| OCR Text |
Show a c THE CITIZEN Those who still entertain the hope that .much of the present league may be retained probably will be disillusioned if they give the covenant intensive study. They will find that the league as established is fundamentally a league to enforce peace. Even with Article X removed it is an alliance of nations to maintain peace by force. will Perhaps a little consideration of Switzerland's position clarify the matter. Switzerland was admitted to membership in the league, although she had adopted reservations which, in some respects, were more than those favored by the Republican radical and thorough-goin- g senators at the last session of congress. Article I of the covenant provides that the original members of the league shall be the signatories of the treaty with Germany and such neutral nations, named in the annex to Part I, as .shall accede Switzerland was one of the without reservation to the covenant. neutrals thus alluded to. Article I also provides that these neutrals must deposit a declaration of accession within two months of the coming into force of the covenant. This latter provision, as well as the former, was relied upon to ratification by President Wilson to rush the covenant through in the senate of the United States. Upon these provisions he relied to convince the senators that they must hasten their deliberations and final action if the United States were to obtain the priceless boon of belonging to his league. The council of the league not only suspended the rules of admission in the case of Switzerland, but accepted that countrys sweeping reservations. These reservations clearly indicate the character of the league. For centuries Switzerland has maintained neutrality in a military' sense at least. Her statesmen could not look with a kindlv eye upon any alliance which would require a radical departure from this basic policy. They were unwilling that their countrys military forces ever should be used offensively against any nation the league, might decide to discipline. The consequence was that Switzerland refused to agree to preserve the territorial integrity and existing political independence of the other members of the league. Her reservation went much farther than the one proposed by Senator Lodge, for, according to the terms of the Lodge reservation, the United States would agree to go to war upon a declaration by congress. Switzerlands reservation was an absolute refusal to use armed force. Article 16 requires members of the league to chastise covenantbreaking nations by means of war and the economic boycott. Also members agree to take the necessary steps to afford passage through their territory to the forces of any members of the league who are to protect the covenants of the league. Switzerland, besides refusing to furnish military aid, refused to enforce the economic boycott or to permit the passage of troops through her territories. She gave notice that she would defend her territories even against the League of Nations. In spite of these reservations the .council admitted Switzerland to the league last February. We stress the Switzerland reservations because they illuminate the whole purpose of the league. They show that it is a military alliance to maintain peace by .force. Even with Article X eliminated, as Mr. Taft pointed out in his Salt Lake speech, the covenant backs up all of its major provisions with the pledge of force. With these circumstances in mind wre can see just what form the debate will take. Those who wish to use the machinery of the league, with Article X eliminated, are those who still adhere to such an association of nations as will be a league to enforce peace. Those who wish to scrap the Wilson covenant altogether are those who oppose the entry of the United States into any association which is founded on the use of force. Harding said Immedjately after the election President-elec- t that the Wilson league was dead and that lie would work for an association of nations which should have for its fundamental prin co-operat- ing ciple the administration of justice and not the exercise of force. This would seem to indicate that he is opposed altogether to a league to enforce peace, a league which has for its central idea an international police force, whether voluntary or conscripted, but we must not omit to observe that he has repeatedly declared that he has no substitute to offer and that he will not reach a decision until he has had an opportunity to avail himself of the opinions of our leading statesmen and of others who have made a profound study of the whole question. Those who fancy that a compromise may be arrived at easily are living in a fools paradise. There is such a fundamental digerence between the two school of thought that one or the other must abandon its basic idea. On the one hand you have the advocates of a league to enforce peace and on the other those who advocate a court of international justice. An international court may have the sanction of force, just as every court of justice has a police force behind it, but if such an international association of nations is set up the advocates of a league to enforce peace will triumph. If the decisions of the court are to be enforced by the economic boycott or military pressure, or both, there will be a league to enforce peace. The great objection to a league to enforce peace, in addition to the objection against the use of force, is that such a league- creates a There is no getting around the fact that any nation which binds itself to such an association surrenders some o: its own sovereignty and independence. Even if it agrees to use force only' when its congress or parliament so decides its has submitted to an arrangement whereby; a power superior to its own may demand its aid to enforce decrees. This is the merest suggestion of the lines along which the debate will run. It will be the Hague Tribunal against the League to Enforce Peace. Some will want one, some the other, and some will ask that the two be merged. To those who believed in an international police force the Wilson league was wholly rational. If communities preserve peace and order by' means of a polici force, why should not nations, they asked themselves? could enforce peace am There is no doubt that a super-stat- e order if possessed of the principal quality of a community a common purpose. But how absurd to think that a military' autocracy like Japan and a free republic like the United States could have a common purpose and a common police to enforce it! How absurd to think that we would join in a common polict force with Japan to hold Shantung in subjection or that Japan would join in a common police force with us to enforce an act excluding the Japanese from the United States. True, the world must get rid of its disagreements and rivalries if there is to be permanent universal peace, but the wise man knows that such an evolution must be the work of centuries. Men will make war no more when men agree perfectly on all impi rtan: I things and they will so agree when they' themselves arc perfect. Even communities with a common purpose arc not able t press murder and robbery. And sometimes the police force itself,' divides and makes war. That is what happened in our own c untp I when the North and the South engaged in fratricidal strife. In Ireland today there are two forces of police and they ar I making war on each other. Men are far from having arrived at the millenium of a ccmiu"': purpose. And we may well reason that if they ever attain to cow I I mon purpose they will not need a police force. The best that can be done now is to form an association I nations which recognizes that there is not a common purpo e. bc that there arc myriad disagreements. Such an association musi wtf'l toward peace by investigating, arbitrating and adjudicating as iiiaffl I disputes as possible. - super-sovereignt- y. sup-- 1 I Mr. Wilson can have the heart of the world and we will the soul of America. Cox was a great vote-gett- er for Harding. kc( I I I |
