THE H.B. TRIBUNE. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1922 ARMENIA AND AMERICA.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 242, 26 September 1922, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1922 ARMENIA AND AMERICA.

It has no doubt been noted by those endeavouring to get some conception of the many hard knots that have to be untied before there can be anything like a final unravelment of the Near Eastern problem that as yet very little that is definite has been said during recent discussions with regard to the pressing question of securing protection for the Christian populations that may be le f t under Turkish rule. Mr. Lloyd George in his statement as to Britain’s policy emphasised in a general way that this was an essential element in the negotiations, but without giving any specific indication as to how the object might be achieved. Neither France nor Italy seems to have given any heed to this particular phase of the difficulties to be overcome. There came yesterday, 'however, a note though perhaps a faint one, of - hope, from a rather unexpected quarter. A New York message informed us that the Federal Council of Churches in the United States, embracing numerous denominations, had petitioned the President and his Secretary of State to use all possible influence towards securing peace in the Near East, and to see that ‘‘America assumed its (share of responsibility there.” It lias probably been forgotten by most people that, when the peace between the Allies and Germany was being discussed by the Allied Council in Paris, the subject of endeavouring also to establish peace in the Near- East was likewise discussed in connection with the Covenant of the League of Nations. Such was the case, however, and furthermore, the then American President, Mr. Wilson, held out the very strongest hopes that his Government would accept the burden of the League’s ‘‘mandate’' in Armenia. The matter was carried so far by the United States Administration of the day that in 1919 a mission, headed by General James G. Harbord, was sent to Asia Minor to gain information as to “whether it would be advisable for the United States to assume the office of mandatory in Armenia.” This mission duly proceeded to its investigation, and the report submitted by it makes interesting reading in view of the movement now attributed to the churches of the United States. It is a very lengthy document, embodied in thirteen bound volumes, professing, however, merely to set down facts and conditions as ascertained, and conclusions reached, without maljffng any recommendation as to what course should be pursued. The arguments for and against, as they suggested themselves to the mission, are set out, and foremost among the former appears the straight-out statement that “as one of the chief contributors to the formation of the League of Nations the United States is morally bound to accept the obligation and responsibilities of a mandatory.” This did not necessarily infer that the particular mandatory proposed should be the one which the United States should accept. But the report goes on to say that “the Near East presents the greatest humanitarian opportunity of the age, a duty for which the United States is better fitted than any other, as witness Cuba, Porto Rico, the Philippines, Hawaii, Panama, and an altruistic policy of

developing peoples rather than natural resources alone.” Beyond this declaration of peculiar qualification for the task, the report declared that “America is practically the unanimous choice and fervent hope of all the peoples involved.” It also points out that already America—that is, American philanthropists, presumably—was spending millions to save starving people in Asiatic Turkey, that this could be done more efficiently and economically under mandatory direction, that America was the only hope of the Armenians—“excepting, perhaps Britain, which they fear would sacrifice their interests to Moslem public opinion so long as she controls hundreds of millions of that faith.” Others, it is added, feared Britain’s imperialistic policy and '‘habit of staying where she hoists her flag.” Thus America t is “the first choice of all the people of the hear East,” (while on the other hand, “American power is adequate, its record is clean, its motives above suspicion.” Further “arguments for” are adduced, winding up by saying that “if the United States does not take responsibility it is likely that international jealousies will result in a. continuance of the unspeakable misrule of the Turks,” and tagging the biblical quotation, “And the Lord said unto Cain, ‘Where is Abel thy brother?’ And he said, ‘I know not ;am I my brother’s keeper ?’ ”

This all sounds very hopeful, but then follow the “arguments against.” These are even more numerous and given at greater length than the arguments for. Among them are “prior and nearer foreign obligations,” as well as "domestic problems” ; the possible weakening of the “Monroe doctrine,” so precious to American minds; “humanitarianism should begin at home”; “the United States has in no way contributed to prevailing conditions” ; other Powers, “particularly Britain and Russia” have shown continued interest in Armenia; Britain is fitted by experience and wealth to take up the job, “though not as sympatheic to Armenian aspirations” ; foreign policy in the United States, is not continuous; “ our country would be put to great expense, involving probably an increase in army and navy” ; and much more of the same tenour. Then a rather contradictor}’ admission is made that “peace and justice would be equally assured under any of the Great Powers,” which, however, seems to be introduced in order to strengthen the conclusion that “our own strength should be reserved for future responsibilities on the American Continent and in the Far East,” and a final declaration that “the first”— and, apparently, also the last — “duty t)f America is to its own people and its nearer neighbours.” This, in brief, was the report which President Wilson sent forward for the Senate’s consideration. But, as we all know, the American Senate gave but short shrift to all his idealistic projects, including the League of Nations itself, so that the question of accepting a mandate did not arise for its discussion. It seems, however, a great pity that a country which, on its own showing, has such fine ethical qualifications for the undertaking could not see its way to sink the more sordid considerations advanced-and assume it. Some curiosity is excited as to how the new President will handle the petition of the American churches, which, we must always bear in mind, have been responsible probably more than those of any other nation for the philanthropic efforts made to ameliorate conditions for the Armenians.