The Evening Star MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1918.

Evening Star, Issue 16625, 7 January 1918, Page 4

The Evening Star MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1918.

The momentous statement by Mr Lloyd George on Britain's The Empire's war aims is much War Alms. more heartening than the Imperial Government's official reply to the British Labor .party's important manifesto on the- same subject. It is also an emphatic and stimulating declaration of the settled policy of the Empire in regard to peace. Moreover, it is an unequivocal answer to the Contra! Powers, whose recent negotiations for a separate peace with revolutionary Russia demonstrated to all the nations that the devilish heart of the world's enemy has not changed for the better after three years of devastating war, in which civilisation and history have been ineradicably befouled with their infamous atrocities and deliberate violations of sacred principles. Until that change has been effected fche Allies cannot live with Germany, and the war must go on.

The British Prime Minister's lucid statement may hold for many people throughout the world a- moasure of sharp disappointment over the staring fact that it brings peace no nearer, and offers no promise at all of an early peace on a dependable basis. It is obvious that Mr Lloyd George was keenly conscious of the effect of his statement, for at its cutset he emphasised the necessity for satisfying the national conscience as to the war aims of the nation before any Government made a fateful decision regarding the continuation or the determination of the struggle. " Only the clearest and greatest justice of the causes could justify the continuance for even one day of this unspeakable agony of nations." There can be no doubt, nor even the shadow of doubt, that the British Prime Minister has satisfied the conscience of the nation in respect to the justice of the British cause and of the necessity for pressing the cause to the summit of 'honorable fulfilment.

It is not necessary again to reiterate the causes which forced the Empire into the war. As Mr Lloyd George tersely phrases it: " We had to join the struggle, or see brute force triumph over public right and international justice." In principle it was the same causes, insolently aggravated, that forced the great Republic of America to range her strength and righteousness against Germany, whose " national policy .was to teach every nation to distrust every other nation j whose military "policy was to spread terror; whose naval policy was to prey upon neutrals—a Germany who believed that all othor peoples must live only with her consent, and that must bring all .peoples into a constant state of subservience and fear." Knowledge of these indisputable facts ought to fortify even the flabby conscience of the confirmed pacifist. The conscience'

of the nation is completely satisfied with the justice of and the scope of the British war aims, and the people will unhesitatingly endorse the declaration of the Ini: perial Government, through their leader, that '

Wo' cannot longer submit the future of Europo and civilisation to the arbitrary decisions of a fow negotiators striving to secure by chicanory or persuasion the interest of this or that dynasty or nation. The settlement of the new Europe must be based upon such grounds of reason and justice as will give some .promise of stability. .' . . The completo withdrawal of alien armies and reparation for injustice done is the fundamental condition of a permanent peace. Wo mean to stand by the French Democracy to the death on the demand they make for reconsideration of the great wrong of 1871.

That in itself is a complete answer to the hypocrisy of Count Czernin at. the BrestLitovsk Conference. The answer is backed by the democratic policy of the United States—a policy that was so well expressed by Mr Lane, Secretary of the Interior, a strong man in Mr Wilson's Cabinet, who said : " It is now 1,900 years since Cfcsar defeated the Germans in France. 'When they came asking terms, he said to them : 'Go back whence you came, repair the damage you have done, give hostages, keep the peace for the future.'" The hostage required from Germany .to-day is an absolute guarantee of freedom for democracies. Not for. many months has the political situation in Russia Democracy seemed less unfavorable Before Peace, to the Allies. The futility of the peace negotiations at Brest-Litovsk is, at any rate, a propitious sign. The utter confusion, however, prevailing in Russia, and the kaleidoscopic changes that have marked the progress of the revolution, preclude prudent people from speaking with any assurance upon the probable outcome to the Allies. Nevertheless, the rebuff that the Bolsheviks have given to the peace terms of Germany is of a kind which, from the very beginning of negotiations, might have been anticipated. Some little time .ago we set forth the clashing ideals of the Russian and theGerman representatives at Brest-Litovsk. The mere statement of the widely different purposes which the Russian and German Governments desired to realise by peace was enough to impress upon the mind the difficulties of agreement—difficulties, indeed, insuperahlo by anything but the most astute diplomacy. It was like expecting oil and water to mix to ask revolutionaries, in the full tide of their new-born zeal for the extremest form of democracy, to concur in terms of peace with autocrats still intoxicated with the belief that the sword is the symbol of successful government of nations. Just what Russia was determined to get by way of peace—namely, the right of free government for the Russian people and the recognition of that right as the cardinal principle of international statecraft—just that Germany was determined to reject until defeat should force it upon her. As we pointed out, had it been possible for the Kaiser to treat Russia as a conquered country, the militarist design of Germany could have been thrust upon the acceptance of the revolutionaries at the point of the sword. But although virtually conquered, Russia had to be conciliated, the will of her ruling statesmen had to be persuaded; she could not be coerced, because the Allies were armed to the teeth and approaching the maximum of their striking power. The consciousness of this must have had a paralysing influence on the proud imperial, domineering spirit of Germany; and upon the visionary enthusiasm of the revolutionaries, despite their realisation -of impotence in the field, it must have had a heartening effect. Throughout the negotiations for peace the armed camp of the Allies stood in the background, dismaying the Germans in their lust for spoil and dominion, and encouraging the Russians to be bold in pressing the claims of Democracy.

The opportune utterance of the British Prime Minister (outlined in the previous article) is another proof of the transcendent statesmanship of Mr Lloyd George. Russia pressed for democratic freedom for Poland, Lithuania, and Courland; Germany sought paramountcy by indirect means. Then comes the illumination of Russia's peace delegates, which induces M. Kameneff, the chief of them, to declare that " if Germany now moved her troops against revolutionary Russia it would be evident that her purpose would be the final enslavement of Poland and Lithuania. This would instantly cause an explosion which would destroy German imperialism." This is the best note that has been sounded in distressed Russia for a long time. Unfortunately too much reliance should not be placed upon it, becauso no one is qualified to speak with authority for that unhappy country just now. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the Russian army is in no condition to withstand the assaults of the German forces; and, despite the assistance of the Allies, the demoralisation of that army may enable the Germans to inflict such disasters as would make the Russian people sue for peace at the price o£ humiliating terms. None the less, the news from Russia gives ground for strong hope. The new year begins with an auspicious sky in storm-swept Russia.