THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1919. AMERICA AND THE LEAGUE.

New Zealand Herald, Issue 17266, 16 September 1919, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1919. AMERICA AND THE LEAGUE.

The peace treaty, including the covenant of the League of Nations, has become the football of American politics. This is unfortunate for the league, but it is unfortunate also for America, because her foreign i policy is at stake, and it certainly | deserves a more judicial determi- | nation than it is likely to receive in the clamour of party strife. For this regrettable state of affairs, which has arisen in no other allied country, responsibility rests primarily on the President. Following a theory he enunciated long before he succeeded to office he has proceeded on the assumption that the role of the Senate in treaty-making is a negligible one. The Constitution says that the President shall have power to negotiate treaties "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," and that before any treaty can bind the United States it must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The functions of that body are therefore considerable and clearly-defined, and Mr. Wilson would have been well advised to have followed the example of other Presidents from the days of Washington, who in several instances consulted the Senate during treaty negotiations, to the time of McKinley, who in 1898 selected from the Senate three of the five commissioners appointed to negotiate peace with Spain. But if the initial error was Mr. Wilson's it cannot be said that his opponents show to better advantage in their frank attempts to make party capital out of the League of Nations and the peace treaty. No one, least of all its authors, would claim that the covenant is beyond criticism, and the considered opinion of America will be welcomed and valued. But the world has a right to expect Americans of all shades of political thought to be friendly, and not hostile, critics, to be constructive and not destructive in their judgment, to help to improve the league and to refrain from imperilling its very existence. All Republicans do not deserve this reproach, but it is fair comment to say that many of them, in their pursuit of a party advantage, have proved indifferent to the fate of the league. So definite is their challenge that the League of Nations is likely to be the issue of the forthcoming Presidential election, and it is considered possible that Mr. Wilson will take the unusual course of seeking ;i third term of office in order to defend the new international order he was largely instrumental in evolving.

There are some paradoxical features about the present controversy that might puzzle even an American to explain. The Republicans, who have always been for a strong foreign _ policy, are now assailing the President for going too far. Their leaders crystallised the war spirit of th- United States long before Mr. Wilson moved, but they now decline to accept responsibilities which are a logical outcome of the war. By rejecting the treaty or the covenant

they would destroy the bridge which has been erected between America and Europe and fall back upon a policy of splendid isolation. This is clearly impossible. The past cannot be undone, nor can its results be negatived by refusing to recognise the%. The United States has entered world politics for good and she could not now withdraw if she would. Dreams of isolation cannot last in the modern world. Britain tried to cut herself off from the affairs of the Continent and-failed. America has failed also, because the price of neutrality touched her honour and was too high. The attempt being made by some Republicans to represent Mr. Wilson as drawn by Britain into the entanglements of a world policy enunciated by Britain in British interests is sheer nonsense. Britain conceded much at the Peace Congress, particularly the principle of mandates, which was repugnant to her. Even if it should prove that the sentiment she sought to conciliate was only Mr. Wilson's and not America's blame cannot be laid on her shoulders. The representation of Mr. Wilson as a simple old gentleman, deceived by the Machiavelian cunning of British diplomacy into signing an undertaking to maintain the present frontiers of the British Empire, no matter at what cost, is a figment of the imagination with no foundation in fact.

Stripped of the electioneering rhetoric in which it is involved the Republican case against the league is that it may lead America into ventures which cannot be weighed or even realised. The unanimity with which the proposal to guarantee France against German aggression was received shows that there are circumstances under which Americans of all parties are again prepared to intervene in Europe, but there is a vague mistrust of undefined obligations and fear of the infringement of American sovereignty. The same joints might be raised by Britain or any other signatory of the covenant, but if America feels uneasy it is possible to reassure her without wrecking the league. There is nothing in the covenant to infringe the sovereign rights of any nation. No superState has been created and international diplomacy has not been put in a strait jacket. The league is a pliable instrument for the maintenance of peace and all suggestion of coercion has been carefully removed from it. It is not intended to guarantee the present territorial settlement for all time, nor is the covenant unalterable. It is specifically declared that the validity of existing international engagements for securing the maintenance of peace shall not be affected, the Monroe Doctrine being mentioned by name. If the Americans desire any more explicit reservation on this score they have only to express it in their own words, and it will doubtless be accepted. It is even better that America should place her own interpretation on the vital article which pledges each member of the league to respect and preserve the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all other membersthan that "*' she should reject the covenant or accept it half-heartedly. It is true that any reservations on that point would emasculate a covenant which is already of a rather negative and permissive character. But the principle which has inspired the framera of the covenant is to secure some machinery for the prevention of war on which there shall be universal agreement. Many theoretically excellent schemes have been rejected because they were too arbitrary for the present ill-defined field of international politics. It has been decided that whatever be the fate of the league at least it shall not sink by its own weight. If any league can be constituted, however colourless and limited in authority, that at least will be a beginning, and it may hope to feel its way to greater responsibility. Hence any reservations that really express the opinions of the American people will not be without value to those who have launched this frail craft upon a stormy sea. £