Слике страница
PDF
ePub

tion in time of war but in time of peace they are silent protectors of commerce and of the larger economic interests of the nation, and they add prestige and support to negotiations and to diplomacy. This is only another way of saying that force holds a very large place in present-day international relations. Nations still, unfortunately, understand best the language of power. Armies and navies hold a vital place in our modern world which lacks organization to remove the causes which make for war. Armaments are inseparable from the policies which they support. Nations will not give up their armies and their navies until they are given security in some other form of guarantee. War and preparation for war are inevitable products of causes operating in an unregulated, anarchistic world. Peoples fight whenever they see no other way to security; they would rather submit to the hardships of war than to a condition which they believe to be worse.

ARMAMENTS OR INTERNATIONAL

COÖPERATION

By the proper extension of conciliation and coöperation it is possible to create practically a warless world; but that will not be accomplished by those pacifists, the worst of the enemies to peace, who believe that war can be voted off the earth. Very probably among those who talk sentimentally about peace and internationalism would be found the first to denounce our Government if our coasts were left defenseless and as a result American territory were invaded. In the world as now constituted war is the final arbiter in many issues and if we are contented to leave international relations inadequately organized, any nation which hopes to maintain a position of respect and prestige in the world must prepare and perfect its war plans.

Too much effort today is made to shut our eyes to this fact. If our security depends upon the Army and the Navy, it is our duty to make them strong and to apply to their development all our knowledge and all our energy. National defense demands, for example, the assurance of an adequate supply of essential raw materials. They are necessary for the successful operation of the Army and the Navy. Provision must be made not only for a major product such as petroleum but for lesser products such as, for example, iodine, quinine and manganese. The vital importance of raw materials was emphasized by the experience of the late war. Two tons of steel, 0.2 tons of copper, and 0.15 tons of fixed nitrogen are required in modern war operations to keep one man in the field for a year. No nation for this reason can wage modern war successfully if it does not control within its own borders, or at least have uninterrupted access to, sources of essential materials, particularly iron and steel.

The public seldom realizes the amount of careful study and planning done by the leaders of our Army and our Navy. Every conceivable situation is canvassed and plans are made of the operations which would be necessary to meet any emergency which might arise. It may be said to be strange that in a reputed intelligent world leading minds of the nations should be engaged constantly on working out plans for organized killing and destruction. But this situation will not be corrected by merely reducing army and navy appropriations or by resolutions to abolish war. The roots of the problem lie further back and until we organize our world differently and until we remove the causes which contribute to war, it will continue to be a national duty to maintain our defensive forces at an adequate level.

INTERNATIONAL COÖPERATION THE
BETTER WAY

Our imperialistically organized world has its defenders. Diplomacy and war, it is argued, do solve the world problems. But do they? Is imperialism with its necessity of using force as the means of finally settling international disputes to be accepted as final or is it merely a stage in man's slow progress toward a better ordering of his common life? There can be but one answer to these questions. The choice between force and international cooperation is more apparent than real. Nowhere does nationalism break down more disastrously than in its use of force. War and armaments do not provide security. They are not real solutions of world problems. Modern war is about to destroy the agency which it seeks to preserve, namely, the nation. It has become frightfully devastating. Science, intended have a beneficial effect on the race, has been turned against mankind. Chemistry and physics in particular have contributed to the work of destruction and killing. Marvelous scientific and material progress during the last half century has made war a struggle between whole peoples, with the result that industry and commerce have become a part of the fighting machine. War plans now relate, not merely to plans of battle in the field, but to the organization of whole populations, men and women, young and old, for the purpose of waging the conflict.

to

When war was merely a contest between armies and armies; and between navies and navies; that is, the organized fighting forces, it was serious enough; but not at all in the same degree that it is to day. Once a nation had to ask only whether it could win in the field; now it must ask what will be the cost of winning, and will

the victor be better off than the vanquished. Reparations, we have learned, are illusory in an exhausted world. A weaker nation may have strategic strength enough to win over the stronger power, because of the sheer exhaustion of the latter. Those who make war must look well ahead and consider the ultimate consequences of the results that follow upon warthe destruction of capital, the draining of funds from the country, the dislocation of the delicate credit machinery of the modern world, the depreciation of currency, the disorganization of markets, the destruction of purchasing power, and the lowering of the morale of whole peoples.

Our civilization is none too stable as it is, even without war. The higher man climbs in material progress the less stable his position becomes. He must continually exert his energy to build and reconstruct and to combat the naturally destructive forces that are constantly operating. When, however, man himself turns his energies to destruction, the end comes in sight, not only of the nation but of civilization itself. It will become evident, in the long run, if it be not evident now, that the world cannot stand the luxury of war.

INTERNATIONAL COÖPERATION
PRESERVES NATIONALITY

Our civilization on its material side has outrun our social organization. The nation, still useful and effective for many purposes, fails at many points in its effort to meet the demands of our modern. inter-related world. Extreme theories of national sovereignty, international anarchy, and war constitute an inseparable trio. We shall not love our nation less, or serve it less, if we understand its place in the family of nations, and if we realize that coöperation with other na

itions is the way to solve essentially international questions. By adopting coöperation as the means of solving the problems of the world's commerce and finance, a nation gives up nothing that is really worth keeping and it takes the only course that in the long run will preserve the finest features of nationality. Where nationalism breaks down, therefore, international coöperation must begin. A direct participation by each nation in the solution of world problems is necessary for the very practical reason that it is the only way to save the nation as a unit of society. It is the only way to establish national security.

In international perhaps even more than in domestic matters then our social and political organization has not kept pace with our technical development. We live in a modern world of industry and natural science, but we live in an ancient world of ethical, social, and political standards. In some cases there exist laws which do

not do justice under these new economic conditions; in other cases there are phases of life to which the regulating effects of law do not extend. Catastrophe awaits civilization if we are not willing to develop social and political controls to regulate the great forces of our material civilization in order that they may operate more equitably. We are suffering today from a too rapid advance in science and in commercial and industrial organization without a corresponding advance in social and governmental organization. This is nowhere more true than in international relations. Industry and commerce have expanded, requiring materials and markets, and nations have attempted to conserve their interests, but international government has lagged behind. One of the great tasks of the century is to create an adequate international commercial law, and to perfect the machinery for administering and interpreting it.

CHAPTER XIII

THE BASIS OF NATIONAL SECURITY

National power and national security from one point of view appear to be synonymous conceptions. Make the Make the nation powerful by industrial, commercial, financial and military measures and you appear to make the nation secure. But it has not worked out in that way. When one nation's economic life expands and its army and navy grow strong, surrounding nations, feeling insecure, attempt either singly or in combination to become a match for this growing state and it in turn, believing its position threatened, feels insecure. With several powerful nations seeking security by imperialistic measures the result has been uncertainty, instability and insecurity.

Permanent national security, then, must be sought not in temporary expedients like armaments but in the firm establishment of a set of principles to regulate the relations, particularly the economic relations, of states. Security will follow only when each state accepts these principles and permits them to be applied against its immediate interests in order to benefit from like concessions from other states. States will obtain, for example, commercial security and certainty only by offering to other states similar security and certainty. They find true national safety in limiting their individual power and strengthening the methods of international coöperation.

NATIONAL SAFETY THROUGH INTER

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION

This conclusion is not mere theory, but a principle already recognizable in the negotiations of states. The tendency of national control to break down as soon as it attempts to deal with essentially international questions has resulted in the negotiation of thousands of international agreements which limit the action of nations. The significance of this world treaty structure, which is too often taken for granted, should be emphasized, for it is an admission of the principle that national security and prosperity do depend upon coöperation with-giving to and taking fromother nations. It has produced an international law of peace and a vast network of bilateral and multilateral treaties and international arrangements. Nations in thousands of treaties have, under the guidance of selfinterest, limited their power in the interest of their security. The worldwide tendency since the days of mercantilism has been to modify the harsh, bitter competition of those times by commercial treaties and to introduce into international commercial dealings the principles of equality and fair dealing.

Improve Commercial Treaties

The first step in any program for world understanding should be the improvement of the world's commercialtreaty structure. Much remains to be done in this prosaic field of endeavor. If nations cannot succeed in this phase of coöperation, they will not be able to work together on larger issues. This is a task to which our own Government has turned its attention. Our present commercial-treaty structure is antiquated and ill-adapted to modern economic conditions. By means of bilateral treaties we should be able to

obtain for our nationals guarantees of equality and fair treatment in markets, in the distribution of raw materials, and in the investment of capital in many areas of the earth.

Many matters now ordinarily dealt with in numerous bilateral treaties could be disposed of with less friction under a code of general international commercial law. Several important principles, however, can be made effective through commercial-treaty negotiations even of the bilateral kind.

The first is the most-favored-nation principle, of which there are two important interpretations. The United States, on the one hand, has advocated in the past the conditional interpretation of the most-favored-nation clause. Under American precedents a concession made by one contracting party to a third state was extended immediately to the other contracting party only when that concession was made gratuitously and without compensation. If the concession was made for a consideration, it was not extended to the other contracting state unless an equivalent concession was given in return. The application of this interpretation has led to endless complications and difficulties. On the other hand, the treaty structure of Europe before 1914 rested on the unconditional interpretation of the most-favored-nation clause, which provided that, when a concession was granted to a third power, it was immediately and automatically generalized to all nations entitled to be treated as a "most-favored-nation." Europe's experience with this interpretation was not entirely happy, but the reason for the result must be sought elsewhere. The tariff wars and kindred troubles in Europe grew out of the practice of negotiating short-term treaties on the basis of two-column tariff systems. systems. When the treaties expired, they could be re-established only with

great difficulty and after much ill-will in bargaining.

Indications are not lacking that the United States is about to modify its attitude toward the most-favored-nation clause in commercial treaties. The declaration of policy in Section 317 of the Tariff Act of 1922 indicates that Congress no longer excepts from the definition of "discrimination" concessions granted in return for other concessions; this law provides for penalty duties to be imposed in any case where a foreign nation

[ocr errors]

discriminates in fact against the commerce of the United States in such manner as to place the commerce of the United States at a disadvantage compared with the commerce of any foreign country.

In the American-Turkish Treaty, moreover, the unconditional mostfavored-nation principle is embodied. Our relations with Brazil have recently by an exchange of notes been placed on the basis of the unconditional mostfavored-nation principle. In our early history there was, no doubt, some justification for the conditional interpretation of the most-favored-nation clause; but that justification no longer exists. The unconditional interpretation is the natural accompaniment of the open door principle for which the American Government has so consistently stood. Both the unconditional interpretation of the most-favored-nation clause and the open door principle tend to establish commercial equality and on this basis any international understanding must rest.

A second principle not so well known but occurring as frequently in commercial treaties is the principle of national treatment. National treatment is a guarantee that the citizens of each of the contracting states shall enjoy the same treatment with respect to the specified matters as is accorded

to the nationals of the other country. Citizens of Great Britain are guaranteed national treatment under the treaty of 1815 with respect to shipping in the ports of the United States; that is, no discrimination is permitted against goods which are brought into the United States in British ships as compared with like goods imported into the United States in American ships. The national treatment section of the treaty would be violated if the United States were to grant goods imported in American ships a 5 per cent customs rebate over similar goods imported in British ships. Another illustration of national treatment is the treaty between Great Britain and the German Zollverein, which terminated in 1898. By this treaty German goods were guaranteed the same treatment in British colonies as that accorded to British goods. It was unfortunate that this treaty was terminated, because it represented a distinct forward step in international commercial relations. Its denunciation was a step backward in the same sense as was the American abandonment of the open door for the Philippines after we had maintained that principle there for ten years.

Most-favored-nation treatment and national treatment do not, however, meet all cases. This is particularly true of distribution of raw materials when the supply is concentrated. If Americans alone owned all the sisal plantations in Yucatan, all the rubber in the Federated Malay States, and all the nitrates in Chile, guarantees of national treatment would not, save our manufacturers and consumers from the effects of foreign state policies which force up prices by restricting the quantity to be exported or by levying unduly high export duties. Treaty guarantees should be obtained effective under all circumstances against any

« ПретходнаНастави »