THE PEACE CONFERENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CI, Issue 11898, 23 May 1899, Page 4

THE PEACE CONFERENCE.

EtmoFEAN public opinion seems still divided, over the probable issues of the Peace -Conference. Tolstoi, the world's •chief apostle- of peace, some time ago rejected the whole- scheme as insincere and . meaningless. Another Russian, M: Tofoertkoff, speaks in the same minor key. The Conference, according to these authorities, •has been used to glorify the-Czar, and thus indirectly to strengthen the power of that terrible autocracy which has, in two years, destroyed nearly a thousand innocent meni, women and-children, whoseronly offence was that they resisted the doctrine-and practice of militarism. While the Dukbobortsi and Finns have been driven out bomelfcss into strange countries, a Russian Minister has •excited the Socialists to violent opposition and. then quelled them by military force. It is hardly, surprising, in view of such circumstances as these, that the subjects of the Czar have little-faith in any approaching reign of love and concord. For the moment, however, their protest is pretty well drowned in the chorus- of jubilation raised by Mr SteaxL-and His crusaders in the character — Sir Stead's-own-ex-pression—of "herald angels." These prophets maintain that the United States of Europe are already visible, and that universal peace is almost am accomplished fact. Even those enthusiasts who are less liable to be intoxicated with ideas talk triumphantly of war disappearing among the other barbarous practices of the past. As usual, there is some truth in-both points of view. The transformation fromi savagery to civilisation is going-on, but so slowly thatit resembles a geological process rather than the rapid construction of a modern edifice. The mere facts that such immense armaments exist nowadays, and thafepeace prospects have never ceased to be in the most unstable equilibrium, are sufficient to-prove haw far off we still are from the millennium. We have not had even 't&e idea of "universal " peace embodied! in a,ny definite shape yet. 'As former alliances always contained the germ of opposition to other nations, so this huge European alliance, if it ever existed, would tend to the extinction of the feebler and more-savage races out-side-the bond.

The -federation of Europe -would, however, be an immense gain. The idea of such. a federation seems subject to.a chronic recurrence at the close of •a century. We find it first-suggested at the end of the-sixteenth century by Henry IV., of France, who drew up proposals for a Christian Commonwealth. At the end of the-seventeenth century, William Penn, the great Quaker, revived this scheme in a treatise urging the establishment of a Diet of Europe-; and at of the eighteenth, Emmanuel Kant wrote his pamphllsfc "Towards Eternal Peace," advocating local autonomy and aJ world-wide federation. Finally, at the close of our own century, we have the Czar's proposals actually under consideration by representatives of the Great Powers. The first germof' federation lay in alliances, but the principle of union was expanded in the Berlin Conference of 1878, and in Lord Salisbury's ineffectual attempt at establishing a " Concert of Europe " on the Turkish question. The Czar's manifesto, unlike these earlier efforts, is meant to have permanent results, and not merely to settle some special difficulty. For some time it seemed doubtful if the proposed Conference ever would come off, so distracted was each nation between a sincere objection to war and the imperative maintaining its defences. Even since they were originally issued, the proposals have been slightly modified, and the chief stress will now be l!aid on those points on which agreement is most likely. The subject of- mediation and arbitration is to come first, as the prospects in that direction are the brightest. Yet, according to recent accounts, the idea of setting up a permanent tribunal to settle differences is already abandoned, and it is difficult to see what other definite result is likely to follow. Something may, however, be done towards extending the good work of the Geneva Conference in humanising the laws of war. The devastation, of unfortified towns by land forces has been for many years contrary to custom, and it is now proposed to protect open ports in the same manner from bombardment by a hostile navy. It is suggested, too, that high explosives, submarine boats and rams should be prohibited, and that an artificial cheek should be put on the use of destructive inventions. Whether or not any nation would regard such restrictions when pressed by its own necessities is a rather doubtful question. We should have thought it more difficult to agree to rules of this kind than to suppress privateering, which has long been against the public conscience.. The French, however, have never accepted the verdict of other nations en this point, and their Naval Minister, M. Lockroy, not long a,go announced that, in a war with Great Britain, France would avoid a direct conflict, and aim rather at destroying her enemy's commerce. This announcement probably accounts for -fche omission of the whole subject from the Czar's programme. The tlnrd proposal is that of disarmament, or, rather, of a proportionate reduction of the military forces of the nations. The recent increase, both of land and naval forces, made by one nation after- another is driving many observant people to M. Tchertkoff's cohcliusion that these augmentations do not rest upon the will of sovereigns or Governments, but will go on till the means of increase are absolutely exhausted. The causes of war really lie much deeper than we can fathom; it is only the immediate pretext that is trivial. They spring from the floating antipathies of different races and from their ignorance of each oth-sr's motives. A conference like the present one can only register the changes in national sentiment; it cannot of 'itself create reforms. The representatives practically acknowledge this by avoiding every question on which there is likely to be a difference of opinion. It does not by any means follow that Tolstoi and Tchertkcff are right in thinking a demonstration of this land useless. It would do good if it were ODly by impressing certain aspects of peace and war on the imagination of the nations. But the process of pacification lies bolow the surface, and affects not only diplomatists but also the mass of t-lio people. The strongest links between nations are to-, be found in their social and literary.intercourse. Mo sscre.t discussions will have half the influence that is exercised by the representatives of the diii'cre-it nations exchanging their views in society and in the Press on f'io' various questions that arc agitating the world. The different peoples in this way think each

feelJ ings. As this practice •• becomes* more the place'.where-'we'scan be;largo*enOTgli-to acknowledge -that - * , w©-jai©-sc€Eefaines -in the wrong. By that time we shall hajrßy-.re-quire a,Peace-Conference<to prevent "-us frying at-on&-"3nofcher's throats.