AMERICA, OURSELVES, AND THE ASSOCIATION OF NATIONS.
LAST week we said that it did not very much matter on what terms America came into the League of Nations so long as she came in. The more we reflect the more we feel convinced that the future depends entirely upon America sharing with us the responsibility of main- taining through thick and thin the new principle of inter- national relations. We must substitute for the old Balance of Power, the old duels of Statecraft, and the old rivalry of armaments the co-operation of nations working a system of international justice by peaceful means. It is that or
demoralization and ruin. What madness it would be, then, to delay the entry of America upon this beneficent task simply because we went on persisting with a scheme to which America cannot possibly give her adhesion ! Let us make no mistake about this. America, whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in power, will never join the League of Nations so long as it remains exactly in its present form. She cannot do so because it clashes with her Constitution. The Covenant of the League would involve America in war without reference to Congress, but the American Constitution lays it down that no warlike act can be committed without the consent of Congress.
We have before us the report of a remarkable address which Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler delivered at New London, Connecticut, on October 16th of this year. Dr. Butler has played so important a part in the counsels of the Republican Party that we need have little doubt that what he said will be found to coincide substantially with the programme of President Harding when he assumes office next March. We have been deeply impressed with the largeness of view, the humanity and the reasonableness of Dr. Butler's address. It would be madness, we repeat, to fail to get the Americans to work with us for want of a little adjustment and accommodation, particularly when it is plain—as Dr. Butler's address makes it plain—that there will be no perverse or sell-regarding objections put in the way by America Americans and ourselves have the same general outlook upon the world. We are both inspired by a hatred of war, by a contempt for aggression for its own sake, by tolerance, and by a sense of justice derived from its original source in the English Common Law. Dr. Butler says : "On the field of ideas, is it wholly certain that we have thrust into outer darkness the ultra-nationalism, the competitive rather than the co-operative point of view, the militarist mode of thinking and the constant appeal to force instead of to reason, which marked the Germany with which we were at war, and made it a danger to the whole world ? " His ambition is to be able to say" Yes" to that question. Before considering the present attitude of America towards the League, however, Dr. Butler, with swift and sure touches, sketches the past record of his country. He shows how America, like Great Britain, has kept the Judiciary severely separate from the Executive. The very fact of this separation has inclined the Americans, as it has always inclined Englishmen, to trust to the principle of international arbitration. They have been trained to regard a legal judgment as a completely impartial thing. On the other hand, the Continental nations which have mingled the functions of the Judiciary and the Executive have always found it difficult to conceive the possibility of any judge giving his verdict against the interests of his own country. True to her inclinations, and in spite of every kind of
discouragement on the Continent of Europe, America pressed her proposal for an International High Court of Justice at the Hague Conferences both in 1899 and in 1907. The war came without any such tribunal having been established, and Dr. Butler dwells with deep and grave regret upon the fact that President Wilson, instead of building upon the past, resorted to- an entirely new tram of thought, and insisted upon inserting the Covenant in the Peace Treaty in such a way that it would baffle. the wit of man to detach it from the Treaty. Mr. Wilson insisted upon doing this despite the clear and unmistakable warning which was given him by the elections in November, 1918. Dr. Butler points out with anxious care that the tremendous revulsion of feeling which has taken place in America against Mr. Wilson's methods was due not to
disagreement with Mr. Wilson's aims, but to a profound feeling that Americans could not consent to barter away their sovereign power by allowing the Covenant to over- ride the ancient rights of Congress. As we know, the Covenant clashes not only with the right of Congress to withhold consent to a war, but with the right of the Senate to control foreign policy expressed in the rule that no Treaty can be passed unless there is a two-thirds majority in its favour among those Senators voting upon it. We must face the facts and reconcile ourselves to the certainty that the Republican Party which is shortly coming into power in America will insist upon the following points :— 1. That America assumes no obligation to send soldiers and sailors for service abroad unless Congress authorizes the operation.
2. That the Monroe Doctrine must be observed both in letter and spirit. 3. That no foreign Power shall have any control over the domestic affairs of the United States.
4. That the United States will never consent to be drawn by the Labour clauses of the Treaty into what the Republicans have called "the net spread by International Socialism."
The record of the Republicans in the past holds good. They are still intent upon founding an International High Court of Justice to hear and decide in accordance with the principles of law and equity all international disputes that are justiciable. They have also expressed their wish for the creation of an International Congress which would meet at stated intervals to declare or revise the rules of international law and conduct, and to urge upon civilized nations their assent to a code defining the rights and duties of nations. Such a code was, as a matter of fact, adopted by the American Institute of International Law at Havana on January 23rd, 1917. The code is known as "The Recommendations of Havana." Surely these aims and objects, to which the Republicans have already committed themselves, contain all that we require. It would be a scandal and a blunder of the first magnitude if we failed to come to an arrangement with people who have in common with us such fine aims based upon both conviction and tradition.
Now we wish to make a proposal. It is that a suggestion made by Dr. Butler in his address should be acted upon. He suggests that Americans ought " to point out in friendly fashion what are the features of the Covenant which make it impossible for the United States to join the League. At the same time those changes should be suggested and earnestly urged which would make the project acceptable to the United States, while improving it also for other nations. We should not ask for ourselves anything which we do not wish nations associated with us to have. There is, of course, every reason to believe that if this course were judiciously and persuasively followed the suggestions of the United States would be received with sympathy, and within a very short time the present League of Nations would readily be transformed into such an Association of Nations as the United States could and would cheerfully join. There would thus be organized that 'great world. league for the peace of righteousness' that was so earnestly urged by Theodore Roosevelt." We can safely say that if the Republicans would translate this suggestion into a practical form Englishmen would rush to accept such a solution of the world's future. It is the only solution. We hope that the Republican Party will carefully prepare the ground during the next three months, and then, when President Harding comes into power, he will ask the Great Powers to appoint a Joint Commission to inquire into what alterations, additions, or omissions in the constitution of the League of Nations are required to make the League universally workable and effectual for carrying out its objects. These objects might be defined in the terms of reference as :— 1. To provide security for the independence, safety, and welfare of nationalities.
2. To prevent an appeal to arms. 3. To stop waste and reduce excessive armaments. 4. To provide a tribunal to settle disputes. ll. To maintain the sanctity of treaties. The terms of reference should, of course, be drawn in
such a way that the Report of the Commission would be tantamount to defining the conditions upon which the United States would be able to join the League without violating the American Constitution. The Republican Party is coiumitted to an "alternative policy " in place of Mr. Wilson's scheme which is discredited throughout America. What we have to do, then, is to make use of that alternative policy, to secure that it shall be fully and precisely expressed in order that America may come into the League. The vast majority of Americans hate the whole idea of a super-Government or anything resembling it. They do not want internationalism without nations ; they want in.,ernationalism with nations. Under this type of internationalism nations will be able to contract together to extend the rule of right. All justiciable differences would be settled by an impartial tribunal. Non-justiciable differences would be settled by conciliation or by Arbitral Councils, and, as Dr. Butler says, " it would be covenanted that no war arising out of such issues should be begun until a stated time after an award or recommendation had been made." We heartily agree with Dr. Butler that if such a regime were introduced there would soon be a marked spread of international confidence, and as a result of that confidence it would very soon be possible to limit armaments. Article XIV. in the Covenant actually recognizes the desirability of establishing a High Court of International Justice. Far too little importance has been attached to that proposal, which, indeed, has been generally overlooked. It would seem to be desirable now to concentrate attention upon it. In brief, the sound parts of the Covenant would be preserved, and the unsound parts, from the point of view of America, would be rejected.
Let us say once more that if we try to agree with America upon such lines as these success is practically certain. For nothing that we have said is in disagreement, but, on the contrary, is in exact agreement, with the declaration which Mr. Harding made in his speech at Marion, Ohio, on August 28th. With America in the League, every- thing is possible. Without her, nothing is possible.
Previous page
