Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

discussion lifted, we could plainly see that long steps in advance had been taken, and that there was coming to be a more fundamental and far-reaching agreement among the nations as to what was wise and practicable in the steady substitution of the rule of justice for the rule of force among men.

To-day, however, the most optimistic observer of the movement of public opinion in the world must confess himself perplexed, if not amazed, by some of the striking phenomena which meet his view. Edmund Burke said he did not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people; but perhaps it may be easier to detect emotional insanity than to draw up an indictment for crime. The storm-center of the world's weather to-day is to be found in the condition of mind of the English people. The nation which for generations has contributed so powerfully to the world's progress, appears to be possessed for the moment with the evil spirit of militarism. It is hard to reconcile the exaggerated utterances of responsible statesmen in Parliament and on the platform; the loud beating of drums and the sounding of alarms in the public press; and the flocking of the populace to view a tawdry and highly sensational drama of less than third-rate importance for the sake of its contribution to their mental obsession by hobgoblins and the ghosts of national enemies and invaders, with the temperament of a nation that has acclaimed the work of Howard, Wilberforce and Shaftesbury, and whose public life was so long dominated by William Ewart Gladstone.

What has happened? If an opinion may be ventured by an observer whose friendliness amounts to real affection, and who is in high degree jealous of the repute of the English people and of their place in the van of the world's civilization, it is that this irrational and emotional outburst is attendent upon a readjustment of relative position and importance among the nations, due to economic and intellectual causes, which readjustment is interpreted by the English in terms of the politics of the first Napoleon rather than in terms of the politics of the industrial and intelligent democracies of the twentieth century. Germany is steadily gaining in importance, and England is in turn losing some of her long-standing relative primacy. The causes are easy to discover and are in no just sense provocative of war or strife. Indeed, it is highly probable that war, if it should come, would only hasten the change it was entered upon to prevent.

Within a generation the pressure of German competition has been severely felt in the trade and commerce of every part of the world. The intensive application of the discoveries of theoretical science to industrial processes has made Germany, in a sense, the world's chief teacher in its great international school of industry and commerce. With this over-sea trade expansion has gone the building of a German navy. It appears to be the building of this navy which has so roused the passions of the English people. For the moment, we are not treated to the well-known paradox that the larger a nation's navy the less likely it is to be used in combat and the more certain is the peace of the world. The old Adam asserts himself long enough to complain in this case that if a navy is building in Germany it must be intended for offensive use; and against whom could the German people possibly intend to use a navy except against England? One must needs ask, then, what reason is to be found in the nature of the

German people, in the declarations of their responsible rulers, or in the political relations between Germany and any other nation, for the belief that the German navy alone, among all modern navies, is building for a warlike purpose? Those of us who feel that the business of navy-building is being greatly overdone may well wish that the German naval program were much more restricted than it is. But, waiving that point for the moment, what ground is there for the suspicion so widespread in England against Germany, and for the imputations to Germany of evil intentions toward England? Speaking for myself, and making full use of such opportunities for accurate information as I have enjoyed, I say with the utmost emphasis and with entire sincerity that I do not believe there is any ground whatever for those suspicions or for those imputations. Nor has adequate ground for them been given by any responsible person.

Are we to believe, for example, that the whole public life in both Germany and England is part of an opera bouffe, and that all the public declarations of responsible leaders of opinion are meaningless? Is there no truth and frankness and decency left in the world? The whole idea is too preposterous for words, and it is the duty of the thoughtful and sincere friends of the English people, in this country and in every country, to bring them to see the unreasonableness, to use no stronger term, of their present national attitude. If justice be substituted for force, England will always be safe.

The greatest present obstacle to the limitation of the armaments under the weight of which the world is staggering toward bankruptcy; the greatest obstacle to carrying forward those social and economic reforms for which every nation is crying out, appears to me to be the insistence by England on what it calls the two-power naval standard. It will be observed that in computing the so-called two-power standard, the English jingoes count as contingent enemies the French and Japanese, with both of whom their nation is in closest alliance, and also the Russians, with whom the English are now on terms of cordial friendship. In other words, unless all these treaties of alliance and comity are a fraud and a sham, the two-power standard of England is directed solely at Germany. By the maintenance of this doctrine under the circumstances it is, I profoundly regret to say, the English who become the aggressive party in this international debate, and it is the English who must retreat from the position into which they have drifted or been driven, before any more progress can be made in the organization of the world on those very principles for which the English themselves have time-long stood, and for whose development and application they have made such stupendous sacrifices and performed such herculean service.

It is difficult to see how any responsible English statesman who has read the majority and minority reports recently laid before Parliament by the Poor Law Commission, can for one moment turn aside from the stern duty of national protection against economic, educational and social evils at home to follow the will-o'-the-wisp of national protection against a non-existent foreign enemy. It is the plain duty of the friends of both England and Germany to exert every possible influence to promote a better understanding of each of these peoples by the other, and to point out the folly, not to speak of the wickedness, of permitting the seeds of discord to be sown between them by any element in the population of either.

The alternative to press upon the attention of mankind is that of huge armaments or social and economic improvement. The world cannot have both. There is a limit to man's capacity to yield up taxes for public use. Economic consumption is now heavily taxed everywhere. Accumulated wealth is being sought out in its hiding places, and is constantly being loaded with a heavier burden. All this can not go on forever. The world must choose.

Despite everything the political organization of the world in the interest of peace and justice proceeds apace. The movement is as sure as an Alpine glacier, and it has now become much more easily perceptible.

There is to be established at The Hague beyond any question, either by the next Hague Conference or before it convenes by the leading nations of the world, acting along the lines of the principles adopted at the second Hague Conference, a high court of international justice. It is as clearly indicated as anything can be that that court is to become the supreme court of the world.

The Interparliamentary Union, which has within a few weeks adopted a permanent form of organization and chosen a permanent secretary, whose headquarters are to be in the Peace Palace at The Hague itself— an occurrence of the greatest public importance now attracts to its membership representatives of almost every parliamentary body in the world. At its last meeting, in Berlin, the Parliament of Japan, the Russian Duma, and the Turkish Parliament were represented. By their side sat impressive delegations from the parliaments of England, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands, the Scandinavian nations, as well as eight or ten representatives of the American Congress. In this Interparliamentary Union lies the germ of a coming federation of the world's legislatures which will be established in the near future, and whose powers and functions, if not precisely defined at first, will grow naturally from consultative to that authority of which wisdom and justice can never be divested.

Where, then, in this coming political organization of the world is the international executive to be found? Granting that we have at the Hague an international court; granting that we have sitting, now at one national capital and now at another, what may be called a consultative international parliament, in what direction is the executive authority to be looked for? The answer to this vitally important question has been indicated by no less an authority than Senator Root in his address before the American Society of International Law more than a year ago. Mr. Root showed, as he readily could, that nations, day by day, yield to arguments which have no compulsion behind them, and that as a result of such arguments they are constantly changing policies, modifying conduct, and offering redress for injuries. Why is this? Because the public opinion of the world is the true international executive. No law, even a municipal law, can long be effective without a supporting public opinion.

In this same direction lies the highest hope of civilization. What the world's public opinion demands of nations or of international conferences, it will get. What the world's public opinion is determined to enforce, will be enforced. The occasional brawler and disturbed of the peace in international life will one day be treated as is the occasional brawler and disturber of the peace in the streets of a great city. The aim of this Conference, and of every gathering of like

character, must insistently and persistently be the education of the public opinion of the civilized world.

We Americans have a peculiar responsibility toward the political organization of the world. Whether we recognize it or not, we are universally looked to, if not to lead in this undertaking at least to contribute powerfully toward it. Our professions and our principles are in accord with the highest hopes of mankind. We owe it to ourselves, to our reputation and to our influence, that we do not by our conduct belie those principles and those professions; that we do not permit selfish interests to stir up among us international strife and ill-feeling; that we do not permit the noisy boisterousness of irresponsible youth, however old in years or however high in place, to lead us into extravagant expenditures for armies and navies; and that, most of all, we shall cultivate at home and in our every relation, national and international, that spirit of justice which we urge so valiantly upon others.

Immediately upon its delivery the address was given great publicity in the press and it can not be doubted that its circulation in Great Britain and Germany will have a great and a restraining influence upon responsible statesmen and the enlightened public.

The program adopted by the conference appropriately calls attention. to the progress made in the ten years succeeding the meeting of the First Hague Conference, and then urges upon the government of the United States to take the initiative in giving effect to the various provisions and recommendations of the First and Second Conferences which still await adoption. Comment upon this admirable document is unnecessary, for it is well-night impossible to express in shorter, more intelligible, or better chosen terms, the needs of the present and immediate future. It reads as follows:

The Fifteenth Annual Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration, meeting on the tenth aniversary of the opening of the first Hague Conference, reviews with profound satisfaction the signal advance of the cause of international justice during the decade, a progress unexampled in any previous period in history. The memorable achievements of this period are at once an inspiration and an imperative call to renewed effort.

We urge upon our government, which has been so conspicuously and so honorably identified with the progressive policies of The Hague, prompt action toward perfecting the important measures there inaugurated and the complete development of the system or arbitration. We especially urge its early initiative in the establishment of the International Court of Arbitral Justice.

We further urge the negotiation of a general treaty of arbitration between all nations, and look forward with increasing hope to the day when treaties of arbitration shall provide for the reference to The Hague of all international differences not settled by regular diplomatic negotiation.

The clear logic of the Hague conventions prescribes the limitation and gradual

reduction of the machinery of war by the nations parties to those conventions, corresponding to the development of the instrumentalities of law and justice for the settlement of international differences. The great armaments of the nations, whose intolerable burdens prompted the call to the first Hague Conference, have during the decade increased so portentously as to have now become, as recently declared by the British Foreign Secretary, a satire upon civilization. They fill the world with apprehension and alarm; they create an atmosphere unfavorable to the system of arbitration; and their drain upon the resources of the peoples has become so exhausting as to menace all national treasuries and disastrously check the social reforms and advances which the interests of humanity demand. It is the opinion of this Conference that the time has arrived for carrying into effect the strongly expressed desire of the two Peace Conferences at The Hague that the governments “examine the possibility of an agreement as to the limitation of armed forces by land and sea, and of war budgets" and address themselves to the serious study of this pressing question. Accordingly we ask our government to consider whether the peculiar position which it occupies among the nations does not afford it a special opportunity to lead the way toward making these weighty declarations a basis of public and concerted action.

THE BALKAN SITUATION

The last chapter of the Balkan situation, which began in October, 1908, came to an end in March, when Servia, because of Russia's attitude of conciliation, accepted the annexation by Austria-Hungary of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an accomplished fact, agreed to reduce to a peace footing its military forces, which it had been mobilizing throughout the winter, and formally declared that the action of the Vienna government furnished no ground for Servian complaint. Turkey had already accepted a substantial indemnity and certain concessions from Austria in lieu of the barren right of legal sovereignty over the annexed provinces. Bulgaria, through the good offices and assistance of Russia, had also come to an agreement with Turkey as to compensation for the loss of its suzerainty over Bulgaria and sovereignty over Eastern Rumelia. Thus the war-clouds, which gathered last autumn along the Danube and the northern Macedonian border, have been dispelled, and European interest in the Near East has been diverted from the Balkans to Constantinople, where the reactionary revolution so soon gave place to the counter-revolution of the Young Turks with the resulting deposition of Abdul Hamid II.

While the course taken by the Austrian government in proclaiming, without the consent of the powers, the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was a direct violation of the Treaty of Berlin, the actual result

« AnteriorContinuar »