« ПретходнаНастави »
call a halt, and instantly to prepare for “the next war," in five or ten years' time, when her new crop of cannon fodder is ripe for harvesting.
That is why Germany is now eager for the “status quo ante.” Next time she expects to win.
WHAT WOULD STATUS QUO BE? Let us see what the “status quo ante” practically means. It means, to begin with, the continued mutilation of Poland, the complete negation of President Wilson's just demand for a Poland "united and independent"; for Prussia has no intention of giving up her Polish provinces. She intends, instead, to extirpate the Poles.
It means, next, the perpetuation of grievous wrongs in Austria-Hungary, where 28,000,000 Slavs and Latins are held in shameful helotry by 20,000,000 Teutons and Magyars; the tearing of the Serbian nation into three fragments; Croatia and Slavonia being ruled by Hungary, with the characteristic injustice of the Magyar toward subject races; Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dalmatia being held by Austria; while Montenegro and Serbia, nominally independent, are kept in economic bondage. A like mutilation of the long tried SzechoSlovak nation in the north.
Further, it will mean the practical ownership by the Teuton overlords of Bulgaria, and of the “Turkish” Empire, with a perpetuation of the infamous tyranny and massacres so long practiced in Armenia and Syria.
Thus to betray these subject and long-tortured peoples would be little short of infamous. But to betray them in the name of “a finer humanity and democracy” would be a ghastly jest.
But that is not all. After her wars of 1864-66, Germany, beside breaking Austria, annexed Hesse, Hanover and Nassau, which she had ruthlessly conquered. She drilled their men and used them in her war of 1870 against France. Seizing Alsace-Lorraine in 1871, she drilled their men, and is using them to-day in her war against France and her allies.
She will do exactly this now if "peace without annexation or contribution" leaves in her talons Austria-Hungary (now, in fact, a vassal), Bulgaria and the vast "Turkish” Empire, which is, to-day, ruled from Berlin. This will give her, within the decade, some 200,000,000 of population, with a Prussian-trained army of some 10,000,000 men.
That is precisely what she wanted. That is what the "democratic and humanitarian” policy of the status quo ante of "peace without annexation or contribution” will give her. It is hard to decide which quality would be more marked in this: suicidal folly or wickedness.
MUST LIBERATE THE OPPRESSED.
What would be the result, for the two powers, Russia and the United States, who are now invited to commit this piece
EVENTUAL WORLD PEACE
of folly and crime, in the name of “democracy and humanity”? Germany has frankly told us. Germany intends to conquer Western Russia, which will then be not Germanized but enslaved. As for ourselves, Germany's purpose was crisply stated by Rear Admiral von Goetzen at Manila in 1898:
“We intend to take a billion or so of your dollars from New York and other places. The Monroe Doctrine will be taken charge of by us, as we will then have to put you in your place, and we will take charge of South America, as far as we wish to."
It is a fundamental principle in law that a man intends the natural results of his actions. Do those who are now trying to set Russia and the United States against France, Italy and England intend the natural, nay, the inevitable result of what they propose, in the name of “democracy and humanity"?
No; at whatever cost-at the cost of three years more of war if need be—these cruelly enslaved races must be liberated; those that are strong enough must have complete freedom and independence; those that are still too weak, through prolonged slavery, must be protected by the Entente powers till they are strong enough to stand alone. Gentlemen, if this be “imperialism,” make the most of it.
(New York Times, July 18, 1917.)
H. [$327] PROSPECTS OF EVENTUAL WORLD PEACE THROUGH
1. Specific References on the Section.
Bryce, James. “War and Human Progress,” in Atlantic Monthly,
Review, vol. 103, pp. 408-422 (Mar., 1915).
Review, vol. 205, pp. 25-30 (Jan., 1917).
Times Current History, IV, 464-467 (June, 1916).
LXXXIX, 503-511 (Feb., 1915).
X, 287-291 (Jan. 13, 1917).
1915.) A series of essays written in various countries.
2. Documents and Extracts.
(a) [$328] Disarmament No Remedy.
By H. C. NUTTING. The radical advocate of peace may perhaps at times feel impatient that the great mass of citizens are so slow to catch
the inspiration of his theme. This failure to respond, however, is due in large measure to the inconclusive character of many of the arguments advanced in support of the peace propaganda. In particular the following points invite attention:
EXAMPLE OF CANADIAN BORDER.
In the first place, it is contended that the way to secure peace is to prepare for it by disarming; and attention is directed to the long, unguarded boundary line between the United States and Canada—the inference being that our peaceful relations with Canada are due to the fact that there are no engines of war on the border. But is not this a case of confusing cause and effect, i. e., is it not rather true that disarmament is here an effect of the increasing spirit of fraternity between the United States and Canada and the elimination of possible causes of serious dispute between the two countries?
The correctness of this analysis might be more evident, perhaps, if we should for the moment suppose the situation to be a very different one—that Canada was occupied by a nation diverse in stock, traditions and ideals; that both the United States and Canada were populated to a point where land hunger was developing; and that a strip of country lay between which each coveted, and which each felt it a point of national honor to secure and hold.
If these were the conditions, our present peaceful frontier would undoubtedly wear a very different aspect. As it is, the two countries are so much at one that thousands of immigrants yearly cross the border, hardly conscious that they are passing from one country to another, and the absence of any questions likely to lead to serious dispute renders it as unnecessary to garrison this border as it is for the individual States of the Union to fortify themselves against one another.
If, therefore, the present condition of the boundary line between the United States and Canada has any lesson to teach, it is simply this: that mutual understanding and common interests and the elimination of possible causes of serious dispute lead the way naturally and almost automatically to disarmament.
DOES ARMAMENT BRING WAR?
In the second place, it is argued that armament is, in and for itself, the ultimate cause of war. This argument presupposes nations living at peace until nation A builds a dreadnought; then nation B becomes suspicious regarding the intentions of nation A, and builds two dreadnoughts; this alarms nation A, which builds two additional dreadnoughts, and so on; finally the suspicion engendered by this competition in armament results in war.
The objection to this argument is that it wholly disregards two fundamental facts: (1) that some among the nations of the earth entertain burning national or racial ambitions that
cannot be realized except by the use of force; and (2) that some preach openly, and freely adopt, as their guiding policy, the principle that might makes right. Given one nation of the first class stirred by such ambition and guided by such a philosophy, and rivalry in armament follows as a matter of course; for the neighbors must either submit to aggression or prepare to defend themselves, and they naturally choose the second alternative.
It is interesting to note that even some rather uncompromising advocates of peace—though still demanding, somewhat illogically, immediate disarmament—are beginning to incline to the view that war cannot be eliminated finally except by a process of education that will uproot aggressive national and racial ambitions, establish the principle that right is might, and make every one content to submit to an award of arbitration, even though it is a disappointment. It is hard to understand, however, how even the most ardent advocate of peace can hope for a consummation of this kind in the near future; and, on the other hand, when one views the present turmoil in Europe, the plans of the League to Enforce Peace do not seem to offer any prospect of immediate relief. It certainly would require a large and effective world police force to cope with a situation like the present.
In pushing the peace propaganda, two other very flimsy objections are raised against adequate preparation for national defence. One is the assertion that so large an army would be required that it would be necessary to resort to conscription. But those who advance this objection seem to forget the great difference between the situation in North America and conditions in Europe. For its inland borders the United States needs no considerable guard; and nature imterposes a fortification of some thousands of miles of water on east and west. The harbors of both coasts could certainly be made safe, and an adequate second line of defence provided for, without enlisting an army that would drain the resources of the country or appear to neighbors across the sea to menace their respective countries.
FINANCE OF WAR.
The other objection is based on financial considerations. We are informed that any adequate plan for national defence would cost too much money, and the prudent householder is warned that "taxes would go up." Stated thus bluntly, this argument has a rather sordid look. It appears in a more respectable guise when we are told what good use could be made of the money that is now spent on military equipment and pensions--how we might endow colleges, extirpate tuberculosis, etc. But this matter can be viewed from a very different angle. The Nation has recently pointed out that the United States spends more money annually for chewing gum than it does for school books. If we need a larger ap
propriation for education or sanitation, why not begin the retrenchment with chewing gum rather than with the national defence ?
(Nation, vol. 101, supp., pp. 3-4; Dec. 23, 1915.)
[$329] Judicial Settlement of International Disputes.
BY JAMES BROWN Scott.
I deem it indispensable that any international court of justice which it is hoped to create must be one of limited jurisdiction. We cannot ask the nations to create overnight an international court with the extensive jurisdiction that national courts possess. We must be content to wait upon experience, not to anticipate it. If we can but make a beginning, and if in a small way and within a limited range, we do the task well which has been entrusted to our hands, we may expect to be entrusted with something larger. If the nations be shown that the international court meets their expectations, that it can safely be trusted with larger jurisdiction, and that their interests can be confided to judges sworn to administer the law without fear or favor, they will enlarge the jurisdiction of the court, so that it may become adequate to the needs of nations. Time is required for this, and we must not overlook the element of time in international insti. tutions, especially where we are asking things to be done which have never been done before or where the experience has been so slight in comparison with the need. The utmost extent to which the nations could go is stated in the preamble to the Pacific Settlement Convention, in which the safety of states and the well-being of their peoples are declared to rest upon the principles of equity and right. That is to say, an international court of justice shall be a court in the technical sense of the word, that the duties of the judges shall be judicial, and that they may not step beyond the domain of equity and of right. But it may be wise to delimit the field, to agree that but a small category of the cases covered by equity and right shall be submitted to the court, and, as the result of experience, to invest it with the full jurisdiction of a judicial tribunal. And, finally, for I dare not go into details, the court should determine its own jurisdiction. however large or however small that jurisdiction may be.
JUSTICIABLE QUESTION. There are many questions of a legal nature which should not be submitted to the court, because courts deal with judiciál or justiciable questions, to use a phrase which is much in vogue to-day. Whether a question is judicial or justiciable and within the scope of the court, or whether it is a legislative or an executive question-or, in other words, whether the question is judicial on the one hand or political on the other-must be passed upon before the court can perform its function. A nation in controversy should not pass upon