort to achieve military parity with the Communist bloc. Success in this enterprise and the realization of a “situation of strength” would bring to the fore the problem of serious negotiations with Soviet Russia. Several analysts, including Winston Churchill, have already made strong pleas for reviving the “lost art” of diplomacy as a means of obtaining some settlement of the Cold War.
Speaking in a somewhat different military context, before the U.S.S.R. developed the atomic bomb but prior to the Western rearmament effort, Churchill observed:
We may be absolutely sure that the present situation cannot last…. It is not only here in Europe that there are these iron curtains, and point s of actual collision… I believe it right to say that the best chance of avoiding war is … to bring matters to a head with the Soviet Government, and, by formal diplomatic processes, with all their privacy and gravity, to arrive at a lasting settlement.
1 Among these are Kennan, George, American Diplomacy 1900–1950 (Chicago, 1951), pp. 92–95Google Scholar, and Morgenthau, Hans, Politics Among Nations (New York, 1948), pp. 419–30, 438–45Google Scholar.
2 Parliamentary Debates, Fifth Series, Vol. 446, House of Commons, 01 23, 1948Google Scholar, cols. 560–61.
3 Brierly, James L., Law of Nations, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1936), p. 95Google Scholar.
4 Lauterpacht, Hersh, Oppenheim's International Law, 6th ed., 2 vols. (London, 1935), Vol. 1, p. 201Google Scholar; Marshall-Cornwall, James H., Geographic Disarmament (London, 1935), p. 46Google Scholar. Lawrence, Thomas J., Principles of International Law, 7th ed. (Boston, 1923), pp. 590–92Google Scholar, discusses the ambiguous uses made of the term “neutralization.”
5 Graham, Malbone W. Jr., “Neutralization as a Movement in International Law,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 21, pp. 79–94, at p. 81 (01, 1927)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 In addition to Switzerland, Savoy, Moresnet, and Cracow were neutralized.
7 Oppenheim, Lassa F. L., International Law, 2 vols. (London, 1905), Vol. 1, p. 144Google Scholar, maintained that “neutralized states … are a product of the nineteenth century only and it remains to be seen whether neutralization can stand the test of history.”
8 These are detailed in Hackworth, Green H., Digest of International Law, 8 vols. (Washington, 1940), Vol. 1, pp. 69–73Google Scholar.
9 Belgium and Luxembourg were invaded by Germany, while the inviolability of Corfu and the Congo was violated by the Allies.
10 Wilson, George G., “Neutralization in Theory and Practise,” Yale Review, Vol. 4, pp. 474–86, at p. 481 (April, 1915)Google Scholar. Regala, Roberto, Neutralization and the Philippines (Manila, 1935)Google Scholar, in discussing neutralization of the Philippines, points to their strategic location and the need to maintain an equilibrium in the balance of power (p. 16).
11 The neutralization of Honduras in 1907, at the suggestion of the United States, was intended to keep Central America at peace and thereby forestall any occasion for European intervention in the Panama Canal area. In 1923, when the Western Hemisphere seemed secure, the status was dropped.
12 Wright, Quincy, “Neutralization of Corfu,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, pp. 104–8, at pp. 104–5 (01, 1924)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Neutralization still applied to Corfu and Paxo, but not to the United States of the Ionian Islands after Greece annexed them in 1864. See Marshall-Cornwall, , Geographic Disarmament (cited in note 4), p. 32Google Scholar, on the status of Cracow, neutralized from 1815 to 1846.
13 In the case of Switzerland, it is debatable whether it was neutralized or whether its self-imposed perpetual neutrality was merely recognized. See Baumgartner, F. W., Neutralization of States (Bulletins 24 and 25 of the Departments of History and Political and Economic Science, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario), Bull. No. 24, pp. 5–36Google Scholar; Sherman, Gordon E., “Neutrality of Switzerland,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, pp. 241–50, 462–74, 780–95 (04, July, Oct., 1918)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Efforts to check Russian expansion resulted in the military neutralization of the Black Sea and the Aaland Islands in 1856. See Söderhjelm, Johan O., Démilitarisation et Neutralisation des Iles d'Aland en 1856 et 1921 (Helsingfors, 1928)Google Scholar; and Gregory, Charles N., “Neutralization of the Aaland Islands,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 17, pp. 63–76 (01, 1923)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Strupp, Karl, Neutralisation, Befriedung, Entmilitarisierung (Stuttgart, 1933), pp. 98 ff.Google Scholar; Sherman, Gordon E., “Permanent Neutrality Treaties,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 217–64, at p. 238 (01, 1915)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the other hand, the intensity of the Austro-Serbian dispute, and its relation to great power rivalries, so overshadowed the six-power guarantee of Albania in 1913 that the treaty was discarded within one year.
16 See Esmer, Ahmed S., “The Straits: Crux of World Politics,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 25, pp. 290–302 (01, 1947)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 The New York Times, Jan. 10–12 and 13–18, 1947.
18 Wright, Quincy, “Outlawry of War,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, pp. 76–103, at p. 85 (Jan., 1925)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 de Visscher, Charles, Stabilization of Europe (Chicago, 1924), p. 116Google Scholar.
20 Marshall-Cornwall, , Geographic Disarmament (cited in note 4), p. 31Google Scholar.
21 Although Lord Grey felt that continental military obligations were essential for British security, he failed to make this absolutely clear to the Germans. Dexter, Byron, “Lord Grey and the Problem of an Alliance,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 30, pp. 298–309, at pp. 303–9 (01, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 See Holborn, Hajo in Makers of Modern Strategy, ed. Earle, Edward M. (Princeton, 1944), pp. 189–205Google Scholar.
23 Baumgartner, F. W., Neutralization of States (cited in note 13), Bull. No. 25, p. 26Google Scholar.
24 Tobin, Harold J., “Is Belgium Still Neutralized?”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, pp. 514–32, at p. 523–24 (07, 1932)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 Prime Minister Gladstone in House of Commons, Aug. 8, 1870, cited in Wilson, , “Neutralization in Theory and Practise” (cited in note 10), pp. 478–80Google Scholar.
26 See Wright, Quincy, A Study of War, 2 vols. (Chicago, 1942), Vol. 2, pp. 785–86Google Scholar.
27 The term was unfortunately used as a palliative to soften an onerous servitude when the Black Sea was “neutralized” in 1856. SirHolland, Thomas E., Studies in International Law (Oxford, 1898), p. 275Google Scholar; SirWilliams, John Fisher, “The Permanence of Treaties,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 22, pp. 89–104 (01, 1928)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 Bonjour, Edgar, Swiss Neutrality (London, 1946), p. 18Google Scholar, acknowledges this explicitly.
29 It can be argued that the restriction on war destroys state sovereignty. Schweizer, Paul, Geschichte des Schweizerischen Neutralitat (Frauenfeld, 1895)Google Scholar, insisted that Switzerland always had the right to make any treaties it wished. Wicker, Cyrus F., Neutralization (London, 1911), pp. 57–58Google Scholar, maintained that only defensive alliances were permissible.
30 Strupp, , Neutralisation, Befriedung, Entmilitarisierung (cited in note 15), pp. 279–89Google Scholar; Descamps, Emanuel, L'Etat Neutre à Titre Permanent (Paris, 1912), pp. 215–17Google Scholar.
31 Lauterpacht, , Oppenheim's International Law (cited in note 4), p. 203Google Scholar.
32 The dismantling of the great fortress of Luxembourg—for the reason that the Grand Duchy was too valuable to fall into French or Prussian hands—was an exception.
33 Littell, Clair F., Neutralization of States (Meadville, Pennsylvania, 1920)Google Scholar, and Reid, Helen, International Servitudes in Law and Practise (Chicago, 1932), p. 229Google Scholar.
34 Belgium was neutralized to “maintain the peace, repose and good order of Europe” according to the Prussians. Tobin, , “Is Belgium Still Neutralized?” (cited in note 24), p. 523Google Scholar. See also a German propaganda booklet, The Neutrality of Belgium: Its Origin and Violation (1915), which declared that Belgium is “a state of an inferior order to those states on which neutrality is not imposed” (p. 7).
35 Austria, for example, tried to deprive Switzerland of its right of asylum and to prevent the creation of a federal republic. Bonjour, , Swiss Neutrality (cited in note 28), pp. 70–71, 79, 101Google Scholar.
36 Robinson, Stewart M., “Autonomous Neutralization,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 11, pp. 607–16, at pp. 607–8 (July, 1917)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The most ambitious project was that advanced by de Martens, Fedor, “La Neutralisation du Danemark,” Revue des Deux Mondes, 5th series, Vol. 18, pp. 314–35, at pp. 333–35 (12 15, 1903)Google Scholar. He proposed a barrier of self-neutralized states northward from Belgium.
37 Wilson, , “Neutralization in Theory and Practise” (cited in note 10), p. 483Google Scholar, outlines a plan by the Interparliamentary Union in 1911 to give some outside support to perpetual neutrality, which is highly unstable as a unilateral statement. Neutralization seemed detrimental enough so that Honduras formulated a “voluntary” declaration of perpetual neutrality in order to preserve its honor and integrity. See Gonzalez, Salvador R., “Neutrality of Honduras and the Question of the Gulf of Fonseca,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, pp. 509–42, at p. 511 (07, 1916)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
38 This point, however, has been unduly stressed at the expense of geographic-strategic considerations in contrasting the history of Swiss and Belgian neutrality.
39 Graham, , “Neutralization as a Movement in International Law” (cited in note 5), p. 91Google Scholar.
40 See Winslow, Erving, Neutralization: America's Opportunity (Boston, 1912), pp. 8–9Google Scholar; and “Neutralization,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 2, pp. 366–86 (04, 1908)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Piccioni, Camille, Essai sur la Neutralité Perpetuelle, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1902), pp. 175–76Google Scholar.
41 See the report drawn up by the Commission of Information constituted by His Majesty Leopold III on July 14, 1946, “The Belgian Tragedy,” Entente, Vols. 75–76, pp. 6–39 (1948)Google Scholar. See also Hyde, Charles C., “Belgium and Neutrality,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, pp. 81–85, at p. 82 (01, 1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morgenthau, Hans, “End of Switzerland's Differential Neutrality,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 32, pp. 558–62, at pp. 558–60 (07, 1938)Google Scholar.
42 Wicker, , Neutralization (cited in note 29), p. 61Google Scholar.
43 “Comments by the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace,” International Conciliation, No. 143, pp. 1203–1339, at p. 1259 (10, 1919)Google Scholar.
44 Crichton, V. M. S., “The Prewar Theory of Neutrality,” British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 9, pp. 101–11 (1928)Google Scholar.
45 Brierly, James L., The Outlook for International Law (Oxford, 1944), pp. 78–82Google Scholar, discusses this point.
46 Bonjour, , Swiss Neutrality (cited in note 28), pp. 112–14Google Scholar, points out the closeness of the Swiss vote to join the League and the deep regard Switzerland had for its impartial neutrality.
47 See Schwarzenberger, Georg, Power Politics, 2nd rev. ed. (New York, 1951), pp. 513–29Google Scholar. The legal basis of the Russian alliance structure is also arrived at by indirection—through Article 107, dealing with protection against the defeated Axis powers.
48 Rosinger, Lawrence K., India and the United States (New York, 1950)Google Scholar, Chs. 3, 9, discusses pre-Korean War relations; Leng, Shao Chuan, “India and China,” Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 21, pp. 73–78 (May 21, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, describes India's attitude after June, 1950; see also Levi, Werner, Free India in Asia (Minneapolis, 1952)Google Scholar, Chs. 6, 7.
49 Wolfers, Arnold, “In Defense of the Small Countries,” Yale Review, Vol. 33, pp. 201–20, at p. 215 (12, 1943)Google Scholar.
50 See for example the critical comments of George, Lloyd on this issue, Parliamentary Debates, Fifth Series, House of Commons, 05 19, 1939Google Scholar, cols. 1815–18.
51 Even the consideration of a Communist Balkan federation at Bled in 1947 by Dimitrov of Bulgaria and Tito of Yugoslavia was strongly opposed by Soviet Russia.
52 See Wolfers, , “In Defense of the Small Countries” (cited in note 49), pp. 211–12Google Scholar. This can be used as an effective counter-argument to the proposition advanced by Spykman, Nicholas J., America's Strategy in World Politics (New York, 1942), pp. 20, 461–63Google Scholar, that the days of the “power vacuum” small state are numbered.
53 The Peace Observation Committee is to “observe and report on the situation in any area where there exists international tension, the continuation of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.” Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, Nov. 3, 1950, Resolution A, Part B, No. 3.
54 On technical developments see Baxter, James, Scientists Against Time (Boston, 1947)Google Scholar, Ch. 13, and Bush, Vannevar, Modern Arms and Free Men (New York, 1949)Google Scholar, Chs. 8–10.
55 Two leading exponents of this view were Walter Lippmann and James Warburg.
56 Soviet Russia proposed the unification, demilitarization, and neutralization of Germany in notes of Nov. 3, 1950 and Feb. 5, 1951. See also Mr. Gromyko's statement at the Paris Big Four meeting on March 5, 1951. The issue of an armed neutralised Germany, brought up in the Soviet peace treaty draft, was again emphasized in the Soviet note of April 10, 1952. See New York Times for dates cited.
57 The Department of State, Germany 1947–9, Publication 3556 (1950), gives a detailed, documentary account of the political development of Western Germany.
58 There have been over 260 sessions held on an Austrian treaty. See for example the charge by General Suiridov of Sept. 27, 1951 that the West was creating a war bridgehead in Austria. New York Times, Sept. 28, 1951. See also the Western note of March 13, 1952 on an abbreviated treaty and the Soviet rejection note of Aug. 15, 1952.
59 The position of the U. S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, as expressed in a note of Sept. 26, 1947 by James Forrestal, that America had little strategic interest in maintaining troops and bases in South Korea, was qualified by the remark that our military position would be impaired if a Soviet assault could be mounted against Japan from South Korea. See New York Times, Nov. 3, 1952.
60 See Department of State, Korea 1945 to 1948, Publication 3305, Far Eastern Series 28 (1948), especially the addresses of Andrei Gromyko and John Foster Dulles on the establishment of the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea. (Annexes 6 and 7, pp. 51–65.)
61 See for example Churchill, Rogers P., The Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 (Cedar Rapids, 1939), pp. 212–68Google Scholar.
62 This likelihood would increase should the Soviet economy reach a stage in which “ruble diplomacy” could operate in Iran in the form of monetary loans, sales of essential materials, and efforts to purchase oil.
63 See Levi, Werner, “Union in Asia?”, Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 19, pp. 144–49, at p. 146 (08 16, 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Zinkin, Maurice, Asia and the West (London, 1951), pp. 103–7Google Scholar.
64 On the internal problems of Burma see Furnivall, James S., “Twilight in Burma: Reconquest and After,” Pacific Affairs, Vol. 22, pp. 3–20 and 155–72 (Mar., June, 1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yone, Edward M. Law and Mandelbaum, David G., “Pacification in Burma,” Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 19, pp. 182–87 (10 11, 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “The New Nation of Burma,” Ibid., pp. 189–94 (Oct. 25, 1950).
65 See for example Dutt, Vidya Prakash, India's Foreign Policy (New Delhi, 1950), p. 45Google Scholar, on India's opposition to making any military commitment, though “deeply interested in the security of the Pacific region.”
66 Hopper, Bruce, “Sweden: A Case Study in Neutrality,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 23, pp. 435–49 (April, 1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tingsten, Herbert, The Debate on the Foreign Policy of Sweden 1918–1939 (London, 1949), pp. 174–218Google Scholar. On Sweden's negotiations with Denmark and Norway, see The New York Times, Jan. 7, 8, 12, 13, 30, 31, 1949 and Feb. 13–16, 19, 22, 1949.
67 See, however, Spencer, Arthur, “Soviet Pressure on Scandinavia,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 30, pp. 651–59 (07, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
68 See Jane's All the World Aircraft 1948, ed. Bridgman, Leonard (London, 1948), pp. 19a, 199–204 c.Google Scholar
69 Duchacek, Ivo, “The Strategy of Communist Infiltration: Czechoslovakia 1944–1948” and “The February Coup in Czechoslovakia,” World Politics, Vol. 2, pp. 345–72 and pp. 511–32 (April, July, 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brannen, Barry, “The Soviet Conquest of Rumania,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 30, pp. 466–87 (04, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Spencer, Arthur, “Finland Maintains Democracy,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 31, pp. 301–9, at pp. 302–5 (01, 1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
70 The danger of neutralism was noted in the First Annual Report to the Standing North Atlantic Treaty Organization from General of the Army Eisenhower, Dwight D., Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (Paris, 1952), p. 9Google Scholar. See also Royal Institute of International Affairs, Study Group, Atlantic Alliance (London, 1952), pp. 16–24Google Scholar.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.