ON THE PEACE PATH

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 92, 12 January 1929, Page 26

ON THE PEACE PATH

MR. COOLIDGE BREAKS SILENCE THE ARMISTICE DAY SPEECH

The usually taciturn President Coolidge, broke bis habitual silence with a very line speech, at a meeting at Washington, under the auspices of the American Legion : — ' We meet, he said, to give thanks lor ten more years of peace. Amid the multitude of bounties which have been bestowed upon us, we count that our supreme blessing. In all our domestic aud foreign relations our chief concern is that it should be permanent. It is our belief that it is coming to be more and more realised as the natural state of mankind. Yet, while we are placing our faith in more complete understandings, which shall harmonise with the universal conscience, we ought not to forget that all the rights we now possess, the peace we now enjoy, have been procured for us by a long series of sacrifices and of conflicts. We are able to participate in this celebration because our country had the resources, the character, and the spirit to raise, equip, and support with adequate supplies an army and navy which, by placing more than 2,000,009 men on the battlefields of Europe, contributed to the making of the Armistice on November 11, 1918. Our first thought, then, is to acknowledge the obligation which the nation owes to those who served in our forces afloat and ashore which contributed the indispensable factor to the' final victory. Although all our people became engaged in this great conflict, some in furnishing money, some in producing food and clothing, some in making munitions, some in administering our Government, the place of honour will always be accorded to the men and the women who wore the uniform of our country —the living and the dead. American Achievements. When the great conflict finally broke upon us, we were unprepared to meet its military responsibilities. What navy we possessed at that time, as is always the case with our navy, was ready. Admiral Sims at once carried new courage and new energy to the contest on the sea. So complete was the defence of our transports that the loss by enemy attack in sending our land forces to Europe was surprisingly small. As we study the record of our army in France, we become more and more impressed by three outstanding features. The unity of the American Forces and the integrity of the American Command were always preserved. They were trained with a thoroughness becoming the tradition of McClennan; they were fought with a tenacity and skill worth of the memory of Grant; and, finally, they were undefeated. For these outstanding accomplishments, which were the chief sources of the glory of our army, we are indebted to the genius of General Pershing. It is unnecessary to recount with any detail our experience in the war. It was a new revelation, not only of the strength but of the unity of our people. No country ever exhibited a more magnificent spirit or demonstrated a higher degree of patriotic devotion. The great organising ability of our industrial leaders; the unexpected strength of our financial resources ; the dedication of our entire manpower under the universal service law; the farm and the factory; the railroad and the bank; 4,000,000 men under arms and 6,000,000 men in resprve—all became one mighty engine for the prosecution of the war. Altogether it was the greatest power that any nation on earth had ever assembled.

When it was all over, in spite of the great strain, we were the only country that had much reserve power 'left. Our foodstuffs were necessary to supply urgent needs; our money was required to save from financial disaster. Our resources delivered Europe from starvation and ruin. In the final treaty of peace, not only was the map of Europe remade, but the enormous colonial possessions of Germany were divided among certain Allied nations. Such private property of hei' nationals as they held was applied to the claim for reparations. We neither sought nor took any of the former German possessions. We have provided by law for returning the-private property of her nationals. Viewed from its economic results, war is the most destructive agency that ever afflicts- the earth. Yet it is the dead here and abroad who are gone for ever. While our own losses were thus very large, the losses of others required a somewhat greater proportionate outlay, but they are to be reduced by the territorial acquisitions and by reparations. While we shall receive some further credits- on the accounts 1 have stated as our costs, our outlay will be much greater than that of any other country. Whatever may be thought or said-of us, we know, and every informed person should know, that we reaped no selfish benefit from the War. No citizen <jf the United States needs to make any apology to anybody anywhere for not having done our duty in defence of the cause of world liberty. Such benefits as came to our country from our War experience were not represented by material values, but by spiritual values. The whole standard of our existence was raised; the conscience and the faith of the nation were quick ened with new .life. The people awoke to the drum-beats of a new destiny. to ln common with most of the Great Powers, we are paying the cost of that terrible 'tragedy. On the whole, the War has made possible a great advance in self-government in Europe, yet in some quarters society was W near PBtete hUDian ont of war that could not better have 0 been °secure'll by reason and conSC Fvmw dictate of humanity constantly ■.Lu tbit we do not want any ones aloud t 0 take ev ery pre“utlon and make every honourable sacntl,e !,1 face facts, and it is equally h no ' means “supreme “human iMr -' ,S', e K'ri'om ful. „ . Be Ready for Defence.

The eternal questions before the nations are how to prevent war and how to defend themselves if it comes. There are those who see no answer except military preparation. But this remedy has never proved sufficient. We do not know of any nation which has ever been able to provide arms enough so as always to be at peace. Fifteen years ago the most thoroughly equipped ’’copies of Europe were Germany and I’rance. We saw what happened. While Borne maintained a general peace for many generations, it wa S s not without a running conflict on the borders which finally engulted the Empire. But there is a wide distinction between absolute prevention and frequent recurrence, and peace is ot little •value if it is constantly accompanied by the threatened or the actual violation of national rights. If the European countries had neglected their defences, it is probable that war should have come much sooner. All human experience seems to demonstrate that a country which makes reasonable preparation for defence is less likely to be subject to a hostile .attack and. Jess likely to suffer a violation of its tights which might lead to war. This is the prevailing attitude of the United States nnd one which 1 believe should constantly determine its actions. ’ To be ready for defence is not to be guilty of aggression. We can have military preparation without assuming a military spirit. It is our dutv to ourselves and to the cause of civilisation, to the preservation of domestic tranquillity, to our orderly and lawful relations with Lp-cign peoples, to maintain an adequate army and navy. .W'e do not need a large land force, lhe

present size of our regular army is entirely adequate, but it should continue to be supplemented by a National Guard and Reserves, and especially with the equipment and organisation in our industries fpr furnishing supplies. When we turn to the sea the sitution is different. We have not only a long coast line, distant outlying possessions, a foreign commerce, unsurpassed in importance, and foreign investments unsurpassed in amount, the number of our people and value of our treasure to be protected, but we are also bound by international treaty to defend the Panama Canal. Having few fuelling stations, we require ships of large tonnage, and, having scarcely any, merchant vessels capable of mounting live-dr sixinch guns, it is obvious that, based on positions, we are entitled to a larger number of warships than a nation having these advantages. Naval Armaments.

Important, however, as we have believed adequate national defence to be lor preserving order and peace in the world, we have not considered it to be the only element. We have most urgently, and to some degree successfully, advocated the principle of the limitation of armaments. We think this should apply both to land and to sea forces, but, as the limitation of armies is very largely a European question, we have wished the countries most interested to take the lead in deciding this among themselves. I 1 or the purpose of naval limitation we called the Washington Conference, and secured an agreement as to capital ships and aero-plane-carriers, and also as to the maxi-

mum unit tonnage and maximum calibre of guns and cruisers. But the number of cruisers, lesser craft, and submarines has no limit. It no doubt has some significance that foreign Governments made agreements limiting that class of combatant vessels in which we were superior, but refused limitation in the class in which they were superior. We made altogether the heaviest sacrifice in scrapping work which was already in existence. That should for ever remain not only a satisfaction to ourselves but a demonstration to others of our good faith in advocating the principle of limitation. At that time we had 23 cruisers and ten more nearly completed. One of these has since been lost aud 22 are nearly obsolete. To replace these we have started building eight. The British have since begun and completed seven, are building eight, and have five more authorised. When their present legislation is carried out they will have 68 cruisers. When ours is carried out we shall have 40. It is obvious that, eliminating all competition, world standards of defence require us to have more cruisers. This was the situation when I requested another Conference, which the British and Japanese attended, hut to ■ which Italy and France did not come. The United States there proposed a limitation of cruiser tonnage of 250,000 to 300,000 tons. As near as we could figure out their proposal, the British asked for from 425,000 to 600,000 tons. As it appeared to us that to agree to so large a tonnage constituted not a limitation but an extension of war fleets, no agreement was made. Since that time no progress seems to have been made. In fact, the movements have been discouraging. During last summer France and England made a tentative offer which would limit the kinds of cruisers and submarines adapted to the use of the United States, but left without limit the kind adapted to their use. The United States, of course, refused to accept this offer. Had we not done so, the French Army and the British Navy would be so near unlimited that the principle of limitation would be virtually abandoned. . The nations have already accomplished much in the way- of limitation, and we hope may accomplish more when the Preliminary Conference called by the League of Nations is reconvened.

The Anti-War Pact. Meantime the United States and other nations have been successfully engaged in undertaking to establish additional safeguards and securities to the peace of the world by another method. Throughout all history war has been occurring until it has come to be recognised by custom and practice as having a certain legal standing. It has been regarded as- the last resort, and has too frequently been the first. 'When it was proposed that this traditional attitude should be modified between the United States and France, we replied that it should be modified among all nations. As a result, representatives of lu Powers have met in Paris and signed a treaty which condemns recourse to war, renounces it as a national policy, and pledges them not to seek to resolve their differences except by peaceful action. While this leaves the questions ot national defence and limitation of arrmainents practically where they were as the negative supports of peace, it discards all threat of force and approaches the subject on its positive side. For the first time in the world the leading Powers bind themselves to adjust disputes without recourse to force. While lecognising to the fullest extent the duty of self-defence, and not undertaking, as no human ingenuity could undertake, an absolute guarantee against war, it is the most complete and will be the most effective instrument for peace that was ever devised. , . , So long as promises can be bioken and treaties can be violated, we can have no positive assurances, yet every one knows they are additional safeguards. We can only say that this is the best that mortal man can do. It is beside the. murk to argue that we rijould not put faith in it. The whole scheme of human society, the whole progress of civilisation, requires that we should have faith in men and in nations. There is nc other positive power on which we coulfi rely. All the values that have ever been created, all the progress that has ever been made, declare that our faith is justified. For the cause of peace the United States is adopting the only practical principles that have ever been proposed, of preparation, limitation, and renunciation. The progress that the world has made in this direction in the last ten years surpasses all the progress ever before made. Recent developments have brought to us not only a new. economic, but a new political relationship to the rest of the world. We have been constantly debating what our attitude ought to be towards the European nations. Much of our position is already revealed by the record. It can truthfully be characterised as one of patience, consideration. restraint, and assistance. We have accepted settlement of obligations, not in accordance with what was' due, but in accordance with the merciful principle of y.-hat oyr debtors could pay. We have

given of our counsel when asked, aud of our resources for constructive purposes, but we have carefully refrained from all intervention which was unsought . or which we believed would be ineffective, and we have not wished to contribute to the support of armaments. Whatever assistance we may have given to finishing the war, we feel free from any responsibility for beginning it. We do not wish to finance preparation for a future war. Relations With Europe. We have heard an impressive amount of discussion concerning our duty to Europe. Our own people have supplied considerable quantities of it. Europe itself has expressed very definite ideas on this subject. We do have such duties. We have acknowledged them and tried to meet them. They are not all on one side, however. They are mutual. We have sometimes been reproached for lecturing Europe, but ours are not the only people who sometimes engage in gratuitous criticism and advice. We have also been charged with pursuing a policy of isolation. We are not the only people either who desire to give their attention to their own affairs. It is quite evident that both of those claims cannot be true. I think no informed person at home or abroad would blame us for not intervening in affairs which are peculiarly the concern of others to adjust, or, when we are asked for help, for stating clearly the terms on which we are willing to respond. Immediately following the War we went to the rescue of friend and foe alike in Europe on the grounds of humanity. Later our experts joined with their experts in making a temporary adjustment of German reparations, aud securing the evacuation of the Ruhr. Our people lent £25,000,000 to Germany to put that plan into immediate effect. Since 1924 Germany has paid on reparations about £260,000,000 and our people have lent to national, State, and municipal Governments and to corporations in Germany a little over £250,000,000. It could not be claimed that this money is the entire source from which reparations have been directly paid, but it must have been a large factor in rendering Germany able to pay. We also lent large sums to the Governments and corporations in other countries, to aid in their financial rehabilitation. I have several times stated that such ought to be our policy. But there is little reason for sending capital abroad while rates for money in London and Paris are at 4 or 5 per cent, aud ours are much higher. England is placing very considerable loans abroad; France has had large credits abroad, some of which have been called home. Both are making very large outlays for military purposes. Europe, on the whole, has arrived at a state of financial stability and prosperity where it cannot be said we are called on to help or act much beyond a strict business basis. The needs of our own people require that any further advances by us must have most careful consideration. For the United States not to wish Europe to prosper would be not only a selfish, but an entirely unenlightened, view. We want the investment of life and money which we have made there to be to their benefit. We should like to have our Government debts all settled, although it is probable that we could better afford to lose them than our debtors could afford not to pay them. Divergent standards of hying among nations involve many difficult problems. We intend to preserve our high standards of living, and we should like to see all other countries on the same level. With a whole-hearted acceptance of Republican institutions, with the opening of opportunity to individual initiative, they are certain to make much progress in that direction. Mutual Understanding. It is always plain that Europe and the United States are lacking in mutual understanding. We are prone to think they can do as we can do. We are not interested in their age-old animosities: we have not suffered from centuries of violent hostilities. We do not see how difficult it is for them to displace distrust in each other with faith in each other. On the other hand, they appear to think that we are going to do exactly what thev would do if they had our chance. If they would give a little more attention to our history and judge 'US a little more closely by our own record, and especially find out in what directions we believe our real interests to lie, much which they now appear to find obscure would be quite apparent. We want peace, not only for the same reason that every other nation wants it, because we believe it to-be right, but because war would interfere with our progress. Our interests all over the earth are such that a conflict anywhere would be enormously to our disadvantage. If we had not been in the world war, in spite of some profit we made’ in exports, whichever side had won in the end, our losses would have been very great. We are against aggression and imperialism, not only because we believe in local selfgovernment, but because we do not want more territory inhabited by foreign people. Our exclusion of emigration should make that plain. Our outlying possessions, with the exception of the Panama

Canal Zone, arc not a help to us, but a hiudwHice. We bold them, not as a profit, but as a duty. We want limitation of armaments for the welfare of humanity. We are not merely seeking our advantage in this, as we do not need it, or attempting to avoid expense, as we can bear it better than anyone else. If we could secure a more complete reciprocity in goodwill, the final liquidation of the balance of our foreign debts, and such further limitation of armaments as would be commensurate, with the treaty renouncing war, our confidence in the effectiveness of any additional efforts on our part to assist in the further progress of Europe would be greatly increased. As we contemplate the past ten years there is every reason to be encouraged. It has been a period in which human freedom has been greatly extended; in which the right of self-government has come to be more widely recognised. Strong foundations have been laid tor the support of these principles. We should by no means be discouraged, because practice lags'behind principle. We make progress slowly, and over a course which can tolerate no open spaces. It is a long distance from a world that walks by force to a world that walks by faith. The United States has been so placed that it could advance with little interruption along the road of freedom and faith. It is befitting that we should pursue our course without exultation, with due humility, and with due gratitude for the important contributions of the more ancient nations which have helped to make possible our present progress and our future hope. The greatest responsibilities that can come to a people in this world have come to us. We must not fail to meet them in accordance with the requirements of conscience and righteousness. ,