THE UNITED STATES AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the relations of the
United States to the most ambitious experiment in government that
the world has ever attempted.
=The Desire to End War.=—Since the dawn of human history mankind has
been divided into independent tribes and nations ready to hurl
themselves upon one another in warfare. No mind can comprehend the
immeasurable suffering which war has brought upon the human race during
the past three thousand years. From the days when the Assyrian
charioteers crushed their enemies under horse and wheel to those tragic
years of yesterday when the hospitals of Europe were filled with the
victims of high explosive shells and poison gas,—in all this long
interval there has been no cessation of warfare among men and no era of
peace on earth.
Small wonder it is, therefore, that in the anguish of the World War men
of all races should have cried out for some such settlement as would put
an end to war and all its horrors forever.[301] [Sidenote: The cry for a
permanent peace.] Soldiers in the ranks called it a “war to end war“ and
gave up their lives unflinchingly in the hope@@ that future generations
would be spared a repetition of the world-wide misery. But how might
such a blessing be obtained for future generations of mankind? That was
one of the great problems which the soldiers bequeathed to the
statesmen.
[Sidenote: How strife between individuals has been diminished.]
=Can this Desire be Realized?=—Now it is believed by many that war can
never be permanently abolished except by applying to nations a principle
which men have applied to themselves as individuals, that is to say, by
establishing an organization whereby all controversies can be settled
without resort to force. Treaties of amity and arbitration among nations
are valuable so far as they go; but so long as there is no high
authority with power to administer justice between nation and nation
each must look to its own self-preservation. This means that each feels
obliged to regard war as a possibility and to be prepared for it.
Without sufficient assurance against the possibility of war it is idle
to expect that nations will wholly disarm. And when interests clash and
the passions of men are aroused they will use the weapons which are at
hand.
[Sidenote: The motive behind the League of Nations.]
The primary motive of those who urged the formation of a League of
Nations was the desire to avoid war by substituting another method of
adjusting disputes, but they also hoped that such an organization would
enable the vast sums hitherto spent each year on warlike preparations to
be applied to the development of industry and commerce, to education, to
the protection of the public health, to the betterment of labor
conditions, and to promoting all the arts of peace. They harbored the
hope, moreover, that great constructive tasks which are beyond the power
of any one nation to accomplish might be achieved by the nations of the
world in co-operation. As an ideal it is truly great. The Italian poet,
Dante, dreamt of it six hundred years ago. Perhaps we can best
appreciate what the realization of such an ideal would mean to the world
by glancing for a moment at what tribulations the world passed through
during the course of a single century, from 1814 to 1914.
=The Great Wars of a Century Ago.=—A little more than a century ago the
various nations of Europe engaged in a long and exhausting war. First
and last all the chief countries of the world were drawn into it.
[Sidenote: How the Napoleonic Wars failed to eliminate the causes of
war.] The chief cause of this great struggle was the ambition of
Napoleon, who sought to make France dominant in the political affairs of
Europe and by his aggressions finally managed to array all the other
leading nations in an alliance against him. When France was finally
vanquished by the combined efforts of England, Prussia, Russia, Austria,
and Spain, a congress of the nations was held at Vienna to determine the
detailed arrangements by which the future peace of the continent might
be preserved, and after prolonged discussions this congress agreed upon
a general settlement. The principal motive which actuated the delegates
at the Congress of Vienna was that of strengthening the four powers to
whom the overthrow of France had been chiefly due, thus establishing a
combination which would be able to impose its will upon the rest of the
continent in the interests of peace. Great Britain, Prussia, Austria,
and Russia dominated the congress and for some years after 1815
virtually remained in a quadruple alliance to see that the terms of
peace were observed. But the Congress of Vienna took no action in the
way of establishing a league or confederation to which all the nations,
great and small, should be admitted. It left the peace of Europe in the
hands of four powerful states with the hope, a futile hope it turned out
to be, that these four states would agree among themselves.
=The Rise of the Alliances.=—The map of Europe, as rearranged by
the Congress of Vienna, paid no attention to the right of
self-determination. Territories were taken from one state and
given to another without reference to the desires of their
inhabitants. The chief aim was to strengthen the powers that had
won the war, giving each of them boundaries that could be easily
defended. The interests of military defence, not those of
nationality, prevailed.
[Sidenote: The rivalries of the nineteenth century.]
Because of this action the congress left many openings for friction and
jealousy among the various states, yet provided no regular means whereby
disputes could be adjusted. In the course of time, moreover, the
interests of the four great powers which dominated the work of the
congress drew apart. England preferred to hold aloof from the diplomatic
intrigues of the continental states, devoting her energies to the
upbuilding of an empire in other parts of the world. France, moreover,
regained her old-time strength and once more became recognized as one of
the leading European powers. Italy, which had been left by the Congress
of Vienna a mosaic of small independent states, eventually achieved its
unity, and the kingdom of Prussia expanded into the German Empire. Thus,
the four great powers of 1815 grew to six before the end of the
nineteenth century—Great Britain, Russia, Austro-Hungary, France, Italy,
and Germany.
With these six great states progressing side by side, ambitious for
power and jealous of one another, it was inevitable that alliances and
counter-alliances should be formed. These combinations took many twists
and turns during the diplomatic manoeuvres of the nineteenth century,
but in the end the six leading nations of Europe gravitated into
opposing camps. The first, known as the Triple Alliance, included
Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Italy. The second, commonly called the
Triple Entente, was made up of Great Britain, France, and Russia. These
alliances were based upon treaties or understandings of which certain
portions were made public and the rest kept secret.
[Sidenote: The “armed peace.”]
=The Balance of Power.=—For many years the preservation of European
peace rested upon the observance of a principle known as the “balance of
power”. This principle is not easy to define, but in general it meant
that no single state or combination of states should be allowed to
become strong enough to outweigh a rival state or its combination. The
balance could never be exact because some states, by virtue of their
more rapid increase in population and prosperity, were always outrunning
others, hence the situation developed into a race wherein each group of
powers sought to strengthen itself by bringing smaller states into its
circle, by welding its members more closely together, and by the
creation of great armaments. The purpose of the alliances, based upon
the principle of balance of power, was not to prevent war but rather to
prevent any state from being attacked by a combination of other states
and having to defend itself single-handed. Under the terms of the Triple
Alliance and the Triple Entente it remained quite possible for single
states to go to war and fight it out alone; but both alliances protected
their members against combined attacks. In a word, the situation became
such that any war, wherever it might start, was very likely to become a
general war.
[Sidenote: The nations in the recent war.]
=The Realignments of 1914-1918.=—On the outbreak of the World War in
1914 the Triple Entente held together, but the Triple Alliance was
weakened by the action of Italy in refusing to be drawn into a cause
which the Italian people did not approve. Italy, a little later, joined
with France, Great Britain, and Russia. Meanwhile Japan had also taken
the side of these allies and eventually the United States became
associated in the war with them. Thus the Triple Entente developed into
a powerful allied combination including not only the five powers named
but many smaller states as well. Before the close of hostilities
twenty-five states had declared war upon the German government. Germany
and Austro-Hungary, the remaining states of the Triple Alliance, had the
aid of two other states only, Turkey and Bulgaria. The course of events
showed, therefore, that not only were alliances ineffective in
preserving the peace but that they actually helped to extend the area of
conflict over a whole continent.
=The War to End War.=—When the United States, after long hesitation,
decided to throw its strength on the side of the Allies, one of the
chief actuating motives was the desire to see the struggle settled in
such a way that there would never be another great war. [Sidenote:
Idealism in this war.] As the spokesman of the American people,
President Wilson repeatedly declared that out of the war some general
agreement and league for the permanent preservation of world peace must
come. In this he undoubtedly reflected the sentiment not only of his own
country but of the great masses of the people in the other warring
states as well. Everywhere there had been going on, practically
throughout the world, a popular agitation for the establishment of some
general covenant which would make future wars impossible. It was now
felt that the balance of power was gone, that individual treaties among
nations were not sufficient protection, and that something more
effective must be found. There was no great difference of opinion as to
the ideal. It was welcomed everywhere. The problem was how to translate
the ideal into a reality. This task President Wilson believed to be the
most important and yet the most difficult among all the problems of
peace-making. To help with its solution he took the highly-unusual
course of himself attending the conference which was held at Paris to
determine the conditions of peace.
[Sidenote: How the League was brought into existence.]
=The Framing of the Covenant.=—When the members of this conference
assembled it was agreed, after some deliberation, that a commission
should be appointed to prepare a plan for a League of Nations and that
this plan, when accepted by the conference, should become an integral
part of the peace treaty. This latter point was particularly insisted
upon by President Wilson and was agreed to as the result of his
insistence. The commission was appointed; it prepared a plan; the plan
was laid before the peace conference, and before being adopted was
published to the world. In the United States it met with strong support
in some quarters and vigorous opposition in others. The Senate, by which
the whole peace treaty would have to be approved before it could be
binding upon the United States, discussed the details of the plan and
thirty-one senators signed a declaration that some of the provisions
were unacceptable. In the end, however, the original covenant, with some
modifications, was adopted by the peace conference and incorporated as a
part of the treaty of peace.[302] As such it was subsequently accepted
by all the leading powers to whom it was submitted, except the United
States. In its scope the League of Nations is designed to include,
ultimately, all the countries of the world. Provision is made in the
covenant for the immediate admission of most countries by their simple
acceptance of the covenant; others may be admitted to membership by a
two-thirds vote of the league assembly. Fifty-one states are now
members.[303]
[Sidenote: An analogy and contrast.]
=The League as a Scheme of Government.=—What are the important features
in this scheme of super-government? This question may best be answered,
perhaps, by taking as our background the federal system with which we
are most familiar in the United States, noting the outstanding points of
resemblance and contrast. At the time of its formation, indeed, the
American federal government was looked upon by the several states as a
super-government and they were very jealous of it. It was not until many
years had passed that this jealousy died down. This same designation was
given to the scheme of organization established by the League Covenant.
The government of the United States has its deliberative, executive, and
judicial departments; so has the League of Nations. But there the
resemblance ends. The methods of constituting the organs are different;
so are their powers, and so are their relations to one another.
[Sidenote: The Assembly and the Council.]
=The League’s Deliberative Organs.=—The League of Nations has two
deliberative bodies,—an Assembly to which each member-nation may send
not more than three delegates, and a Council, made up of one member from
each of the five great powers,—the United States, Great Britain, France,
Italy, and Japan (these five nations being always represented), and one
member from each of four lesser powers to be designated from time to
time by the Assembly. Since the United States has not joined the League,
the Council now consists of only eight members, the four nations
constituting the second group being at present Belgium, Brazil, Spain,
and China. Unless otherwise stated in the covenant, any decision either
of the Council or the Assembly requires a unanimous vote. The Council
must meet at least once a year; the Assembly meets at stated intervals
determined by itself. The Assembly has decided to meet annually on the
first Monday in September and the Council is now holding quarterly
sessions. Geneva has been selected as the League capital.
[Sidenote: The Secretariat.]
=The Administrative Organization.=—By the terms of the covenant certain
functions of an executive nature are given to the Council, but the
administrative work devolves upon the Secretariat of the League. This
body comprises a permanent secretary and numerous officials appointed by
him. The Secretariat performs the clerical work, registers all treaties,
carries on the correspondence with the member-nations, and prepares
business to be laid before the Council and the Assembly.
[Sidenote: The League’s judiciary.]
=The Court of International Justice.=—The covenant also makes provision
for a permanent world court, composed of judges selected by the Assembly
from among eminent jurists nominated by the different member-countries.
At the second Assembly session, held during 1921, the eleven regular
judges and four alternate or deputy judges were chosen. Controversies
come before this court whenever nations agree to submit their disputes
to it for decision.
=Outstanding Features of League Organization.=—In comparing the general
organization of League government with the American federal system some
striking contrasts appear. [Sidenote: Equality of all nations in the
League Assembly.] First of all, it is significant that in the Council
and in the Assembly each nation has one vote only. Each nation may send
to the Assembly one, two, or three representatives; but whether it sends
one or three its voting power is the same. In the American Senate all
the states have the same voting power, but in the House of
Representatives the states with larger populations have proportionate
voting strength. Equality of voting power is natural in a political
union that is just starting. The nations of the world, being accustomed
to sovereignty and legal equality were not willing to recognize
gradations of rank. The same feeling was manifested among the American
colonies when, under the Articles of Confederation, it was provided that
every state, small or large, while it might send from two to seven
delegates to the Congress, should have the same voting power as any
other. There was a long fight over this question in the Constitutional
Convention of 1787, the smaller states demanding equal power with the
larger, the larger asking that representation should be based upon
population. The matter was settled by giving the smaller states equal
representation in the Senate, and conceding to the larger states the
right to dominate the House. But the framers of the League Covenant
could not accept a compromise of this sort; for if representation
according to population were made the rule in either the Council or the
Assembly, India and China would have far more delegates than the United
States, England, and France put together. So all were given equal
representation in the Assembly, while representation in the Council was
confined to nine nations only.
Other marked contrasts should be noted. In the House of Representatives
and in the Senate of the United States measures are passed by a majority
vote; [Sidenote: The requirement of unanimity.]in the Assembly and
Council of the League, unless otherwise specified, a unanimous vote is
necessary for action. This is a mark of the distrust with which the
nations regard one another. The provision for unanimity means that
nothing can be carried through the Assembly if a single nation
disapproves, for a solitary vote can block action. The same is true of
the Council as respects each nation represented in it. This, of course,
establishes a very cumbersome and slow-working scheme of government.
Decisions of the Council or the Assembly, moreover, have no absolute
binding force, as have the enactments of Congress. There is no
centralized executive authority, with power to see that decisions are
obeyed—no executive authority in the national sense. The League has no
army to enforce its will. Even the International Court of Justice has no
jurisdiction save when the suitors, of their own accord, come to it. It
lacks the coercive power of a Supreme Court.
=Provisions for the Prevention of Wars.=—The prime purpose in
establishing the League of Nations was a desire to lessen the danger of
wars. To that end the covenant contains several provisions of high
importance which may be briefly summarized.
[Sidenote: 1. Armaments.]
First, there is a provision for the reduction of armaments. The Council
is directed to have a study made by experts and to report upon the
amount of armed strength needed by each nation. The various governments,
however, are not bound to accept the Council’s recommendations. In any
case, all members of the League agree to keep one another informed as to
the extent of their respective armament programs. This represents, of
course, a very modest step in the direction of actual international
disarmament.
[Sidenote: 2. Territorial integrity.]
Second, the members of the League agree to protect one another against
any seizure of their territories or any destruction of their
independence by outside attacks. This is the famous Article X. Whenever
such attack occurs, the Council is to advise as to how the pledge of
integrity can be fulfilled.
[Sidenote: 3. Conciliation.]
Third, if a dispute which cannot be settled by diplomatic negotiations
arises between members of the League, the members agree to refer it to
arbitration if it is suitable for such disposition; or, if not, then to
the Council of the League for inquiry. The members of the League agree
to refrain from hostilities until three months after the Council has
rendered its decision.
[Sidenote: 4. Coercion.]
Fourth, if any member-nation resorts to war in violation of the
preceding provisions, the other members of the League agree to boycott
it and to withdraw from relations with it; in extreme cases, the Council
is authorized to consider and recommend means of compulsion by armed
force.
[Sidenote: 5. Registration of treaties.]
Fifth, a very important provision is that by which all treaties
hereafter entered into by members of the League shall be registered with
the Secretariat and published. Until this has been done, no treaty is to
be considered binding. This, of itself, embodies no small step in the
direction of eliminating a prolific source of friction and strife.
Secret treaties have been the mainspring of many wars.
[Sidenote: Duties of the mandatories.]
=The System of Mandates.=—In previous wars it has been the habit of
victorious nations to divide all the conquered territory among
themselves, each taking a portion in full ownership. The Peace
Conference of 1919, however, agreed to try a new plan, namely, that of
placing the League of Nations in charge of some former German and
Turkish territories. It was provided that by means of mandates each of
these territories should be directly governed, on behalf of the League,
by one of its member-countries, with the understanding that eventually
complete self-government should be given in certain cases. The
mandatory, or country holding the mandate, is required to present an
annual report to the League and a permanent commission is provided to
examine these reports. In accordance with these arrangements, several
mandates have been granted. Great Britain, for example, has been made
the mandatory for Palestine, France for Syria, and New Zealand for
certain former German colonies in the South Pacific.
[Sidenote: A territorial trust.]
The possession of a mandate does not give the mandatory any exclusive
commercial privileges in the territory concerned, but merely creates a
trust which is to be exercised for the benefit of the people who inhabit
it. Whether this new experiment in the government of dependent
territories will work out successfully no one yet can tell. Much will
depend upon whether the League acquires prestige and power. If it should
collapse, there is little doubt that these various territories would
merely pass into the full ownership of the countries which now hold the
mandates.
=The League and Labor.=—The widely-differing policies hitherto pursued
by various countries in relation to labor have long been a cause of
international distrust and friction. When any one country endeavors to
accord greater privileges to its workers—such as the adoption of a
shorter working day or the guarantee of a minimum wage—this action
places it at a disadvantage in trade competition with other countries
not so progressive. It is, therefore, provided that a permanent
International Labor Office shall be established and that members of the
League shall send representatives to a labor conference at least once a
year. Such measures for the protection of labor as may be recommended by
this conference are to be presented to the government of each
member-country for adoption. Each government may adopt or refuse to
adopt the recommendations as it sees fit; but where a recommendation is
adopted, a country must live up to it and provisions are made for
ensuring this. [Sidenote: The first labor conference.] The first meeting
of the labor conference took place at Washington in 1919. Since that
time two further conferences have been held. Recommendations have been
made in favor of the eight-hour day, the prohibition of child labor, and
an effective system of factory inspection. In most of the discussions
concerning the League these great opportunities which it presents for
the improvement of labor conditions were entirely overlooked.
=The League and the Protection of Health.=—Great improvements in the
science of health protection have been made during the past generation
by all civilized countries, as a previous chapter has indicated. But no
matter how watchful a country may be in guarding the health of its own
people, it can never feel safe so long as epidemics are allowed to rage
unchecked in other lands. The ravages of disease stop at no national
boundaries. Trade and travel carry infection across even the
best-protected borders. In recognition of this the League covenant
pledges the member-countries to take steps for the international
prevention and control of disease. [Sidenote: The international health
office.] This is to be accomplished by the establishment of a permanent
International Health Office. The function of this office is to gather
data relating to public health questions, to promote the acceptance of
the best health regulations by the different countries, and to secure
common action in the case of dangerous epidemics.[304] The League is
also authorized to wage a war upon the use of opium and other harmful
drugs, likewise to take measures against the traffic in women and
children.
=American Objections to the Covenant.=—When the provisions of the
covenant were finally adopted by the Peace Conference, objections were
urged in various countries, but more particularly in the United States.
To what features was objection made? Some objected to the provision
which gives the British Empire six votes in the Assembly of the League
while the United States had but one.[305] Article X of the covenant, by
which the nations who enter the League must guarantee one another’s
territory and independence against outside aggression was also objected
to, for it seemed to pledge the United States to defend boundary lines
in all parts of the world. Many feared that this provision would some
day require the use of American soldiers in distant places. Objection
was also raised against certain provisions of the peace treaty, such as
that which turned over to Japan the territorial and other rights in the
Chinese province of Shantung, which had been held by Germany.[306] And
in general there was a feeling that if the United States were to enter
the League, this action would involve a continual entanglement in
European affairs and a complete abandonment of America’s traditional
policy.
[Sidenote: The proposed reservations.]
It was at first believed that by making reservations on these various
points the United States could overcome the more important objections,
ratify the treaty, and enter the League. But President Wilson declined
to accept such reservations and in the end the whole document, treaty
and covenant together, failed to receive the requisite two-thirds vote
in the Senate.
The presidential election of 1920 was fought out on this issue. The
Democratic candidate declared in favor of entering the League with
suitable reservations, while the Republican candidate made no explicit
pledge as to what course he would pursue although he seemed for a time
to favor the formation of a new association on a somewhat different
basis. [Sidenote: The ultimate decision.] After the election, which
resulted in a decisive Republican victory, President Harding announced
that the United States would not enter the League; the project of a new
association was quietly dropped; and a separate peace with the new
German republic was concluded.
=The League at Work.=—The refusal of the United States to assume
membership was a severe, and possibly a fatal, blow to the strength and
prestige of the League. It is as though the state of New York, a century
and a quarter ago, had declined to ratify the constitution, leaving the
other twelve states to form a union by themselves. [Sidenote: What the
League has done.] Nevertheless, the League of Nations seems to be a
going concern; it has established headquarters at Geneva; its
Secretariat has been organized; its Council has held many sessions; its
Assembly has been twice convoked; its court has been established; labor
conferences have been held; mandates have been allotted; commissions
have been appointed; and a good deal of important business has been
transacted. Its members are very anxious to have the United States join
with them and would doubtless go a long way in accepting whatever
reasonable reservations this country might choose to make. But there is
no immediate probability that America will become a member on any terms.
The problem which now engages the attention of the American government
is that of arranging, through treaties and conferences, for the removal
of the various dangers to peace in the future.
[Sidenote: Can the work be done by a series of conferences?]
=The League and the Washington Conference.=—The calling of the
Washington Conference was the first step in this direction. The
agreements reached at this conference represent a very substantial step
in the direction of avoiding future wars but they do not cover the whole
field of possible controversy. They leave untouched the whole question
of land armaments and deal with none of the chief European problems. It
is taken for granted that other conferences will be called from time to
time, each for the purpose of dealing with some specific set of
international questions, and there are many who believe that the primary
purposes which the League of Nations was intended to fulfill can be
served in this way. One advantage of the conference plan is that it
allows each nation to retain greater freedom of action; but this is also
a defect, for it permits any single country to block progress by merely
declining to join with the others when a conference is called. The
Washington Conference demonstrated how easy it is to reach agreements in
the common interest when nations come together for a free and frank
discussion.
[Sidenote: A lost opportunity.]
=Will the League of Nations Live?=—Will the League slowly acquire
strength despite the failure of the United States to become a member? Or
will the League gradually lose all its reason for existence, save as an
agency for carrying out the terms of the peace treaty, and when these
terms are fulfilled, pass out of existence? These are questions which no
one can answer today. The close of the war gave the world its greatest
opportunity to devise a plan which would forever put an end to the curse
of war and usher in a long era of international amity. Men labored long
and diligently to provide such a plan, but they failed to achieve a full
measure of success.
Where the blame for this partial failure belongs is not a matter that it
can profit the world much to discuss. The opportunity came and has gone.
Whether the partial failure can ever be retrieved, whether the League
devised at Paris will survive the severe setback given to it by the
action of the United States, are things which only the next generation
can determine. In spite of its handicap, however, the League must strive
to maintain its existence, for its continuance is essential to the
enforcement of the peace treaty. Those nations which are interested in
seeing the provisions of the treaty fulfilled must either use the
League, or provide other machinery in its place, or else revise the
terms of peace, and on the whole, the first alternative seems to be the
easier one. To the exhausted nations of Europe it offers some hope of
relief from the burden of great armaments, and to small countries
throughout the world the League stands as a means of obtaining a fair
hearing for their grievances. It is easy enough to pick flaws in the
covenant; but is there any likelihood that a different document would
gain the adhesion of fifty-one states? No such number ever agreed to
anything of the sort before.
The attitude of the United States was not dictated by self-interest
alone, or by party politics. There was, and still is, a strong
conviction in the minds of a large element among the American people
that the covenant of Versailles will not prove to be a safeguard against
war, but may, indeed, lead to intensified rivalries and bitterness. Many
Americans, and many Europeans also, feel that the terms of peace which
were arranged at Paris contain many unwise, unjust, and even
impracticable provisions. They believe that a League of Nations, charged
with the duty of enforcing these provisions, is bound to encounter
difficulties of a serious character.
General References
F. C. HICKS, _The New World Order_, especially pp. 3-91 (The Peace
Treaty, including the Covenant, is printed in the appendix);
W. H. TAFT, G. W. WICKERSHAM, and others, _The Covenanter: An American
Exposition of the Covenant of the League of Nations_, _passim_;
S. P. DUGGAN, _The League of Nations_, p. 1-17; 96-111;
J. A. HOBSON, _Towards International Government_, pp. 11-57;
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, _The
Place of the United States in a World Organization for the Maintenance
of Peace_ (July, 1921), pp. 1-29;
G. G. WILSON, _The First Year of the League of Nations_, pp. 1-55;
R. B. FOSDICK, GEORGE RUBLEE, J. T. SHOTWELL, LÉON BOURGEOIS, and
others, _The League of Nations Starts_, pp. 1-28;
L. OPPENHEIM, _The League of Nations_, pp. 28-48;
D. L. MORROW, _The Society of Free States_, pp. 137-154;
T. J. LAWRENCE, _The Society of Nations_, pp. 33-57;
RAY STANNARD BAKER, _America and World Peace_, _passim_.
Group Problems
=1. The idea of a league of nations in history.= Ancient Greek leagues.
Dante’s De Monarchia. The Great Design of Henry IV. William Penn’s plan.
The proposed confederation of Europe after the Napoleonic wars. Kant’s
“Everlasting Peace.” The Holy Alliance. The federation of Central
America (1824). The Hague Conferences. =References=: ELIZABETH YORK,
_Leagues of Nations, Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern_, pp. 114-179 (see
also _Bibliography_, pp. 331-337); WILLIAM LADD, _The Peace of Europe_,
pp. 1-11; W. A. PHILLIPS, _The Confederation of Europe_, pp. 145-156; F.
C. HICKS, _The New World Order_, pp. 66-78; J. H. CHOATE, _The Two Hague
Conferences_, pp. 3-44; D. L. MORROW, _The Society of Free States_, pp.
12-32.
=2. A study of the merits and faults of the Covenant.= =References=:
Senate Debates during the period June 2 to October 6, 1919, in
_Congressional Record_ (66th Congress, 1st Session, Vol. 58), _For the
League_: SENATOR SWANSON, of Virginia (pp. 2532-2542), SENATOR
HITCHCOCK, of Nebraska (pp. 6403-6427); _Against the League_: SENATOR
JOHNSON, of California (pp. 501-509), SENATOR LODGE, of Massachusetts
(pp. 3778-3784).
Short Studies
1. =The League of Nations and American ideals.= A. H. SNOW, _The
American Philosophy of Government_, pp. 155-172.
2. =The League of Nations and American interests.= OTTO H. KAHN, _Our
Economic Problems_, pp. 354-367.
3. =The League and the Monroe Doctrine.= S. P. DUGGAN, _The League of
Nations_, pp. 273-303; Annals of American Academy of Political and
Social Science, _The Place of the United States in a World Organization
for the Maintenance of Peace_ (July, 1921), pp. 31-44.
4. =The international labor conferences.= F. C. HICKS, _The New World
Order_, pp. 270-279.
5. =The League and disarmament.= Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, _The Place of the United States in a World
Organization for the Maintenance of Peace_ (July, 1921), pp. 45-67.
6. =The League at work.= ARTHUR SWEETSER, _The League of Nations at
Work_, pp. 29-62.
7. =Some examples of international government.= L. S. WOOLF,
_International Government_, pp. 179-265; F. B. SAYRE, _Experiments in
International Administration_, pp. 18-62.
8. =The “Concert of Powers” in Europe.= T. J. LAWRENCE, _Principles of
International Law_, pp. 268-279.
9. =The system of mandates.= R. B. FOSDICK, GEORGE RUBLEE, J. T.
SHOTWELL, LÉON BOURGEOIS, and others, _The League of Nations Starts_,
pp. 110-125.
10. =International public health and sanitation.= R. B. FOSDICK, GEORGE
RUBLEE, J. T. SHOTWELL, LÉON BOURGEOIS, and others, _The League of
Nations Starts_, pp. 155-169.
11. =The League of Nations as a scheme of government.= L. OPPENHEIM,
_The League of Nations_, pp. 28-48.
12. =Small nations and the League.= S. P. DUGGAN, _The League of
Nations_, pp. 161-183; Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, _The Place of the United States in a World Organization
for the Maintenance of Peace_ (July, 1921), pp. 68-97.
Questions
1. What is meant by “applying to nations a principle which men the world
over have applied to themselves as individuals”?
2. Explain what was done at the Congress of Vienna and why there were so
many wars during the hundred years which followed that congress.
3. Explain the following expressions: _balance of power_, _Triple
Alliance_, _Entente_, _concert of powers_.
4. Make a diagram showing the organization of the League of Nations.
Explain by means of this diagram the contrasts between the League’s
organization and that of a federal government.
5. What are the weak features in the League organization?
6. Summarize the provisions which were placed in the Covenant for the
prevention of future wars and give your opinion as to the value of each.
7. Explain the relation of the League to (_a_) labor problems, (_b_)
health protection, (_c_) the suppression of the drug traffic.
8. Make a list of the chief American objections to the League and
indicate how much importance you attach to each.
9. Do you regard the refusal of the United States as a death-blow to the
success of the League? Give your reasons.
10. If the League fails, how can international peace be best secured?
Topics for Debate
1. A scheme of universal arbitration should be substituted for the
League of Nations.
2. The United States should call another conference to effect an
international agreement for the reduction of armies.
-----
Footnote 301:
It is said that the Thirty Years’ War reduced the population in some
sections of the warring states to one-half or one-third of what it had
been when the struggle began. The losses of all the countries engaged
in the World War have been estimated to be almost ten millions, more
than the entire population of Canada from ocean to ocean. Millions
more died from famine and under-nourishment at home. Is it not strange
that nations should work for years with might and main to increase the
size and prosperity of their populations, then turn around and undo a
large part of what they have been able to accomplish? In peace nations
labor to alleviate each others’ distress; in war they labor to cause
it. Patiently through the decades men of science wrestle with the
problem of relieving pain and suffering; then, in an instant, all
their skill is devoted to killing, maiming, and suffocating men by the
million! There is no wisdom like the wisdom of man, and no folly like
it either.
Footnote 302:
The covenant was made an integral part of the peace treaty, largely at
President Wilson’s insistence, for two reasons: First, because it was
believed that this would be a surer way of obtaining the assent of all
the great nations to the provisions of the covenant; second, because
many of the terms of the treaty (for example, those relating to
boundaries and mandates) were framed on the assumption that a League
of Nations would be in existence to carry them into effect. Taken
together, the treaty and the covenant make the longest international
document ever framed, a printed book of 87,000 words—about half the
size of this text-book. Nearly a thousand diplomats, experts, and
clerks spent more than three months in drafting it.
Footnote 303:
Invitations were not extended to Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria,
Turkey, Russia, or Mexico. Austria, however, has since been admitted
to membership.
Footnote 304:
When, for example, a typhus epidemic broke out in Poland, and the
Polish authorities found themselves unable to control it, the League
sent a commission of health experts to assist them.
Footnote 305:
This is because not only Great Britain herself but India, Canada,
Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand are members of the League. It
was assumed that the six British votes in the Assembly would always be
cast together; but, as a matter of fact, the various British dominions
insisted upon having separate votes in order that they might vote
according to their own particular interests. In most international
matters the interests of Canada, Australia, and South Africa are not
at all certain to coincide with those of England.
Footnote 306:
Since the treaty and the covenant were joined together, the objections
to one applied to the other. Concerning Shantung, see also p. 620.