In response to the ongoing Civil War in Spain, the united States Congress has seen fit to outlaw shipment of arms to the parties fighting in the war. Congress passed the bill yesterday prohibiting sail and shipment of arms to Spain.
The United States continues its stance of neutrality in the increasingly bloody civil war. Conflict has raged in the country since July 1936. Before that there was upheaval in the government in 1931.
Showing posts with label Neutrality Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Neutrality Act. Show all posts
Monday, January 7, 2008
Saturday, October 6, 2007
US President calls for Quarantine
The President of the United States of America, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, gave a speech in Chicago yesterday. In it, he proposed a "quarantine of the aggressor nations" such as Japan and Italy.
The prevailing political thought right now in the United States is one of neutrality and isolationism. The Neutrality Act, signed on August 31, 1935, forbid the US from shipping arms of ammunition to Italy or Abyssinia, though that crisis has ended.
Mr. Roosevelt seems to be suggesting economic measures be taken against aggressor nations rather than reacting to aggression with aggression. In other words, put water on the fire, not more fire!
The prevailing political thought right now in the United States is one of neutrality and isolationism. The Neutrality Act, signed on August 31, 1935, forbid the US from shipping arms of ammunition to Italy or Abyssinia, though that crisis has ended.
Mr. Roosevelt seems to be suggesting economic measures be taken against aggressor nations rather than reacting to aggression with aggression. In other words, put water on the fire, not more fire!
Monday, April 30, 2007
Neutrality Renewal Rushed through Congress
The Neutrality Act was up for its second renewal. It was due to expire at midnight tonight. Both houses of Congress pass extensions of the Act.
In the House, there was not a single dissenting vote. In the Senate, there were those who voiced concern. It eventually passed in the Senate with a vote tally of 41-15. There were no abstentions.
Under the legislation adopted today, the President could proclaim also the "placing of restrictions on the shipment of certain articles and materials in the addition of arms, ammunition or implements of war from the United States, to belligerent states or a state where in civil strife exists, is necessary to promote the security or to preserve the peace of the United States or to protect the life of the citizens of the United States."
However, the resolution leaves to the discretion of the President the finding that the "cash and carry" step is necessary.
There was apprehension of the "cash and carry" clause. Mr. Vandenberg objected to the discretion which he saw as written all through Pittman's compromise resolution, on the ground that "the real war decision, so far as we are concerned is actually made when we choose our neutrality formula".
in the House there was virtually no debate.
The National Council for the Preparation of War issued a statement from its headquarters expressing gratification at the passage of the legislation. In the statement, the Council said "each neutrality law passed by Congress is stronger that last one, showing the determined pressure of the American people for protection against war."
In the House, there was not a single dissenting vote. In the Senate, there were those who voiced concern. It eventually passed in the Senate with a vote tally of 41-15. There were no abstentions.
Under the legislation adopted today, the President could proclaim also the "placing of restrictions on the shipment of certain articles and materials in the addition of arms, ammunition or implements of war from the United States, to belligerent states or a state where in civil strife exists, is necessary to promote the security or to preserve the peace of the United States or to protect the life of the citizens of the United States."
However, the resolution leaves to the discretion of the President the finding that the "cash and carry" step is necessary.
There was apprehension of the "cash and carry" clause. Mr. Vandenberg objected to the discretion which he saw as written all through Pittman's compromise resolution, on the ground that "the real war decision, so far as we are concerned is actually made when we choose our neutrality formula".
in the House there was virtually no debate.
The National Council for the Preparation of War issued a statement from its headquarters expressing gratification at the passage of the legislation. In the statement, the Council said "each neutrality law passed by Congress is stronger that last one, showing the determined pressure of the American people for protection against war."
Friday, February 17, 2006
House passes Neutrality Extension
Only twenty minutes of debate on each side was allowed in the House. Questions and amendments were prohibited under the specific gag rule. The vote was 353 to 27.
In the Senate, the act has been delayed. Chairman Pittman of the Foreign Relations Committee attempted to obtain consideration of the resolution today, but finally agreed to put it off until 11 AM tomorrow. Senators McNary and Vandenberg asked for postponement due to the absence of Neautrality Act opponents Clark and Nye.
Memebers of both Houses have explained that haste is necessary because of the arms embargo provisions of the existing law expire on February 29th.
During the twenty minutes allotted, seven Representatives shared the time to debate against the resolution. Representative Maas of Minnesota called the measure a "dangerous bill".
Representative Robison of Kentucky "as a sincere advocate of peace" protested against the passage of the resolution. He said that it would delegate the war-making power to the President, and urged that it be kept in the hands of Congress "where it belongs".
After this, the House will allow ten days to consideration of the Navy and Army Appropriation Bills.
In the Senate, the act has been delayed. Chairman Pittman of the Foreign Relations Committee attempted to obtain consideration of the resolution today, but finally agreed to put it off until 11 AM tomorrow. Senators McNary and Vandenberg asked for postponement due to the absence of Neautrality Act opponents Clark and Nye.
Memebers of both Houses have explained that haste is necessary because of the arms embargo provisions of the existing law expire on February 29th.
During the twenty minutes allotted, seven Representatives shared the time to debate against the resolution. Representative Maas of Minnesota called the measure a "dangerous bill".
Representative Robison of Kentucky "as a sincere advocate of peace" protested against the passage of the resolution. He said that it would delegate the war-making power to the President, and urged that it be kept in the hands of Congress "where it belongs".
After this, the House will allow ten days to consideration of the Navy and Army Appropriation Bills.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Neutrality Act Extension to go back to Congress
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously recommended to the Senate today the extension, with only minor modifications, of the existing Neutrality Act until May 1, 1937. The move was made with the intent of shelving further neutrality discussion at this session of Congress.
Representative Kloeb of Ohio introduced a parallel measure in the House, and said he would ask the Foreign Affairs Committee to report it favorably as soon as possible. It is apparent the administration is working to push the extension through congress before the February 29th expiration.
Secretary Hull also noted that the administration would not oppose the dropping of its own neutrality proposal.
Senator Clark opposes the plan of putting consideration of a permanent neutrality policy over to the next session of Congress. He plans to amend the Pittman continuing resolution so that the present temporary plan would extended for only a matter of 60 days.
He noted that just because its an election year and members are involved in their respective campaigns, for action to be deferred.
Senator Johnson also has commented that many people are mistaken about the virtue of the neutrality act. He believes that the act would likely involved the nation in another war rather than keep us out.
Representative Kloeb of Ohio introduced a parallel measure in the House, and said he would ask the Foreign Affairs Committee to report it favorably as soon as possible. It is apparent the administration is working to push the extension through congress before the February 29th expiration.
Secretary Hull also noted that the administration would not oppose the dropping of its own neutrality proposal.
Senator Clark opposes the plan of putting consideration of a permanent neutrality policy over to the next session of Congress. He plans to amend the Pittman continuing resolution so that the present temporary plan would extended for only a matter of 60 days.
He noted that just because its an election year and members are involved in their respective campaigns, for action to be deferred.
Senator Johnson also has commented that many people are mistaken about the virtue of the neutrality act. He believes that the act would likely involved the nation in another war rather than keep us out.
Thursday, September 1, 2005
President signs Neutrality Act
Congress passed the neutrality act and the President signed it yesterday.
The act would prohibit sales of arms and materials to any party if war should break out in Europe. It also stipulates that American citizen travelling does so at his or her own risk.
President Roosevelt said that the new law would require American vessels to obtain a license to carry arms, would restrict Americans from sailing on ships from hostile nations and would impose an embargo on the sale of arms to "belligerent" nations.
It provides the strongest language yet warning other countries that the U.S. would increase its patrol of foreign submarines lurking in American waters. This stated neutrality is mostly a response to Germany's insistence on rebuilding her forces despite the Treaty of Versailles prohibiting such.
The President lobbied congress for the Executive ability to impose economic sanctions on nations at the Presidential discretion. Congress did not take this option and has chosen a complete neutrality.
The act will expire in six months on February 29th.
The act would prohibit sales of arms and materials to any party if war should break out in Europe. It also stipulates that American citizen travelling does so at his or her own risk.
President Roosevelt said that the new law would require American vessels to obtain a license to carry arms, would restrict Americans from sailing on ships from hostile nations and would impose an embargo on the sale of arms to "belligerent" nations.
It provides the strongest language yet warning other countries that the U.S. would increase its patrol of foreign submarines lurking in American waters. This stated neutrality is mostly a response to Germany's insistence on rebuilding her forces despite the Treaty of Versailles prohibiting such.
The President lobbied congress for the Executive ability to impose economic sanctions on nations at the Presidential discretion. Congress did not take this option and has chosen a complete neutrality.
The act will expire in six months on February 29th.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Debate over Neutrality Act
Today was an exciting day on Capital Hill. Senate Joint Resolution No. 173 was debated by both chambers of Congress and later voted on. This controversial legislature was finally passed.
There of course was criticism of Roosevelt and this course of action. Senator Tom Connally, Democrat from Texas went on Congressional record on the saying
Is it an expression of neutrality to say to two warring nations, one of which has ambitions for territorial conquest, the other unprepared, the other weak, the other trying to pursue its own destiny—is it neutral to say to those nations, "We shall give arms to neither of you," thereby insuring the triumph of the prepared nation, the covetous nation, the ambitious nation, the nation which seeks by force of arms to impose its will on a weaker and defenseless nation?
Mr. President, that is not neutrality; that is a form of unneutrality. That is a form of declaration which announces that the United States will take the side of the strong and powerful against the weak, the unprepared, and the defenseless. Why not leave that determination to the President of the United States when and if, in his conduct of our foreign relations, it becomes a sound American policy for him to take a position in a crisis of that kind?
We cannot now put the United States into an international strait jacket and thereby keep out of war. We cannot by an act of Congress put the United States into a concrete cast internationally which will fit all future occasions and solve all future problems
Across the Atlantic Ocean in Great Britain there has also been critics. Liberal member David Marshall Mason remarked that the Neutrality Act was pre-emptive. He said "No act of war so far has been committed by Italy against Ethiopia, therefore the resolution is premature."
Later, he seemed to go back on this statement when he said "...it is a direct encouragement to Italy to proceed with her war of aggression against Ethiopia by proclaiming to the world that in such an event the United States intends to remain neutral. I trust the powers composing the League will carry out the resolutions of the League and that powers outside the League, such as Germany and Japan, will act sympathetically."
Mister Mason continued his statement with a conditional: "Should the powers stand up to the their covenant, I pray and trust peace will be preserved, and such a decision does not rule out the possibility of still meeting the just aspirations of Italy for an honorable settlement."
It's a provocative statement on the times but the fate of a sovereign nation is still within the hands of those duly elected to serve it. The League has not the power to force a nation to create war when it wishes not to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)