POLITICAL ENTENTES

Evening Star, Issue 18394, 1 October 1923, Page 2

POLITICAL ENTENTES

WHY NOT ANGLO-AMSRIOAN?

BRITISH WITHDRAWAL FROM EUROPE SUGGESTED.

"It is sometimes a good thing to take a look at one’s own country irom the outside,” writes Mr Philip Kerr m the Loudon ' Observer.’ "It helps one to see tilings in a better perspective. That is what I have been doing for tho past year, and the excuse for these articles is that others may like to share in tho results.” Mr Philip Kerr, who writes thus, after some years spent in South Africa in tho public service, and subsequently as editor of the ‘ Stale,’ returned to England in 1909 (says ' Public Opinion ’). For a time ho was editor of the ‘ Round Table. ’ review. Later, as Mr Lloyd George’s lieutenant during that statesmans period of greatest strength, he played, as will lie remembered, a prominent part in the affairs of Europe. For the past year he lias been in ilia United States. TWO LESSONS FROM HISTORY. Mr Kerr points two lessons from history which are worth noting; — “ Canning proposed concerted action by tho United States and Great Britain a century ago. The United States did not dissent from the genera] lino of Canning's policy, but preferred another way of pursuing it. That is exactly what is happening tu-day. Since 1920 the United Slates lias taken a different view of Europe and of tho League of Nations from ours. “ The second lesson is the tremendous contrast between conditions to-day and a hundred years ago. Modern invention has reduced the size of the world in terms of lime and space to a fraction of what it then was, and has transformed the relative standing and power of the New World and the Old, 'Then the New World was in its infancy. It hardly counted in international politics. To-day it comprises not only incomparably the richest, the largest, and the most powerful single nation in the world, but in tho dominions it contains what are unquestionably going to become some of the leading powers of this country.” “ Tho truth is,” says Mr Kerr, “ that Loth the United States and Great Britain are being driven along very much ihe same path as they followed a century ago by something much deeper than the vagaries of politicians or parties. There arn soma fundamental causes at. work which it is important that we should stop to examine. The first is that neither Ihn United States nor ourselves are part of Europe. Tho United States is situated on another continent. We are part of a world-wide Commonwealth far larger and more populous than Europe, whose unity is the ocean, and whose defences are the seven seas, impassable deserts, and the highest mountains in tho world. That little strip of what Mr Balfour once called twenty-two very unpleasant miles of sea has governed our history from tho start, and it governs it still. THE DIFFERENCE. " Tho second cause is more impalpable. It was well defined to me once by Signor Nitti in a conversation I had with him at San Remo. 1 There is a. difference,,’ he said, 1 between you English-speaking peoples and ns Gontinnenfnls. I have been trying to make out what it is. 1 think 1 have got it. Your civilisation, your politics, rest upon moral ideas; ours on intellectual.’ I think he was right. I believe that this very discerning observation is the explanation of many of the difficulties wo have had, and are still having, with our All’oj.

“ There is no don lit that the political disentanglement wtveh is now taking place between Great Britain and the Continent is based on far more deep-rooted factors than a temporary disagreement about reparations and the Ruhr. As I shall endeavor to show in later articles, disentanglement involves no unfriendliness to France or our other Allies, and no estrangement. It involves no unwillingness to play our pert in trying to settle reparations on a basis which will secure the safety of our Allies and the freedom of all Europe’s peoples. On the contrary, disentanglement is really to the advantage both of Europe and ourselves, and I do not believe that any real progress will ho made towards a permanent peace in Europe until tho necessity for it is recognised on both sides of the Channel, and on both sides of tho Atlantic as well.” CALLING IN TUT, NEW WORLD.

Mr Kerr recalls what happened in 1823. “ Canning, to quote his own phrase, endeavored to call ' tie New World info existence to redress the balance of )!■_• Old.’ He proposed a concert bt-iv ,

Great Britain and tho United Slai/ a . oppose the designs of the Continen.ai Powers against the South American liepublics, then in revolt against Spain. Thomas Jefferson was in favor of the proposal. President Moiroo and his Cabinet, however, determined 10 avoid any kind of entanglement even with a JibcraDEuropcan Power, and preferrd an unilateral declaration. So in 1823 wis promulgated the Monroe doctrine, which ever 1 since has been the cardinal element in American foreign policy, and, ss a matter of fact, a cardinal element in our own.

“ Does not history of ths past five years bear a striking similarity to all this ? We began with the Supremo Council and the League of Nations, designed to supervise the execution of the Treaties of Versailles and to maintain the pca.ce of Europe. In tho pursuit of those ends we have been represented at Genova. and at a scries of conferences at Paris, London, Spa, Cannes, Genoa, and thus back to London and Paris again. Yet wo are now almost isolated tom Europe once more, not because wo wish to quarrel with our late Allies, but because we can no longer co-operate with their policy. Do we tot stand very much where we stood at Verona, exactly 100 years ago ? Is the next step also going to be tho same ? TIRED OF THE AREOPAGUS.

"It was after Verona that Canning made his famous observation; ‘ Things are getting back to a wholesome state again. Every nation for itself and God for ns all. The time for tho Areopagus and tho like of that is gone by.’ Canning's aphorism sounds very cynical to-day. I am not so sure that it was, though the phrasing lends color to tho charge. For Canning’s policy was not isolation. He was so far from being an isolationist that ho proposed what amounted to an alliance with the United States. Ho had found that ho could not do reasonable business with Europe, so he proposed doinu business with America instead. And will anybody to-day affirm that he was or that ho would have done any better if ho had tried to keep step with the Holy Alliance ?

“ Moreover, what, else is the policy of the United States, as approver! in the Presidential election of 1920, but Canning’s policy brought up to date? Europe carelessly curses the United States for not taking a more active interest in its affairs. Rut America, like Canning, says that she is tired of the Areopagus. And, personally, I am not at all sure that fundamentally her policy has not been right. Nor do" I believe that it leads any more towards permanent isolation than did his.”