PEACE TREATIES. QUESTION OF INTERNATIONAL BOYCOTT. WOULD IT END WARFARE?

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 62, 11 September 1911, Page 9

PEACE TREATIES. QUESTION OF INTERNATIONAL BOYCOTT. WOULD IT END WARFARE?

(From Our Own Correspondent.) SAN FJMJfCISCO, 9th August. . The United States definitely assumed the leadership of the work! in the mattev of international peace when, on 3rd August, signaUn'es wero attached to treaties between this country .and Great Britain and I'rance broadening the principle of arbitration beyond anything heretofore agreed upon by civilised nations. The initiative in each case catfte from the American Government. To President Taft olid his'adminis-tration-is unquestionably due the credit of making the courageous progosal .that .mattefn involving national honour should be submitted to arbitration. Many AnierJcan newspapers believe that the signing of these treaties will have such a widu-falt effect that tho pepce of the world is now practically assured. Considerable r--up£(Ori in given to thct'renrh j proposal thai other nations be coerced » into signing simi,lar treaties under I threat of sn international boycott. This country probably would not be reAdy to take th>? initiative id sudi a matter, but very likely would enter into an agreement with Great Britain if those nations came forward with the suggestion, t The idea, as stated in the x'arig "Figaro, according to cablegrams, ia that if othtr nations do not join the unlimited arbitration movement, they should be boycotted by the insertion of a clause in the agreements providing that the Arbitration countries shall suspend all relations of commerce, transportation, and postal intercourse with &, country warring on one of the signers. For example, the paper says, If the United States, Gteat Britain, and France should boycott Germany by refusing all relations with her, ?uch action, woulU fee certain to cauae the con fusion and ruin of that nation. By boycotting, obligatory, arbitration would be obtained, and then the limitation of armaments. Stieh comment as hasi been made on this bold proposal in the- United States is decidedly^ in accord with its spirit. The suggestion is made, however, that it Would Scarcely be possible to adopt agreements binding the signers to the principle of international boycott* until a few more of the strong nation^ have entered into unlimited arbitration treaties. Then, it k pointed ottt, it would be quite feasible to refuse commercial intercourse with the aggressor in a war. Disarmament is the next consummation that will bs worked for by peace advocates. Brosd arbitration treaties between th& United States and Japan, England, Germany^ Russia, and France, and between each other, would certainly be followed by a lessening of the burden of armies and navies. "After the general acceptance of arbitration will come general arbitration," writes one newspaper, adding enthusiastically : "Dreadnought* will go to the jttnk pile, and great asmies will be disbanded. The immense war debts of the nation, will remain^ but the increasing of the principal will cease, and real statesmen* will have a chance to work out the salvation of nations now threatened with bankruptcy." It is generally believed that Japan will be the next nation to urklertake the negotiation of a. general , arbitration treaty with the United States. The revised Anglo-Japanese treaty, with the modification that neither England nor Japan shall be bound to assist the other in a war with a nation with which the assisting country has a tieaty of arbitration, removed the one obstacle- to the conclusion of a treaty between America 'and Japan. That modification was of course necessary before general arbitration could be effected between. Great Britain and America, It mean® that under ho circumstances would Great Britain be bound by its treaty obligations with Japan, to assist Japan in. a war againit the United States, The new" treaty of commerce and navigation between thft United States and" Japan was signed last month, and in now in effect. Its important point of difference from the treaty which it Supplants 1* that it otnitA the paragraph restficting immigration, which was objectionable to the Japanese, America relying tfpoft the honour of Japan' to. carry otiß the spirit of existing undertakings, which prevent the departure oi Japanese coolies to* America.