OCR Text |
Show A WORLD LEAGUE. After reading President AY il sou's prouuueiamento to the world regarding a universal guarantee of peace, one can- not escape tbe conviction that the diffi- I culties in the way are practically in- ! superable. This conviction grows when one tries to conceive of a definite pro- gramme. Take, for example, the programme which the president suggested while ! protesting that it was not his purpose to present a programme. Here is a part of his programme: i( First, such a settlement with regard re-gard to their own immediate interests as the belligerents may agree upon. Y"e have nothing material of any kind to a sit for ourselves and are quite aware that we are in no sense or degTee parties par-ties to the present quarrel. Our inter- r.ll IS OIIIJ' ill MCrtC (9UU 113 guarantees. Second, a universal association asso-ciation of the nations to maintain the inviolate security of the highway of the seas for the common and unhindered unhin-dered use of all the nations of the world, and to prevent any war begun either contrary to treaty covenants or without warning and full submission of i the causes to the operation of the world' a virtual guarantee of territorial terri-torial integrity and political independence. independ-ence. ' In theory the programme appears feasible, but when we try to imagine concreto cases we begin to see the difficulties. dif-ficulties. A virtual guarantee of territorial terri-torial integrity and political independence independ-ence might not be in the interest of justice. If there had been a universal association at the time. of. our revolutionary revolu-tionary war, it would have enforced the territorial integrity of Great Britain, ! and this country would still be a part of the British empire. The president, in another part of his address, maintains, it is true, that K . " every people has a right to choose the t sovereignty tinder which they shall live. M It will be seen that the two propositions are in conflict if not diametrically dia-metrically opposed to each other. The universal association would have a tendency to eliminate the revolutionary revolution-ary principle. In most cases this might he, desirable, but in some cases it would be an injustice. And if the revolution-a revolution-a ry principle were suppressed in the world's affairs, how would "every peo ple " assert the "right to choose me sovereignty under - which they shall live?" The president declares that "the Finall states of the world have a ' right to enjoy the same respect for their sovereignty and for their territorial terri-torial integrity that great and powerful pow-erful nations insist upon." Mr. Wil--f Hon is referring to those small states which already have political independence independ-ence or had it before the present war Belgium and Serbia but how about Mich small nationalities as Poland, Bohemia, Bo-hemia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary, Hun-gary, Ireland1, the Boer regions of South Africa, which Great Britain seized by force, Egypt, Sc hies wig, Alsace and Lorraine and many other "small j h fates " or potential states ? The ten- j ' dency of the universal association, in peace times, would be to suppress revo-i revo-i lutions and guarantee territorial , in- tegrity rather than political independ- j ence. j But, more important still, so far as ! American interests are concerned, is the jurisdiction which we would surrender sur-render to the universal alliance of supervising su-pervising affairs in the western hemisphere. hem-isphere. This jurisdiction would virtually vir-tually abrogate the Monroe doctrine, i Let us suppose a case that recently happened. A Mexican bandit crosses i the American border and murders our ! citizens. He retreats to Mexico, where, I because of widespread anarchy, the ' Mexican do facto authorities cannot punish him. What is the "universal ' association" going to do about it? Are we to hold back our troops until the universal alliance gets into action? Arc we to permit the alliance, hi contravention contraven-tion of the Monroe doctrine, to land troops in Mexico to protect tho do facto government's claims against the United States? We nnit not assume that the alliance would necessarily take our side. H might take the side of the de facto chief and order our troops not to enter Mexico or to get out if they happened hap-pened to .be there. Those who propose tho league would have us believe that it would always ! bo opcra-te as to uphold the principles of justice. . It is more likely that it .would frequently operate to uphold the interests of a certain set of nations, the majority power. And as we have pointed out hitherto the alliance, in all probability, would be a t coalition of those powers dominant on the seas. In all probability it would, be a coalition of Great Britain, the United States, France and perhaps Italy. Russia might belong to it temporarily, but it is quite conceivable that in case of a disagreement disagree-ment in the alliance Russia would join Germany, Austria and other nations to oppose the edicts of the seif -constituted and self-righteous successor of the "Holy Alliance." The "Holy Alliance" Alli-ance" was formed to enforce the autocratic auto-cratic principle and to keep Spain's colonies for her. In reply. Great Britain and the United States invented the Monroe doctrine, and for a century Great Britain has upheld that doctrine except in such cases as conflicted with her own interests the Venezuela case, , for instance. We have suggested somewhat at random ran-dom certain objections to the Leagne to Enforco Peace or the "universal association." asso-ciation." To elaborate the points we have made would require too much space, but they afford a basis for cautious cau-tious consideration of the president 's proposals. There has been much criticism of the Prussian doctrine that might makes right. The "universal association" would be the uttermost development of that doctrine. |