bound together like mountain climbers in the Alps by a rope, the Tsar
has said, ‘Let us make a common endeavor, let us pause on this path
which leads to the abyss, else we are lost.’
“A halt, then! Fellow-delegates, it is our duty to use our utmost
endeavors. It will be worth while. Let us call a halt!”
This speech, spoken in an impassioned voice, aroused amazement. Many
could not refrain from applause; others could hardly help shaking
their heads. Some one is said to have remarked, “Bebel, out and out!”
Now the Russian motion was submitted.
THE PROGRAMME
Colonel von Schilinsky’s remarks:
... “It may be asked, gentlemen, whether the nations represented at
the Conference will be perfectly satisfied if we bring them the
arbitration tribunal and laws for seasons of war, but nothing for
seasons of peace,—this armed peace, which bears so heavily upon them
that often the statement is heard that an open war would be better
than this concealed war of armaments, this perpetual rivalry where
every nation exhibits greater armies in time of peace than it ever did
before during the greatest wars.
... “Moreover, this continued increase of military power fails to
attain its object, for the relative strength of the various countries
remains the same. If any government increases its troops, forms new
battalions, its neighbor follows its example without delay, so as to
preserve the proportions; the neighbor’s neighbor does the same, and
so it goes on without end. The effective increases, but the
proportions remain about the same.
... “Moreover, we are proposing nothing new. The limitation of
contingents and of the budget has long been customary in many
countries. For example, there is the _Septennat_ in Germany. This
means that the total number of the troops in time of peace is fixed
for seven—now five—years. In Russia also the war budget is established
on a five years’ basis. So it is a question of well-known measures
which have been used for a long time, which alarm no one, and which
bring about good results; it is a question of applying these
regulations for even a shorter time, if you please. The only novelty
about it is the resolution, the courage to state that it is time to
call a halt.
And Russia moves that we call a halt.”
After Colonel von Schilinsky had spoken, Captain Sheïn made a similar
proposal for the navy. All this perfectly corresponds with what Emperor
Nicholas said to Stead, and also with the utterances that Muravieff had
made in my presence.
The truth is, the Russian government, in the presence of the whole
world, in behalf of the welfare of all nations, has officially proposed
to the other governments that they should come to an agreement
henceforth not to increase armaments. At the same time, it has clearly
opened up the prospect of a subsequent reduction. The accompanying
proposals for a permanent tribunal, the arbitration code, and the
propositions regarding mediation as well,—all this shows that, whatever
the decisions of the Conference may be, the promoters have done their
part honorably.
Session of June 26. The Commission assembles again. Léon Bourgeois has
arrived. Colonel von Schwarzhoff is opposing the Russian motion. He
takes sides also against General den Beer Poortugael; he cannot, he
says, accept these ideas, and is unwilling that his silence should be
construed as assent. The German people is not oppressed by the weight of
taxes; it is not on the sheer edge of the abyss; it is not hastening to
ruin,—quite the contrary. As regards the universal duty to bear arms,
the German does not regard it as a heavy burden but as a sacred and
patriotic duty, to the fulfillment of which he owes his existence, his
prosperity, and his future. Then he speaks of the difficulties which
beset the plan of limiting armaments, and explains that it would meet
with insuperable technical obstacles.
The German delegate’s speech is regarded by the others as a clear proof
that Germany is going to vote against the limitation motion.
Then Schilinsky, Den Beer Poortugael, and Dr. Stancioff of Bulgaria
speak once more in defense of the motion.
The chairman proposes the nomination of a committee to study into the
subject. For this committee the opponent, Colonel von Schwarzhoff, and
the maker of the motion are chosen; also army and navy experts.
June 30. So, then, to-day, in the “House in the Wood,” the fate of the
proposal for limitation of armaments was decided.
Rejected. Referred for further consideration to the cabinets of the
great powers. A resolution made by Léon Bourgeois and adopted by the
Conference saved the principle.
Last soirée at Minister Beaufort’s.
Sir Julian Pauncefote comes and sits by me. Of course I lead the
conversation to the Conference again and ask him how long it will
probably continue.
“At least a fortnight,” Sir Julian opines. “I can assure you,” he adds,
“the Conference is doing a great work, and other conferences will
follow. To be sure, the limitation clause was voted down, yet with the
general declaration that it must be taken up later. But, on the other
hand, the permanent tribunal has become a fact, and for this result
Professor Zorn is to be specially praised for his endeavors.”
Turkhan Pasha escorts me to the refreshment table. There Herr Beernaert
hands me an ice. He has recently arrived from Brussels, where the
disturbances have fortunately come to an end. The obstruction of the
socialists in the Chamber consisted in their always starting the
Marseillaise whenever any one began to speak.
“Things are now all right again,” says the minister, “_ils ont mis bas
les armes_. But here I understand some things are not all right.
‘Limitation’ is buried; the military experts declared it was out of the
question.”
“Buried? At all events, the flowers are saved. Bildt[40] spoke
wonderfully, beautifully; and a motion by Bourgeois was voted and
assures a resurrection. The coffin is not nailed up; the boards are
loose....”
“Such questions,” I added, “should not be treated from the technical but
from a quite different standpoint. If the military men alone are to be
allowed to decide about disarmament—”
“Surely,” says Herr Beernaert, finishing my sentence. “It is as if
cobblers should deliberate on how men could give up wearing footgear!”
July 1. Now I know the report concerning yesterday’s limitation session.
Servia first declared its adhesion; then Greece its dissent. Hereupon
the report of the commission on studies was read—a very laconic report:
1. That it would be very difficult, even for a space of only five
years, to fix the number of the troops without simultaneously
regulating other elements of defense.
2. That it would be no less difficult to regulate the elements of this
defense by means of an international convention, since the defense is
organized in each country from very different points of view.
Consequently the committee regrets its inability to accept the
proposal made in the name of the Russian government.
The committee recommends that the subject of the subsequent decision
be intrusted to the respective governments.
Such is the text of the military commission’s report; and so the matter
was simply set aside. The execution of the proposal offers difficulties,
“consequently” it cannot be accepted! This “consequently,” however, is
not satisfactory. The motive adduced for setting aside a project of such
wide scope is not sufficient. There is more to be said about it than
that it is difficult to carry out. It must also be clear whether it is
not desirable, beneficent, nay, more, essential. And if this conclusion
is reached, then if it is to be rejected, there must be a better reason
than its difficulty; its impossibility must be shown.
But the matter before us cannot be impossible in principle; certainly
not in the form just presented. And it must not be rejected, but rather
postponed for future realization. This was the feeling of a large part
of the Conference; and two other delegates—the Swede Baron Bildt and the
Frenchman Léon Bourgeois—give expression to this feeling in fiery
extempore speeches.
From Baron Bildt’s speech (“It is not enough”):
... Now, at the conclusion of our labors, we shall realize that we
have faced one of the most important problems of the century, and that
we have accomplished very little. We have no right to cherish
illusions. If the transactions of the Conference come to public
knowledge, then, in spite of all that has been done for arbitration,
the Red Cross, and the rest, a loud cry will be raised, “It is not
enough!”
And the majority of us, in our own consciences, will justify that
outcry, “It is not enough!” To be sure, our consciences will tell us,
for our consolation, that we have done our duty, because we have been
faithful to the instructions that have been given us. But I venture to
say that our duty is not yet completed, and that we still have
something left to do. That is, to investigate with the greatest
frankness and truth and to report to our governments what defects are
to be found in the preparation or execution of the great work, and
with steadfastness, with obstinacy, to seek the means to do better and
to do more. Now let these means be found in new conferences, in direct
negotiations, or simply in the policy of a good example. This is the
duty which is left for us to fulfill.
This speech made a sensation. The applause had not died down when the
head of the French delegation took the floor.
From Léon Bourgeois’s speech (“Our task is higher”):
I have listened with great delight to Baron Bildt’s eloquent words.
They correspond not only to my personal feelings and those of my
colleagues of the French delegation,[41] but also, I am sure, to the
unanimous feelings of the Conference. I join in the appeal which Baron
Bildt has made. I believe that (to express his ideas still more
explicitly) our commission has something further to do.
I have carefully read the text of the conclusion reached by the
technical committee. This text shows the difficulties which at the
present moment attend the limitation of armament. This investigation
was also the mandate of the committee. But our commission is under
obligation to regard the problem before us from a universal and higher
standpoint.
... Colonel von Schwarzhoff tells us that Germany easily bears the
burdens of its military organization, and that in spite of these
burdens it can point to a great economical development.
I come from a country which also bears cheerfully the obligations of
national defense, and we hope next year, when the Exposition will be
held, to show the world that our products and our economical
development stand on a high level. But the colonel will grant me that
in his country as well as in mine, if a share of the considerable
resources now spent for military purposes were devoted to the service
of productive activity, the total of prosperity would be developed at
a much more rapid rate.
Moreover, we have here not only to take into account how our country
endures the burdens of the armed peace. Our task is higher,—we are
called upon to consider the joint situation of all the nations.
After further considerations, Bourgeois proposes that the question be
referred to the governments for further discussion at the next
Conference. But, that the position of the present Conference may be
brought to a definite expression, he offers the following amendment to
the report:
The commission takes the view that the limitation of the military
burdens resting on the world would be in the highest degree desirable
for the improvement of the moral and material condition of mankind.
This resolution was adopted.
I immediately translated the text of both speeches and dispatched it to
the _Neue Freie Presse_.
July 2. Yesterday a ball at the Staals’. When we arrive, at ten o’clock,
the drawing-rooms are already almost full. All the lower rooms of the
Vieux Doelen—the peristyle, salons, dining-room, and other
apartments—have been engaged for this function and are richly decorated.
The walls of the ballroom are adorned with greenery from which gleam
white lilies. Nothing but white flowers everywhere, the symbols of
peace. There is a flood of electric light from the chandeliers. The
orchestra is hidden behind a hedge of palms. Softly lighted corridors
lead to smaller adjoining rooms, in which the guests find nooks for
confidential conversation. The doors leading from the ballroom to the
terrace stand open, and a broad flight of steps leads down into the
lighted garden.
All the delegates are present except Admiral Fisher,[42] whose absence
is all the more to be regretted because he is one of the jolliest of the
dancers.
Baron Bildt presents his son to me, a young man of twenty-two, just
arrived from Upsala, where he is studying at the University.
“I was on the point of devoting myself to a military career,” the young
Swede told me in the course of our conversation. “And do you know,
gracious lady, what kept me from it? The reading of your book. And
to-day, in this company, I am doubly glad that I chose another
profession. Perhaps later it will be permitted me to labor for the great
cause that brought my father to The Hague.”
“I see; a new ambition is awaking, in a new field! Remain faithful to
this impulse, and may you sometime by means of it become a judge in the
International Arbitration Court or Swedish Minister of Peace!”
“Oh, how glad I should be!”
Andrew D. White urges me, in case I have the opportunity, to oppose
those pessimistic prejudices which have gone abroad regarding the
Conference, and which render more difficult the possibility of further
work and the assembling of new conferences. He expresses the opinion
that the Emperor of Russia has one good means at his command,—simply to
introduce into his country the shipwrecked “limitation” or even the
reduction of the military effective. He is the autocrat—his will
decides. And the policy of such an example would be most effective.
Well, indeed, the manifesto, the summoning of the Conference, the
motions laid before it, which implied the pledge that he would do what
he proposed,—all these things were indeed examples. But those who are
eagerly bent on the preservation of the entire military system have not
been constrained to follow in the same track. How can any one venture,
after all, in a matter requiring common agreement, to take the lead
alone?
A Russian tells me that in his own country there is also a strong
military party which holds the Tsar’s plans in deep disfavor, so that,
even in his immediate proximity, opposition and differences of opinion
are strongly felt. It would require iron energy to hold out against
them. Alas, the cruel are apt to be iron....
We give an afternoon reception. Among those present are Herr and Frau
Berends and their daughter; Dr. White and his wife, who has just
arrived; Monsieur and Madame Descamps; our countrymen, Count
Welsersheimb, Lieutenant Colonel von Khuepach, and Professor Lammasch;
my young Russian officer whom I met at yesterday’s ball, and young
Bildt; Dr. Holls; Bourgeois; the Persian ambassador; Bonnefon; Vasily
and his son; Pompili; Schmidt auf Altenstadt, editor of the _Dagblad_;
Herr von Raffaelovitch and his daughter; and Minister Beernaert.
Beernaert goes to-morrow to Brussels. They have had a ministerial crisis
there too.
“I am going to play the rôle of Bourgeois at Brussels,” he said with a
laugh.
“Then,” rejoined the other, “play it to the end and come back.”
To-day I noted a deep remark uttered by Léon Bourgeois. The talk turned
on the great progressive ideas which permeate the world so slowly,
altogether too slowly, because the daily happenings, the problems and
sensations of the moment, claim everybody’s entire attention.
_L’actualité, c’est l’ennemi_, said he.
The Swedish envoy’s son again took his oath to me that he would remain
true to the ideal of peace and work for it according to his ability.
The conversation reverted to that session in which Colonel Schwarzhoff
delivered his speech against the proposition of limitation. The
gentlemen remarked that he had spoken with great _mordant_. Now the
German equivalent for that word is not _beissend_ (“biting”) but
_schneidig_ (“keen”). In either case it is an adjective expressing
admiration. Now, it seems to me, sharp teeth and polished sonority are
very valuable things in their place, but are they specially suited for
the Peace Conference?
At dinner we are in Oriental company,—with Noury Bey and Mirza Rhiza
Khan. Were it not for the fez, one might take Noury Bey for a Frenchman.
He takes the point of view of the Turkish patriotic party, faithful to
the Sultan, not that of the Young Turks. The persecution of the
Armenians has been necessary, he says; they are revolutionists, rebels,
conspirators. In short, they are wicked lambs; the wolf is in the right!
We were regretting the failure of the project for restricting armaments
or talking of something similar, I do not remember exactly what.
“But that is a thing,” remarked Noury Bey to my husband, “which you, as
an Austrian patriot, ought to approve of.”
“We friends of peace do not recognize this contradiction,” replied my
husband; “what one must regret as a man, one cannot be glad of as a
patriot. And indeed it is a mistake to believe that what will not
benefit mankind will be useful to one’s own country. In any case, the
interest of humanity, absolute right, always stands higher than the
special advantages of any one country.”
“Splendid!” cried Noury Bey in amazement, but not without irony. “People
with such views ought to be appointed judges in the coming international
tribunal.”
July 4. To-day, in connection with the American holiday, an excursion to
Delft in commemoration of Grotius. In the early morning a severe storm
is raging and rain is beating on the window panes. We countermand our
order for a carriage and stay at home.
It is a melancholy, gloomy day. The windows rattle and tremble; an
ice-cold wind forces itself in. Gray are the rolling clouds and the
foaming angry sea. Lamentation, brawling, and menace commingle in the
roar of wind and waves.
The beach is deserted. As far as the eye can see there is not a living
creature. The bath houses and covered chairs and booths are all moved
off—or have the billows carried them away? The high, foam-capped
breakers tumble over one another and come nearer and nearer, and are
already dashing over the terrace wall. Perhaps the whole terrace may be
destroyed, as it was a few years ago. And all the time this tumultuous
lamentation! How can one feel cheerful?
Truly, there is reason enough for melancholy. This Conference, which
should show sorrow-laden, danger-threatened mankind a way to get finally
rid of the sorrow and the dangers which arise not from the elements but
from their own selves,—how its work has met with misunderstanding and
resistance both in the world outside and in its own midst! Nowhere
enthusiastic aid—nay, not even eager curiosity, and not once a warm word
from those who hold the power in their hands. Cold, cold are all the
hearts—cold as the draft that penetrates through the rattling windows. I
am chilled to the bone!
In the evening a festival in the concert room in honor of the American
delegates. The decorations are star-spangled banners; there is a
rendering of American songs. Dr. Holls tells me that the Grotius
festival was a brilliant success, and useful words were spoken,
especially by Ambassador White. He also informs me that the permanent
Court of Arbitration is accepted. Only the paragraph about obligatory
cases is omitted.
July 5. In reply to my note of regret, addressed to Andrew D. White, and
explaining that our absence from the festival was caused by the weather,
I receive the following reply:
House in the Wood, July 5, 1899
Dear Baroness von Suttner:
We were very sorry not to see you and the Baron at Delft, but we fully
understood and appreciated the reason. We really did not expect more
than a dozen or twenty people, and were greatly surprised to see so
large a number present.
It was to me very inspiring and gave me new hopes as to the results of
the Conference.
I beg you not to forget what I urged upon you at our last meeting. We
are to accomplish here more than we dared hope when we came
together,—far more; and the great thing is to prevent thoughtless,
feather-brained enthusiasts from discrediting the work, since to do so
is to discourage all future efforts of this sort.
We have paved the way for future conferences which will develop our
work—unless the people at large are taught that nothing has been done
in this way.
Please call me kindly to the remembrance of Baron von Suttner, and I
remain, dear madam, most respectfully and truly yours,
Andrew D. White
July 6. At the last session an important article was added to the
project of the arbitration tribunal. It was proposed by D’Estournelles,
and is to the effect that the signatory powers, in case of a conflict
threatening between two or more countries, shall consider it their duty
to remind these powers that the Court of Arbitration stands open to
them.
Servia and Roumania make a lively protest against the word “duty.”
Roumania, represented by Beldimann, moreover protests regularly,
consistently, and forever.
After a persuasive speech by Léon Bourgeois, D’Estournelles’s motion is
adopted.
July 7. We take our departure. Ever so many friends accompany us to the
railway station. The coach is filled with farewell bouquets. Good-by,
thou lovely city of gardens! Will coming generations make pilgrimages to
thee because the first International Court of Arbitration came into
existence here? Enriched by the memories of lovely days and interesting
people, and by uplifting impressions, I take my departure from thee,
historic place....
We were obliged, on account of private affairs, to leave before the
close of the Conference, but I received from there every day papers,
letters, and dispatches, which kept me informed of the progress and the
_acte final_ of the Conference.
I jot down here the most important of these records.
On the seventh of July the session of the third committee (on peaceful
adjustment of international controversies) adjourned until the
seventeenth, that in the meantime further instructions might be received
from the governments. Sir Julian Pauncefote makes a trip to London. The
articles which principally give occasion for seeking further
instructions are those that treat of the International Commission of
Inquiry. The text up for debate runs:
In cases of an international nature, involving neither honor nor vital
interests, and arising from a difference of opinion on points of fact,
the signatory powers recommend that the parties, having been unable to
come to an agreement by the usual means of diplomacy, should, as far
as circumstances allow, institute an international commission of
inquiry, which shall clear away these differences by getting at the
facts through an impartial and conscientious investigation.
What a bundle of limitations! “As far as circumstances allow,” “neither
honor nor vital interests.” It can be seen with what timidity and
circumspection these grewsome instruments called “jurisdiction,”
“process of inquiry”—that is, right and truth,—are taken hold of.
Torpedoes, dumdum bullets, ekrasit, and lyddite—we are already used to
such things, we are no longer afraid of them; but legal processes in
international affairs,—those would be too dangerous for vital interests:
at all events, for the interests of militarism....
The origin of this formula “honor and vital interests of a nation” is
well known. It has always been produced in the following form by the
opponents of international arbitration: “Hitherto courts of arbitration
have exercised their functions in small matters but not in important
ones.” What has hitherto been used as an argument is now to be
incorporated in a treaty!