721.23/1469: Telegram
The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 22—5:47 p.m.]
156. Supplementing my 155, March 22, 3 p.m., it has occurred to me that certain thoughts on the situation here might be of interest to you in considering the larger aspect of the embargo matter.
It is obvious that League members, especially the more ardent protagonists of the integral application of the Covenant, including article 16, are anxious to establish a precedent based on the case of Leticia, which can be invoked in considering the much more serious Manchurian matter or future eventualities elsewhere. The case against Peru is so clear-cut that to the doctrinaire mind it is almost welcomed in order to put into motion the machinery established by the Covenant and create a precedent for the further and more important use of this machinery.
Furthermore, I believe that the thought uppermost in the minds of these League members is the punitive aspect of an embargo and their desire to take action against an aggressor. This idea, as the underlying basis of an embargo, differs radically, if I am correct, from the object with which we have hitherto established embargoes, namely, on general grounds of humanity with special reference to diminishing the extent of civil strife in unstable regions of the world, and a desire to do our part in rendering armed conflict difficult. Thus our action in relation to Peru should be considered from the point of view of the precedent it establishes both in relation to Japan and to possible eventualities on the European continent. In this connection I am thinking of the sound reasons hinted at in the second paragraph of your 85, March 11, 7 p.m.55