Second Hague Conference.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXV, Issue 9731, 7 January 1908, Page 4

Second Hague Conference.

AN INSIDE VIEW. (Bv Salvatore Cortesi, in the Independent.) -Vfter having been four months and ahaii at The Hague, following the proceedings and developments of the Peace Conference, day by day—indeed, moment by moment—l think it my duty to speak with absolute frankness about that important historical event. One might write a volume—in fact, several, interesting to the student .of international law, or the jurist, or the politician, and others, explaining the attitudes taken by the different countiie.s according to national interests, or to single aspiration, or on behalf of a collective policy followed by a group of Powers. "All this would be veTy attractive rnd readable, but it can be done in 'future articles, while what the public really wishes to know at the present moment is what they should believe with regard to the Conference taken as a whole. And it is just on this point that I claim the hbeity of speaking with rude frankness.

The Confeience was a complete failure, a colossal fiasco, for all those who had imagined that it would take such resolutions or agree to such treaties and conventions as would change the present organisation of the world, if not from one clay to another, at least in a near future. These people expected that the limitation of armaments would be imposed, that compulsory arbitration, in the form of a world-embracing treaty, would be enforced by the Conference, as if this assembly were a kind of Parliament in a Constitutional State ; they already dreamed, if not of tli3 suppression of barriers between State and State, at least the preservation of the present territorial status quo by universal consent, which, once willingly agreed upon Ly all the interested parties, would, of course, lead to the suppression of war as long as the agreement lasted. /Therefore it is ncsUTpiise that all these people, who expected what no Conference, composed of no matter what men, could attain in our days, proclaim loudly the bankruptcy ui the institution due to the initiative of Emperor Nicholas 11. in 1898.

But this is not the natural, reasonable or practical way of looking at The Hague Conference, both with regard to its significance and the lesults attained. Iheie is cause tor. satisfaction that the actual 'Conference realised a notable progress over that of 1899, unanimously recognising and proclaiming the principle of obligatory arotration. Indeed from this recognition it is justihcable to hope that the Third Conference will give a concrete and definite form to a world agreement, destined to eliminate all international questions fro-n the fatal justice of a recourse to arms all, without exception, including those whicn are now excluded even in very.wide arbitration treaties, such as that of llio Hague between Italy and Argentine, and between Italy and Mexico—that those which touch the "national honor," th-; •vital inteiests'' and the "independence oi' the country. Oh! .the great potency of a phrase ! Do not all wars conceal just those questions of national honor, which in many cases are nothing but question:; of pride'' _ , According to M. Nchdoff, the "becond Peace Conference will remain in the histr.rv -of humanity," because' of the provisions agreed upon to make the effect* of war Jess disastrous, but 1 dare to aifirrii that- the Conference will remain jn h-'story for a higher and more important reason, to wit, tor having been the first real step towards a Parliament of-the whole world, without distinction of na•tionalitv, race, religion or form of government, and for having offered the pos-r-ibility to the most enlightened men oi every countrv to meet, discuss, know each other, and express opinions, which must undoubtedly produce in due time the deshed fruits. The following, for instance, is the interesting way in which Mr isudzuki, the head of the Japanese delegation, a man who would do honor to any country, nunmarised his view of the Conference, r.i a letter addressed to Mr W. T. Stead, and kindly communicated to me by the lathas always been my firm conviction that the fundamental ideas which animate human beiuus are everywhere identical; that what we call national characteristics are nothing more than transient phenomena, caused by different historical circumstances having acted in the past on one and the same substratum. I go further and maintain that racial dilieiencer, arc onh- skin deep. We have'a celebrated verse that says that ice, snow, hail and lain, so different- from each other in form, make one indistinguishable mass of water when they flow together in a river atterward. I am of opinion that a great deal of international complications, broils, and troubles, are greatly due to the fact that people are ordinarily more struck by the differences of others in external appearances from their own and do not take the trouble to dive below the surface in search of the substratum common to all. I am net at all inclined to what is usually called by the name of internationalism, but 1 lirmiy lielieve that the boundaries which historv and geography have circumscribed around each small group of humanity must not serve as impassible barriers agarnst mutual sympathy and the good understanding of different people and races. In other words, I firmly believe that patriotism and humanitarianism are two ideas quite akin to and compatible with each other. The denser the bonds of mutual intimacy between the peoples become, so much the better will they understand each other, so much the stronger will become | the ties which bind them to the common cause of peace and civilisation, and so much the more vivid the universal; consciousness that humanity has a common mission to fulfil." If from the Far East we pass to the near West- we find Baron d'Estournaifes de Constant defending compulsory 'general arbitration in the noble speech, delivered before the delegates, of which'l quote the following passage:— ■ ' "Let us not be discouraged by the clirhculties which are our raison d'etre, the real way to Tesolve the question is to discuss it. Let us discuss it without prejudice. Do not believe that theie are differences between us. There a.re, on the contrarv, identical interests on the subject. There are not too points of view, that oi Germany, for example, or that of France, or that of America; there is only the point of view of the past' and of the futuie. We discuss a question which is not to be resolved, but .which is already resolved, definitely settled years ago by several states. . "I will take the example and the pledges given in Europe by Italy, Spain, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.; but it wiil be said that these States have not the neighbors or the difficulties which might divide other Powers., These difficulties may come up,'and have not prevented Italy, whose diplomatic prudence and experience are undeniable, from binding herself to obligatory .arbitration, by formal treaties, without taking- possible .objections into consideration. Where will be found a more categoric compilation of obligatory arbitration than in the fust article of oiie of these treaties? ;It runs : "The high contracting parties engage to submit to the Permanent Arbitration Court of The Hague, according to the Convention of July-'29th TB99i all the differences, no matter of what nature, wliich may arise between the two States, and which cannot be resolved by the way of ■ droiomacy,'"lid a'so. in .-the case that the differences had their origin from, events before the conclusion of the present Convention (Treaty -between Italy and Denm*L-, December 16th, 1-905).'

i "But we will, leave Italy and take-our ,j examples- outside of' Europe, among- those 1 ■ new peoples of wliom it is no longer per-.) missible, to-day, to be ignorant of the eco--noulicj, intellectual, moral and political development. It' will he objected that • Americans have no past! 11l fact, their experience is short, but it counts doubly and their experience, after all, of what is it the result? All the States of the American continent, twenty years ago ir- . reconcilable, have to-day signed between - themselves obligatory arbitration treaties without Teserve. . And what treaties! l Listen to the articles of that of the ArL gentine Republic with Paraguay and Uruguay: 'The Powers engage to submit to arbitration all the contentions whatever their nature or from whatever cause they may spring,' etc. .."l'lie recent treaty of September 7th, 1905, between Brazil and the Argentine Republic, declares that the signing Powers engage to submit to arbitration all disputes which cannot be resolved by direct negotiations; of course, it is understood that these treaties contain a clause afiirmf ing respect lor the Constitution of each i State, but you know that Brazil has in- . sorted in her Constitution itself the principle of arbitration. Are these to be considered only as .insufficient germs or ephemeral symptoms? Can we forget all the efforts of North America and of President Kocsevelt himself in the same field? Ido - not insist; facts speak louder than words. They will soon he known to all and considered as the model for the modern world." These words, as well as those uttered by the majority of the delegates in support of the most important (piestious debated'during the Second Conference, should be repeated and popularised by all the press which has faith in the progress of man, aud in the possibility of establishing permanent and universal peace. Unly in this way will it be possible to form the education of the people at large, going from the ruling class to the peasant, from the diplomatist to the workiniiman, aud including even the military element, which will exercise a tremendous and irresistible influence, capable of carrying through, in a Third Conference, a practical application throughout the world of a satisfactory system of compulsory arbitration.