DOCUMENTS

•

In view of the dailll growing importance of the Atlantic issue inthe relat'ions between E'u,rope and America, and as Q. documentpyillustration to o1t'r art-ide ..How Big Is A Hemisphere?" we are pubUshin'lth-rcB docu-ments of both h'istorical and present.day significance.

The Declaration of Panama was approve(/,on October 3, 1939, and reads:

"The Governments of the American Re­publics meeting at Panama, have solemnlyratified their neutral status in the conflictwhich is disrupting the peace of Europe, butthe present war may lead to unexpected reosuIts which may affect the fundamental in­terests of America and there can be no justi­fication for the interests of the belligerentsto prevail over the rights of neutrals causingdisturbances and suffering to nations whichby their neutrality in the conflict and theirdistance from the scene of events, should notbe burdened with its fatal and painful con­sequences.

DurinI;!' the Worltl WA1' of 19t<l.HI1S theGovernments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Co­lombia, Ecuador and Peru advanced, or sup­ported, individual proposals providing inprinciple a u~dar<:ltiun by the American Re­publics that the belligerent nations must re­frain from committing hostile acts within areasonable distance from their shores.

The n:J.ture of the llresent conflslZration. inspite of its already lamentable pr?portions,would not justify any obstruction to inter­American communications which, engenderedby important interests. call for adequate pro­tection. This fact requires the demarcationof a 7.00P of l'\~urity ineluoing nil tho> norma]maritime routes of communication and tradebetween the countries of America.

To this end it is essential as a measure ofnecessity to adopt immediately provisionsbased on the above·mentioned precedents forthe safeguarding of such interests, in order toavoid a repetition of the damages and suf­ferings sustained by the American nations andby their citizens in the war of 1914-1918.

There is no doubt that the Governments ofthe American Republics must foresee thosedangers and as a measure ()f self-protectioninsist that the waters to a reasonable distancefrom their coasts shall remain free from thecommission of hostile acts or from the under­taking of belligerent activities by nations en­~aged in a war in which the said governmentsare not involved.

For these reasons the Governments of theAmerican' Republics RESOLVE ANDHEREBY DECLARE:

1. As a measure of continental self-protec.tion, the American Republics, so long as theymaintain their neutrality, are as of inherentright entitled to have those waters adjacentto the American continent, which they regardas ·of primary concern and direct ~tility intheir relations, free from the commission ofany hostile act by any non· American belliger·ent nation, whether such hostile act be at·tempted or made from land, sea or air.

Such waters shall be defined as follows."Follows a detailed definition., the essence of

which can be 8een on our Map IV (p. 189)."2. The GoverUI1I1;:utlS ur the Am~ril:an R,,·

publics agree that they will endeavor, throughjoint representation to such bellige.rents asmay now or in the future be engaged in hos~

tilities, to secure the compliance by them withthe provision of this Declaration, without pre­judice to the exercisp. of tho> intlividual risrhtsof each State inherent in their sovereignty.

3. The Go\'crnment" of the American Re­publics further declare that whenf;ver theyconl;idc!' it Tloe,,""n-ry they _ill consult to­gether to determine upon the measures whichthey roilY' individulllly or collectively under­take in order to secure the observan~e ()f theprovioion:> of thi:> Declaration.

4. The American Republics, during theexistence of war in which they themselves aremot involved, may undertake, whenever theymay determine that the need therefore exists,to patrol, either individually or collectively,as may be agreed upon by common consent,and in so far as the me'ans and resources ofeach may permit, the water adjacent to theircoasts within the area above defined." (Zeit­schrift fuel' auslaendisches oeffentliches Rechtund Voelkerrecht, Vol. X. No. 1/2, October1940, pp. 443-445.)

• • •The President of the Republic of Panama on

October 4, 1939 -informed the German Govern­ment of the content of the Declamtion and onFebruary 14, 191,0 the Panamanian F01·eignMinister received an answer from the German

DOCUMENTS 237

Government. After some prelimina1j/ remarksit stated:

II (1) The German Government welcomes thedesire of the American Republics expressedin the Declaration of Pan'ama to maintain-strict neutrality during the present conflictand quite understands that they wish to pre­vent as far as possible the present war affect­ing their countI:ies and peoples.

(2) The German Government believes itselfto be in agreement with the American Gov­ernments that the solution envisaged in theDeclaration of Panama would mean a modifi­cation of present international law and per­ceives in the telegram of October 4 of last,yc.u the desire that this question be settledin agreement with the belligerents. TheGerman Government does not maintain thatthe hitherto recoStnized rules of internationallaw should be considered an order fixed and in­alterable for all time.

It is rather of the opinion that these lawsare capable antI in need of adjustment to theprogress of development and newly arisingconditions. In this spirit it has willinglyundertaken to examine the proposal of theneutral American Governments. It must,however, call attention to the fact that ofcourse only the prevailing laws could hithertobe valid for German warships even in watersof the envisaged safety zone.

German warships have in their actions ad­twred with the utmost strictness to th~lse laws.

Therefore, in so far as the protest of theAmerican Governments is supposed to bedirected against the actions of German war­ships, this protest cannot be recognized asfounded by the German Government. It hasalso already expressed to the Government ofUruguay its differing legal conception of thespecial case mentioned in the telegram of theActing President of the Republic of Panama'Of December 24.

Furt.hermore the German Government can­not admit the right of the Governments ofthe American Republics to decide one-sidedlyupon measures differing from hitherto validlaw as they are, according to the telegram ofDecember 24 of last year, to be considered bythe American Governments against ships ofthe belligerent states that have committtedwarlike acts in the waters of the planned safe­t), zone.

(3) Upon examination of the questionsbearing on the plan of the establishment oi asafety zone one important point becomes im­mediately obvious which makes the positionof Germany and that of the other belligerent]lOWerS appear unequal in this connection.For while Germany has never had any ter-

ritorial aims on the American continent, GreatBritain and France have acquired in the courseof the last few centuries important p08Sessionsand bases on this continent and on islands offit whose practical significance f-or the ques­tions arising in this connection needs no fur­ther explanation.

By this exception in the Monroe Doctrine infavor of Great Britain nnd France the effectof the safety zone desired by the neutralAmerican Governments is immediately funda­mentally and seriously limited. The inequal­ity thus caused in the position of Germanyand her opponents could perhaps be removedto a certain extent by Gre.at Britain andFrance with the guarantee of the Americanstates assuming the binding obligation of notutilizing the afore-mentioned possessions undislands as starting-points or bases for war­like action.

Even in that event the fr.ct would remainthat a belligerent state, namely Canada. notonly directly adjoins the zone in question butthat parts of Canadian territory are even sur­rounded by this zone.

(4) [n spite of the above-mentioned cir­cumstances the German Government would onits part be perfectly prepared to enter into afurther exchange of views with the Govern­ments of the American Republics regardingthe enforcement of the Declaration o'! Pa­nama. From the reply of the British andFrench Governments, recently made knownthrough the press and radio, the German Gov­ernment, however, must draw the conclusionthat both these Governments are not preparedseriously to consider the idea of a safety zone.

The fact alone that demands have been putforward according to which German war 'hipsshall not be allowed to enter the zone in ques­tion while the warships of he.r enemies arcapparently to retain the unlimited right toenter this zone shows so great a lack of re­spect for the most elementary conceptions ofinternational law and exacts so flagrant abreach of neutrality from the G-overnments ofthe Americall states that the German Govern­ment can only see in it the desire of the Brit­ish and French Governments to destroy fromthe very first the basic idea of the safety zone.

(5) III spite of the willingness of theGerman Government to discuss the proposalsand suggestions of the American states inthis field, the German Government can onlyanticipate a success from further discussionsof the plan of a safety zone if the knownEnglish and French standpoint is basicallyrevised." (Translated from the German asquoted in Zeitschrift fuel' auslaendisches oof­fentliches Recht und Voelkerrecht, Vol. X, No.1/2, October 1940. pp. 452·454.)

• • •

238 THE XXth CENTURY

The 1J'resent German attitude towards theAmericas amd the 7Jroblems of the Atlantic:expressed ,in the following statement issuedby the German Government on Nove1nber1, 1941:

"(1) The President of the United States ofAmerica in his speech on October 28 claimedthat

a. The United States Government is inpossession of a secret map made in Germanyby the German Government. It is said to bethe map of Central and South America, as theFuehrer wants to organize it by dividing the14 countries there into five subservient statesand thus bring the South American continentunder his rulc;. One of these five states isallegedly to include the Republic of Panamaand the Panama Canal,

b. The United States Government is inpossession of a second document drafted bythe Reich Government. This document is saidto contain a plan according to which Ger­many will, after the war has been won, elim­inate all existing religions in the world.The Catholic. Protestant, Mohammedan, Hin­dustan. Buddhist and other religions are tobe abolished in the same manner as churchproperty is to be confiscated. The cross andother religious symbols are to be prohibitedand the clergy is to be silenced under threatof the concentration camp,

Churches are to be repbaced by an interna­tional National Socialist church in whichspeakers sent by the National Socialist ReichGovernment are to officiate. To replace theBible, texts from the Fuehrer's book "MeinKampf" :are to be imposed and enforced asHoly Script. The Cross of Christ is to be re­placed by the Swastika and the naked swordwhile the Fuehrer is to fill the place of God.

Apropos of this the Reich Governmentstates:

a. Ther.e is neither a map produced inGer;many or by the Reich Government inexistence about the distribution of Cen.traland South America nor is there a documentproduced by the Reich Government in ex­istence about the dissolution of various re­ligions in the world. In both instances, itmust be a case of forgery of a gross andclumsy kind.

b. The allegations of conquest of SouthAmerica by Germany and abolition of reli­gions and churches in the world to be sub­stituted by the National Socialist church ar·3so senseless and absurd that the Reich Gov­ernment need not go into this.

The Reich Government has notified allneutral governments, including Central andSouth American Governments, of the afore­going through diplomatic channels.

(2) The President of the Unit-ed States ofAmerica in his speech on Odobel' 28 declaredthat one American destroyer was attackedby German naval forces on September 4 andanother on October 17. The United StatesGovernment had been ready to avoid shootingbut shooting has been started and beforehistory it is established who fired the firstshot. America has been attacked.

In truth, the reports of German submarinecommanders and published official statementsof American naval authorities establishedthe following facts:

In the incident on September 4, the Ameri­can destroyer "Greer" was involved while inthe incident on October 17 the Americandestl·oyer "Kearny" was involved.

The destroyer "Greer" in close militaryco-operation with British naval forces pursueda German submarine for hours. During thispursuit, the German submarine, which wassubmerged, was attacked with depth charges.Only after this attack did the submarinemake use of its weapons. The destroyercontinued pursuit with depth charges forseveral hours without success.

The destroyed "Kearny" traveled as anescort of a convoy when it received SOScalls from a second convoy at another placein the Atlantic, which was engaged in a fightwith German naval units. The "Kearny"thereupon altered its course and went to thescene of fighting. where it attacked a Germansubmarine with depth charges. The UnitedStates Secretary of the Navy, Colonel FrankKnox. himself confirmed that the "Kearny"relea~d depth charges and that "only sometime later" were three torpedoes fired at thedestroyer which found their mark.

The Reich Government, therefore, estab­lishes that

a. President Roosevelt's presentation in hisspeech that American destroyers were at­tacked by Germ'an submarines and that,hence. Germany attacked the United States,is not compatible with facts and is disprovedby the official statements of the Americannaval authorities themselves.

b. On the contrary. th,e two Americandestroyers attacked the German submarinesand that, hence, America attacked Germany­which has also been confirmed by the Ameri­can naval authorities." (Transocean. Novem·bel' 2, 1941.)

•

~- .

. '.