PEACE: THE SUPREME NEED.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 9, Issue 349, 16 January 1918, Page 4

PEACE: THE SUPREME NEED.

Why Not Begin Negotiations Now?

When Lloyd George climbed into office over the wreckage of the Asquith Ministry, more than twelve months ago, the public were confidently assured that the new Government was out to win the war. "Wait-and-see" policies and politicians had been consigned to the political dustbin, and new measures and men were going to cleave a way to victory in 1917. The new Ministry was designed essentially to wage war to the knife. It deigned any truck with pacifists and it scorned compromise short of complete and crushing military success. It is well to keep this basic fact in mind in criticising the Lloyd George administration, for it is now a matter of common knowledge that the downfall of the Asquith Cabinet was in part due to its belief that a satisfactory peace might be negotiated with the enemy. It is only necessary to traverse the speeches of Mr. Lloyd George and his colleagues since their advent to power to see how uncompromisingly hostile they have been to anything short of a complete and dictated peace. Since the Russian Revolution, however, there has been a tendency on the part of one or two Ministers —notably Mr. Henderson, who was forced to resign over the Stockholm Conference proposals, and Mr. A. J. Balf our—towards a more conciliatory spirit, but the attitude of the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet has been stro.ngly opposed to entering into pourparlers with an undefeated enemy. As late as December 13 of last year Mr. Lloyd George stated that there was "no halfway house between victory and defeat," and this definite declaration might serve as the text for all his previous war proclamations. His famous "Knock-out Blow" speech, which was so enthusiastically applauded at the time by the Press of this country, is familiar to everyone, but his periodical utterances on the war have all reflected this point of view, though they have not always stated it so emphatically. It is, therefore, not only satisfying but surprising to the advocates of peace by negotiation, to find the British Prime Minister accomplishing a volte face in his latest statement of war aims. But, as we have repeatedly pointed out in recent issues of this paper, THE MILITARY, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF EUROPE ENGENDERED BY THE PRESENT WAR CANNOT BE SOLVED BY PHYSICAL FORCE ARGUMENTS. On the other hand, it has become more and more apparent that only by co-operation, mutual aid, and the laying on one side of racial and national prejudices ca,n a rational, equitable, and lasting settlement of the European anarchy be effected. Labor, following the lead of the Socialists of Russia, has been quick to* grasp this aspect o£ the situation, and it is mainly due to the pressure of the proletariat of Europe that the Governments of the belligerents are endeavouring to arrange a compromise and at the same time are desperately endeavoring to reconcile their change of front with their original Avar programmes. To illustrate how rapidly official opinion has changed during the last eighteen months, we quote in parallel columns extracts from official British utterances, and excerpts from Mr. Lloyd George's speech of January 5 of this year:—

BRITISH OFFICIAL UTTERANCES. A peace imposed on Germany exhausted in food and materials only would not be durable—ONLY A CRUSHING MILITARY VICTORY WILL BRING THE PEACE FOR WICH THE ALLIES ARE FIGHTING AND OF WHICH GERMANY WILL UNDERSTAND THE MEANING:—LIoyd George, 8/6/16. Germany elected to make it a fight to a finish with England. . . . Now we Intend to see that Germany has her way—THE FIGHT MUST BE TO A FINISH, TO A KNOCK-OUT.—Lloyd George, 28/9/16. A man or set of men who from a sense of war weariness abandoned the struggle without achieving the high purpose for wtoich we entered upon it would be guilty of the most ghastly poltroonery ever perpetrated by any statesman. . . . The Allies entered (Into this war to defend Europe against the aggression of Prussian military domination, and they must insist that the end is a most complete and effective guarantee against the possibility of that caste ever again disturbing the peace of Europe.—Lloyd George, 19/12/16. In my judgment, the war will come to an end when the Allied armies have reached the aims they set out to attain when they accepted the challenge thrown down by Germany. ... If the war comes to an end a single minute before it will be the greatest disaster that has ever befallen mankind. . . . Peace . . . must be guaranteed BY THE DESTRUCTION OF PRUSSIAN MILITARY POWER. — Lloyd George, 29/6/17. I warn the nation to watch the man who thinks there is a half-way house between victory and defeat. No such house exists. These are the men who think you can end the war and have some sort of what they call peace BY SETTING UP A LEAGUE OF NATIONS. THAT IS THE RIGHT POLICY AFTER VICTORY, BUT WITHOUT VICTORY IT WOULD BE A FARCE.— Bloyd George, 13/12/17. > The civilised world knows that they [Allies' terms] imply ... the restitution of provinces or territories wrested in the past from the Allies by force or against the will of their population, the liberation of Italians, of Slavs, of Rumanians, and of TchecoSlovaques from foreign domination; the enfranchisement of populations subject to the bloody tyranny of the Turk, THE EXPULSION FROM EUROPE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, DECIDEDLY ALIEN TO WESTERN CIVILISATION. —Entente Allies' reply to Wilson Note, 10/1/17. The one statement in tlia note which I suppose is objected to is that referring to the turning ont of Europe of the Ottoman Empire. k . . We are all agreed'that there is nothing to be said for the Turk now.—Lord R. Cecil, 16/5/17. We may hope'that the expulsion of Turkey from Europe will contribute as much to the cause of peace as the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine to France or Italia Irredenta to Italy.— A. J. Balfour to President Wilson, 10/1/17. What manner of Government they choose to rule over themselves is entirely the business of the German people themselves; BUT WHAT MANNER OF GOVERNMENT WE CAN TRUST TO MAKE PEACE WITH IS OUR BUSINESS. DEMOCRACY IS IN ITSELF A GUARANTEE OF PEACE, AND W YOU CANNOT GET IT IN

LLOYD GEORGE, Jan. 5., 1918. We have arrived at the most critical hour of the terrible conflict. Before any Government makes the fateful decision regarding the conditions under which it seeks to terminate the struggle it ought to satisfy the conscience of the nation. We were not fighting a war of aggression against the German people. The destruction or disruption of Germany or the German people had never been one of our war aims. . . . It was not our wish to question or destroy the great position Germany, held in the world, but rather to turn her from her hopes and schemes of military domination and see her devote all her strength to the great benefint tasks of tfie World. If, then, we are asked what we are fighting for, we reply, aa we have of- ' ten replied, for a just and lasting peace. And we believe that before peace can be hoped for three conditions must be fulfilled. First the sanctities of treaties must be 're-es-tablished; second, territorial settlement must be secured based on the right of self-determination or the consent of the governed; and, last, WE MUST SEEK BY THE CREATION OP SOME- INTERNATIONAL. ORGANISATION TO LIMIT THE BURDEN OF ARMAMENTS AND DIMINISH THE PROBABILITY OF WAR. ON THESE CONDITIONS THE BRITISH EMPIRE WOULD WELCOME PEACE. WE WERE- NOT FIGHTING TO DESTROY AUSTRIA-HUNGARY OR TO DEPRIVE TURKEY OF CONSTANTINOPLE OR THE RICH AND . RENOWNED LANDS OF ASIA MINOR AND THRACE, WHICH WERE PREDOMINANTLY TURKISH RACIALLY. While we do not challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homelands of the Turkish race, WITH THE CAPITAL AT CONSTANTINOPLE, nor the passage between the Mediterranean being internationalised and neutralised, Arabia, Armenia, and Mesopotamia are, in our judgment, entitled to recognition of their separate national condition. The exact form of such recognition in each particular case need not here be discussed, beyond stating that it is impossible to restore these territories to the fprmer sovereignty. Nor did we maice war merely to. ALTER OR DESTROY THE IMPERIAL CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY, MUCH AS WE CONSIDER THAT THE MILITARY AUTOCRATIC CONSTITUTION IS A DANGEROUS ANACHRONISM IN THU 20 111 CENTURY. OUR VIEWPOINT ISTHAT THE ADOPTION OF A

GERMANY, THEN WE MUST SECURE OTHER GUARANTEES AS A SUBSTITUTE. — Lloyd George, 21/7/17. The resentment of £»~ Russian against having been forced into this war is deep. He has neither forgotten nor forgiven the fact that this happened when he was ill-prepared and unsuspecting.—Lloyd George, 28/9/17.

REALLY DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION BY GERMANY WOULD BE THE MOST CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HER OLD SPIRIT OF MILITARY DOMINATION WAS DEAD, AND WOULD MAKE IT MUCH EASIER TO CONCLUDE A BROAD DEMOCRATIC PEACE WITH HER; BUT THAT IS A MATTER FOR THE GERMAN PEOPLE TO DECIDE. The present rulers in Russia are now engaged, WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE COUNTRIES WHOM RUSSIA BROUGHT * INTO THE WAR, in separate negotiations with the common enemy.

Comparisons might be continued at much greater length, but .sufficient have been quoted to show how rapidly Mr. Lloyd George has climbed down his pole, dragging his war aims with him. And then it is not so much in what he says in this latest speech as what he omits. He has adopted a much milder phraseology. Insolent epithets have been carefully censored. We miss our old friends "swashbuckler," "'mailed fist," "poltroon," "mad dog," "Prussian militarism," and "crushing victory." They have passed into the limbo of things forgotten. But the greatest concession made by the Prime Minitser is to the Prussian Government. The slogan, "No peace with the Hohenzollerns" has gone by the board. Instead, we do not wish to destroy the Imperial constitution of Germany, though we consider a military autocratic constitution is a dangerous anachronism. In other words, we are ready, other things being equal, to deal with Prussian militarism. The autocratic demand for the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France has been considerably modified, and all we now ask is for a "reconsideration of the great wrong of 1871." The unspeakable Turk is to remain in Europe, and the old "ramshackle Empire," that saKation of Jingo orators in search of a subject, is not going to be split up like kindling wood. A "crushing military victory" is quietly shooed off the grass, and the hateful word "indemnity" politely explained away, a euphemism called "restoration" being substituted; In short, Mr. Lloyd George, with the instinct of the super-politician for the changing spirit in Britain and Europe, has shed his coat of mail, and now appears robed in the beneficent garments of Peace. The Lansdowne letter, the Labor Manifesto, and the military and political situation abroad have done their work. i For purposes of analogy, we propose placing Mr. Lloyd George's peace terms opposite those of Count Czernin, the spokesman of the Central Empires at the Brest-Litovsk Conference, so that the reader may gauge the "gulf" that still exists between the Allies and the finp.mv. ~" i

enemy. ' CENTRAL POWERS' TERMS. The Central Powers do not intend violently to annex the region occupied jby them during the war. The withdrawal of troops from those regions can be arranged for in a peace treaty in the event of failure to agree on certain points before the treaty is signed. The Central Powers have no intention of depriving of its political independence any nation which had such independence. The Central Powers have repeatedly declared that no indemnities should be paid by either side. Each belligerent should pay only the expenses of its respective war prisoners and compensation'to civilian prisoners. A special fund for this purpose, as suggested by Russia, should only he considered if others than the belligerents participated in the peace negotiations within a reasonable period. The problem of deciding to which Power any State should belong which did not possess political independence would not bes olved internationally, but must in some cases be decided by the individual State. The safeguarding of minorities must 'be the right of every nation to decide on its own destiny.

MR. LLOYD GEORGE'S. We were not fighting a war of aggression against the German people. The destruction or the disruption of Germany or the German people had never been one of our aims We were not fighting to destroy Aus-tria-Hungary or to deprive Turkey of Constantinople, nor did we make war to alter or destroy the Imperial constitution of Germany. . . . Regarding the German colonies . . . they are held at the disposal of the conference, whose decision must have primary regard for the wishes and interests of the native lnnabitants. . . . The first requirement of Britain and her Allies is THE COMPLETE RESTORATION AND POLITICAL AND TERRITORIAL ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE OF BELGIUM, AND SUCH REPARATION AS CAN BE MADE FOR THE DEVASTATION OF ITS TOWNS AND PROVINCES. Thie is not a demand for a war Indemnity like that imposed in 1871, and not an attempt to shift the cost of warlike operations from one belligerent to another. • . . It is no more and no less than insistence that before there can be any hope of a stable peace this great breach of the public law of Europe must he repudiated and as far as possible repaired. Reparation means recognition. Next comes RESTORATION OF SERBIA, MONTENEGRO, AND THE OCCUPIED PARTS OF FRANCE, ITALY, AND RUMANIA, AND - THE COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL OF ALIEN ARMIES. . . . RECONSIDERATION OF THE GREAT W3RONG OF 1871, when, without any regard to the wishes o* the population, two French provinces were tori* from France and incorporated in the German Empire. TJbe settlement of new Europe mu*t be based on such grounds of reason and justice as will give some promise of stability, and therefore we feel that GOVERNMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED MUST BE THE BASIS OF ANY TERRITORIAL SETTLEMENT AFTER THE WAR. ... We must seek by the creation of some international organisation, to limit the burden of armaments and to diminish the probability of war.

So when the war aims of the contending groups of Powers are placed side by side there seems, to the plain man precious little difference to choose between them. THEN WHY NOT NEGOTIATE NOW?