LEAGUE OF NATIONS--ITS SCOPE AND AIM
_Just so while it is highly important to have
controversies between nations settled by arbitration
rather than by war, and the growth of sentiment in favour
of that peaceable method of settlement is one of the
great advances in civilisation of this generation; yet
the true basis of peace among men is to be found in a
just and considerate spirit among the people who rule our
modern democracies, in their regard for the rights of
other countries and in their desire to be fair and kindly
in the treatment of the subjects which give rise to
international controversies. The basis of peace and order
is "the self-restraint of the thousands of people who
make up the community, and their willingness to obey the
law and regard the rights of others._"--ELIHU ROOT.
No League of Peace, however, can be sufficient guarantee against a power
which is highly organised, vigorous and united, if it desires war.
Either such a power must be so defeated and so weakened as to be unable
to renew hostilities, or its character so altered as to make it give up
the desire for aggression and domination. As Mr. Gerard points out, "It
is only by an evolution of Germany herself towards Liberalism that the
world will be given such guarantees of future peace as will justify the
termination of this War. Liberalism in this sense does not mean violent
revolution, but does mean a spirit opposed to that which animates the
present Government of Germany, and will continue to do so if no change
is made in that Government." "The whole world," as Mr. Gerard says,
"feels that peace made with its present Government would not be lasting,
that such a peace would mean the detachment of some of the Allies from
the present world alliance against Germany, preparation by Germany in
light of her needs as disclosed by the War, and the declaration of a new
war in which there would be no battle of the Marne to turn back the tide
of German world conquest." No such change of government can be imposed
from without. Every German would resent, and rightly, any such
interference. Mr. Balfour has declared expressly that a claim to change
the form of government in Germany is not one of our war aims. The change
must be a change of spirit, which will not come unless facts prove that
the violent assertion of the claim to domination, to override justice
where self-interest appears to be served thereby, has led to disaster,
and is in reality opposed to self-interest in the long run. As a means
of carrying out the ideas of Germany in its relations with other
countries, it must be admitted that its Government is a singularly
effective machine. It is those ideas which must be given up if a real
change is to be made. The clever devil could have invented nothing
better than the highly organised machinery of the German Government for
doing his work. There are two conditions, at all events, which are
necessary in regard to any such change if permanent peace is to result.
First, that we should not look for a disruption of settled and orderly
government in Germany. The anarchy of Russia does not make for world
peace. Would not a reasonable man, however liberal his views, prefer for
his country the rule of the Kaiser and his devotees to the rule of a
Lenin and of Bolsheviks?
Second, it must be clear that we do not desire the destruction of
Germany--a futile desire, even if not wicked--but its regeneration. No
doubt for a time, whatever happens in Germany, it will be impossible to
forget the crimes that have been committed. British sailors will
naturally refuse all association with those who have been guilty of the
series of murders at sea. Any attempt, however, to exclude Germany from
the markets of the world, permanently to destroy German commerce for all
time, would make permanent peace impossible. To make that a war aim
would be to strengthen every evil influence in Germany, and if done with
the object of securing gain to ourselves by forcible means, would
degrade us almost to the level of those who forced this War upon the
world. It was the purity of our aims that united all the best elements
of the nation in entering upon and in prosecuting the War, and in facing
its losses. It was that which has confirmed the stability of the
alliance, and from the beginning of the War made the best and most
enlightened Americans earnest supporters of our cause, and has finally
brought in the whole American nation, sworn to see the accomplishment of
those aims. The aims with which Britain entered on the War appealed
irresistibly to the people of the whole Empire, and not least to the
imagination of the Indian races. An Indian friend of wide experience and
calm and independent judgment wrote to me at the time, saying he had
never seen anything like the spirit of intense loyalty called out by the
belief of Indians that Britain was taking up a heavy burden to protect
weaker nations from aggression and to maintain justice.[4] Let us keep
those aims pure to the end. It would, of course, be affectation to
suggest that our object in the War is now simply a chivalrous desire to
protect the weak or maintain justice. We now know that it is also to
preserve our own existence as a nation, and that it would be better for
us and our children that Britain should be sunk beneath the sea than
that Germany should achieve a complete victory.
It must be reiterated that until Germans and Austrians can be admitted
to free intercourse with other nations we can have no complete world
peace. For such admission the conditions precedent above stated are
essential. But if these are complied with, we must make our choice
between the possibility of general peace with a League of Nations
embracing all and a state of "veiled and suspended warfare." This
pregnant phrase caught my eye after the foregoing paragraphs were
written. It is one to be remembered.
Although there is no sign at present of a changed spirit in the German
rulers, or in the party which is now dominant in Germany, the prospect
of an alteration in the spirit of the German people is not hopeless,
unless they emerge from the War victorious. A significant passage from a
German paper is quoted by Sir Dugald Clerk in the most valuable and
encouraging address on the "Stability of Britain," delivered by him to
the Royal Society of Arts in 1916. "So the Germans are awakening to a
consciousness of the futility of their dream of domination founded upon
the idea of might, irrespective of the rights of other nations, and they
will ultimately be forced to accept the idea, so strange to them
hitherto, that honesty between nations is as necessary as between man
and man." The whole address should be read as an antidote by any who
take a "gloomy joy in depreciation," as a tonic by those who are
depressed by our failures and apprehensive of our future.
To maintain a real peace based on goodwill, we want to get rid of the
jealous spirit which regards the prosperity of one nation as an injury
to others. "The economic and financial strength of this country is
founded upon the welfare not merely of the British people, but
practically of all countries." "Commerce is not a war. It will be found
that wealth increases simultaneously in industrious nations." "We must
not even forget that a poverty-stricken Germany and Austria would react
on the whole world." "Punish the Germans and Austrians by all
means--they thoroughly deserve it--but do not imagine that by cutting
those nations out of the world's commerce the other nations can be
rendered more wealthy." These general statements do not exclude, of
course, the possibility that it may be found necessary for a time by
"economic pressure" to secure performance by the enemy of certain terms,
nor that, during a period of reconstruction and readjustment, the
conditions affecting certain industries may not demand some special
temporary protection for them. There may for a time have to be
restrictions on certain imports from the enemy countries, and on certain
exports to them, but all such proposals ought to be very jealously
scrutinised, not only in regard to their effect on the particular trades
directly affected, but on the country as a whole. The use of such
weapons often injures those who use them more than those against whom
they are used. Would not a German Minister of Propaganda, or a German
Committee on War Aims, wishing to stimulate active support for the War
among the German masses, be well advised to circulate some of the
resolutions that have been passed by certain bodies in England and
scatter them broadcast in Central Europe, with a few careful glosses and
comments to point the moral? They would be a valuable asset for a German
"ginger group." The open door into and out of this country for
commodities generally has made it an emporium for world trade, and been
one of the main causes why, in spite of deficient home production of
necessaries, we have been able to stand the economic strain of the War.
Striking off the fetters that it has been found necessary to
impose--sometimes with undue strictness and pedantic minuteness--on
British commerce and industry will be one of the first things to be
hoped for from peace. It is impossible to give detailed examples here.
Ask any merchant, he will give you specific instances of the need for a
recovered freedom. Questions are so closely involved with each other
that we may seem to be mixing up national trade interests with the ideal
striving for peace and goodwill. Yet, after all, self-interest rightly
understood and regard for the interests of others, with an honest wish
for their welfare, are not feelings mutually exclusive. There is high
authority for saying that "serving the Lord" is not incompatible with
"diligence in business."
It is quite possible to lay too much stress on the necessity for
definite and formal sanctions to enforce agreements. There are cases in
which the enforcement of a definite penalty for a wrongful act or for
breach of an agreement is very difficult, but in which the "sense of
moral obligation," "respect for public opinion," and "reliance on
principles of mutual consent" do regularly operate so strongly that the
rules of conduct laid down are in fact observed. On the Manchester
Exchange thousands of agreements involving millions of money are made,
the breach of which could not be made the ground of a successful action
at law. The number of cases of repudiation of such agreements is almost
negligible. To plead the Statute of Frauds in an action for non-delivery
or non-acceptance of goods under such informal agreements might be a
defence in the law courts, but would not save the defendant from the
indeterminate but effective penalties due to the feeling of his fellows
that he was acting dishonourably. It is instructive to notice that in
dealing with the question of industrial disputes, which are in many ways
analogous to international, at least where they arise between organised
bodies of employers and of workpeople, the Whitley Committee, in a
supplemental report issued in January, 1918, expressed the opinion: (1)
that no attempt should be made to establish compulsory arbitration or
compulsory legislation to prevent strikes and lock-outs; (2) that there
should be standing arbitration councils or panels of arbitrators to whom
disputes arising could be voluntarily referred; (3) that provision
should be made for independent inquiry and report as to the merits of
trade disputes; (4) that legal penalties for breach of an award or of an
agreement made to settle a trade dispute should not be imposed; (5) that
the decisions of industrial tribunals and arbitrators should be
co-ordinated as far as possible, and that there should be opportunity
for interchange of opinion between the arbitrators whose awards should
be circulated. A body of customary law on the subject would thus grow up
without legal sanction, but of great value in promoting uniformity and
preventing the ill-feeling which would arise from conflicting decisions
in different cases involving similar questions. Those who have taken any
part in deciding questions affecting wages or trade conditions have
found the need of some standard to appeal to, and felt the danger likely
to arise from giving decisions either less or more favourable to either
party than had been given in other districts in similar circumstances.
In an analogous way, decisions of the prize court of one country are
quoted in the courts of other countries, although they are not binding
on them. International Law did exist, and had an important practical
influence. Diplomatists did appeal to it, and the prize tribunals, in
administering the law, stated distinctly that they would be guided by
and would apply the principles of that law, even if the orders issued by
the administrative Government of their own country were at variance with
it. The decision of the Privy Council in the case of the _Zamora_
establishes the principle that the law which prize courts will follow is
International Law, and that they will do so though some Order in Council
may conflict with it.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 4: How strong this belief was among many of those who had
often been in opposition to the British Government was shown at a
meeting in Bombay early in the War. The enthusiastic speech of the
chairman, the late Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, one of the ablest and most
persistent critics of British rule in India for very many years, is one
to be remembered.]