An egotistical, selfish, and narrow nationalism, the basis of
international anarchy, has been demonstrated a partial, if not complete,
failure by the condition in which Europe is to-day. War, though only one
of many methods for settling difficulties between nations, has,
nevertheless, been the main one. There is a strong desire among the
people to substitute some other method.
Generally a nation has two things to consider--one is what it wants; the
other whether it can enforce its wants. This is the usual nationalistic
dilemma, but our demographic law of the interdependence of nations
assumes that each country will respect the other countries and be
willing to consider their wishes at least in vital matters.
Where the differences between two nations have threatened the peace of
Europe it has been felt that such a matter was more than a national
question; in fact, passed over into the international realm, and so
conferences have been called which to a certain extent recognized the
principle of interdependence and have enforced its decisions by blockade
if not by more warlike means. If a nation adopt the methods of force, it
is appealing to international anarchy, which causes nations to break
international law much more readily than otherwise. In fact, military
necessity knows no law.
It may seem odd that conferences are so often called for war instead of
for peace. But it is necessity that often rules; the wheel in the
machine is not examined until it is out of order, human beings were
never studied scientifically until they became lunatics or criminals. So
peace seems to have been little thought of until danger of war appeared.
Peace is like good health, we do not know its value until we lose it.