I consider the safest guarantee for the future, international agreements
to prevent war. In such agreements, if they are framed in binding form,
I should see much stronger guarantees against surprise attacks by
neighbors than in frontier rectifications, but thus far, except in the
case of President Wilson, I have been unable to discover among any of
our enemies serious inclination to accept this idea. However, despite
the small degree of approval this idea receives, I consider that it will
be realized.
Calculating the burdens with which the States of the world will emerge
from the war, I vainly ask myself how they will cover military
expenditures if competition in armaments remains unrestricted. I do not
believe that it will be possible for the States after this war
adequately to meet the increased requirements due to the war. I think,
rather, that financial conditions will compel the States to enter into a
compromise regarding the limitation of armaments.
This calculation of mine is neither idealistic nor fantastic, but is
based upon reality in politics in the most literal sense of the word. I,
for my part, would consider it a great disaster if in the end there
should be failure to achieve general agreements regarding the
diminution of armaments.
It is obvious that in the peace with Rumania we shall take precautions
to have our interests in the questions of grain, food supply, and
petroleum fully protected. We shall further take precautions that the
Catholic Church and our schools receive the state of protection they
need, and we shall solve the Jewish question. The Jew shall henceforth
be a citizen with equal rights in Rumania.