BRITAIN'S WAR AIMS

Otago Witness, Issue 3330, 9 January 1918, Page 25

BRITAIN'S WAR AIMS

SPEECH BY MR. LLOYD GEORGE. WHAT BRITAIN IS NOT FIGHTING FOR. GERMAN SLANDERS REFUTED. LONDON, January 5. Mr Lloyd George made an important statement to-day on behalf of the Government on Britain's war aims before the trade union's delegates at Westminster, who will -be presently considering the question of man power. Mr Lloyd George began by saying that when the Government incited organised labour to further assist in maintaining the strength of the armies in the field, its representatives were entitled to ask that any misgivings regarding the purpose to which this precious strength would be applied should be definitely clear. This was also true of all citizens of the country. When millions were being called upon to suffer and die, and vast populations were subjected to sufferings and privations unprecedented in the natio«'s history, they were entitled to know the causes for which they were making the sacrifices. Only the clearest and greatest justice of the cause 3 could justify the continuance for even one day of this unspeakable agony of nations. We had at arrived at THE MOST CRITICAL HOUR of this terrible conflict. Before any Government made a fateful decision regarding the conditions under which it ought to either terminate or continue the struggle, it ought to satisfy the conscience of the nation. Therefore, during the last few days he had taken special pains to ascertain the view and attitude of representative men of all sections of thought and opinion in the country. He had further perused in detail with Labour leaders the meaning and intention of that declaration, and had also discussed the same momentous question with Mr Asquith, Viscount Grey, and representatives of the great dominions overseas. The result of these discussions wa3 a national agreement as regards the character and purpose of the war aims and peace conditions, and in what he was about to say he was speaking not merely the mind of the Government, but that of the nation and the Empire as a whole. He would commence by stating what we were not fighting for. 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. We entered the wai most reluctantly, and were unprepared foi the dreadful ordeal. We were FORCED INTO THE WAR in self-defence—in defence of the violated public law of Europe, and in vindication of the most solemn treaty obligations upon which the public system of Europe rested, and upon which Germany had ruthlessly trampled in the invasion of Belgium. We had to join the struggle or see brute force triumph over public right and international justice. Mr Lloyd George said that only the realisation of the dreadful alternative forced Great Britain into the war. From that original attitude Great Britain had never swerved. It was not our wish to question or destroy the great position Germany held in the world, but rather to turn her from tho hopes and schemes of military domination, and see her devote all her strength to the great and beneficent tasks of the world.

We were not fighting to destroy AustriaHungary, or deprive Turkey of Constantinople or rich, renowned lands in Asia Minor and Thrace, which were predominantly Turkish racially. Nor did we war merely to alter or destroy the imperial constitution of Germany, much as we considered that her military and autocratic constitution was

A DANGEROUS ANACHRONISM

in the twentieth century. Ow viewpoint was that the adoption of a really democratic constitution by Germany would be tlhe most convincing evidence tnat her odd spirit of military domination was gone, and would make it much' easier to conclude a broad, democratic peace with her. But that was a question for the German people to decide. Despite many adjurations from opponents and neutrals, the Central Empires

MAINTAINED COMPLETE SILENCE as to the objects for which they are fighting. They had uniformly declined to give any trustworthy information, even upon so crucial a matter as their intention as regards Belgium. The only clear thing in the vague reports of the recent enemy peace conditions was that under no circumstances would the German demand for the restoration of her colonies be given up. All principles of self-determination here vanished into thin air. Stere lip-service to the formula, " No annexations or indemnities," or the right of self-determina-tion was useless. Before any negotiations could be begun the Central Powers must realise the essential facts of the situation. The days of the Treaty of Vienna were long past. "We cannot," said Mr Lioyd George, " longer submit the future of Europe and civilisation to the arbitrary decisions of a few negotiators striving to secure by chi canery or persuasion the interest of this or that dynasty or nation. The settlement of the new Europe must be based upon such grounds of reason and justice as will give some promise of stability. Therefore we feel that government with the consent of the governed must be the basis of any territorial settlement after the war." Mr Lloyd George continued: " Unless every nation is prepared, at whatever sacrifices, to honour its national signature it is obvious that no' peace treaty is worth the paper upon which it is written. Therefore the first requirement of Great Britain and her allies is the complete restoration of the political, territorial, and economic INDEPENDENCE OF BELGIUM, and such reparation as can be made for the devastation of its towns and provinces. This is not a demand for a war indemnity like that imposed in 1871. It is not an attempt to shift the cost of warlike operations from one belligerent to another, which may or may not be defensible. 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 be repudiated and as far as possible repaired. Reparation means the recognition that unless international right is recognised by the insistence of payment for injury done in defiance of its canons it can never be a reality. "'

Next comes the restoration of Serbia and Montenegro and the occupied parts of France, Italy, and Rumania. The complete withdrawal of alien armies and reparation for injustice done is the fundamental condition of a permanent peace. We mean to stand by the French democracy to the death on the demand they make for reconsideration of the great wrong of 1871, when, without any regard for the wishes of the population, two French provinces were torn from France and incorporated In the German Empire.

This poisoned the peace of Europe for half a century, and until it is cured healthy conditions cannot be restored. There can be no better illustration of the folly and wickedness of using transient military success to violate national right. I will not attempt to deal with the question of Russian territories under German occupation. The Russian policy since the revolution has passed through so many phases that it is difficult to speak without some suspension of judgment as regards what the situation will be when the final European peace terms are discussed. Russia accepted the war-because, true to her traditional guardianship of the weaker communities of her race, she stepped in to protect Serbia from a plot against her independence. France, true to treaty conditions, stood by her ally in a quarrel that was not her own. Her chivalrous respect for a treaty led to the

WANTON INVASION OE BELGIUM. The treaty obligations of Great Britain to that little land brought us into the war. The present rulers of Russia are now engaged, without any reference to the

countries whom Russia brought into the war, in separate negotiations with the common enemy. I am indulging in no reproaches, but merelv stating facts, with a view to making clear why Great Britain cannot be held accountable for a decision taken in her absence and concerning which she was not consulted or her aid invoked. No one who knows Prussia and her designs upon Russia can for a moment doubt, her ultimate intention. Whatever phrases she uses to delude Russia she does not mean to surrender one of Russia's fair provinces or cities now occupied by her forces. Under one name or another—and the name hardly matters —these provinces will henceforth in reality be part of the dominion of Prussia, ruled by the Prussian sword in the interests of the Prussian autocracy. The remainder of the people of Russia will be partly enticed by specious phrases and partly bullied by the threat of continued war against an impotent army into a condition of complete economic and ultimate political enslavement to Germany.

We all deplore the prospect. The British democracy means to stand to the last by the democracies of the other Allies. We shall be proudi to fight to the end side by side with tllie new democracy of Russia; so will America, France, "and Italy. But if the present rulers of Russia take action independent of the Allies we have no means of intervening to arrest the catastrophe assuredly befatlling Russia. She can be saved only by her own people. However, we believe that an independent Poland, comprising all the genuinely Polish elements who desire to form part, is an urgent necessity of the stability of Western Europe. Similarly, though we agree with President Wilson that to break up AustriaHungary is no part of our war aims, we feel that unless genuine, truly democratic self-government is granted to those Austro-, Hungarian nationalities who have long desired it, it is impossible to remove the causes of unrest in that part of Europe which has so long threatened the general peace. On the same grounds we regard as vital the satisfactory aims of the legitimate claims of the Italians for union with those of their own race and tongue. We also mean to press for justice to the men of Rumanian blood and speech in their legitimate aspirations. If these conditions are fulfilled, Austria-Hungary would become a power whose strength would conduce to the permanent freedom of Europe instead of merely an instrument of the pernicious military autocracy of Prussia, that has used the resources of Germany's Allies for the furtherance of its own sinister purposes. We believe that outside Europe the same principles should be applied. Mr Lloyd George, in continuing his speech on the war aims of Great Britain, said :

While we do not challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homelands of the Turkish race, with its capital at Constantinople, the narrow passage between the Mediterranean and Black Seas must be internationalised and neutralised. Arabia, Armenia, and Mesopotamia are, in our judgment, entitled to the recognition of their separate national conditions, but exact forms of such recognition in each particular case need not here be discussed, beyond stating that it is impossible to restore these territories to their former sovereignty. Regarding the German colonies, I have repeatedly declared that they are being

HELD FOR DISPOSAL by a conference, whose decision must have primary regard to the wishes and interests of the native inhabitants. None of those territories are inhabited by Europeans; therefore the governing consideration in all these cases must be that the inhabitants should be placed under the control of an administration acceptable to themselves, one of whose main purposes must be to prevent their exploitation for the benefit of European capitalists or governments. The natives should live in their various tribal organisations under their chiefs and councils, who must be competent to consult with and speak for their tribes, and thus represent their wishes and interests regarding their disposal. The general principle of national self-determination, therefore, is as applicable in their cases as in those of the occupied European tei*ritories. The German declaration that the natives of German colonies have, through their military fidelity in the war, shown their attachment to and resolve under all circumstances to remain with Germany, is applicable, not to the German colonies generally, but only to one of them —namely, German East Africa. But in that case the German authorities have secured' the attachment, not of the native population as a whole, which remains profoundly antiGerman, but only of small warlike classes from whom their Askaris or soldiers are selected. These they have attached to themselves by conferring highly-privileged posts, as against the bulk of the native population, which enabled the Askaris to assume a lordly and oppressive superiority over the rest of the natives. By this and other means the Germans secured the attachment of a very small asd insignificant minority, whose interests.- are directly opposed to those of the rest of tho population, for whom they have no right to speak. The German treatment of the native populations of their colonies is such as to have amply justified their fear of submitting the future of those colonies to the wishes of the natives themselves.

Finally, there must be REPARATION FOR INJURIES DONE and the violation of international law. The Peace Conference must not forget our seamen and the services they have rendered and the outrages they have suffered for the common cause of freedom.

Mr Lloyd George regarded it as especially regrettable that the recently reported proposals of the Central Powers contained no reference to a permanent peace after the war. " It is desirable—indeed, it is essential," be said, " that the post-waT settlement shall not contain the seed of future war. But that is not enough. However wisely and well wo make territorial

and other arrangementa, there will still remain many subjects of international controversy. Economic condition*; after the war will be difficult in the highest degree, owing to the diversion of human effort to war purposes. There must follow a \\>erki shortage of raw materials, which will increase the longer the war lasts. It ia inevitable that the countries controlling raw materials will desire to help themselves and their friends first. Moreover whatever settlement is made, it will be* suitable only to the ciretunstances under which it is made; and as circumstances change, changes in that settlement will bo necessary. As long as any possibility of dispute between nations continues—in other words, as long as men and women are dominated by passion and ambition, and war is the only means. of settling a db-. nations must live, under the, burden not only of having to engage in war time after time, but of being com* polled to prepare for a possible outbreak. .The crushing weight of modern armaments, the increasing evil of compulsory military service, the vast waste of wealth in the effort to evolve warlike preparations—these are blots on our civilisation of which every thinking individual must be ashamed. For these and similar reasons we are confident that a great attempt must bo made to establish by some international organisation an ALTERATIVE TO WAR as a means of settling international disputes. After all, war is a relic of barbarism ; and just as law succeeded violence in individual disputes, so we'believe it is destined ultimately to replace war in the settlement of controversies between nations. If, then, we are asked what we are fighting for, we replv, as we have often replied, 'For a just and lasting peace ; and we believe that before peace can be hoped for these conditions must be fulfilled : " First, the sanctity of treaties must be re-established. "Secondly, territorial settlement must be secured, based on the right of the selfdetermination or the consent of the governed. "Lastly, we must seek by the creation of some international organisation to limit the burden of armaments and diminish the probability of war. " On these conditions the British Empire would welcome peace, and to secure these conditions our peoples are prepared to make even greater sacrifices than they have yet endured." PRESS OPINION. LONDON. January 6. The newspapers agree that Mr Lloyd George's speech is momentous and historic Some political correspondents interpret Mr Lloyd George's speech as a direct invitation to the Central Powers to enter a peace conference based on no annexations or indemnities. The speech places the onus on the Central Powers to make the next r move. ; M. Clemenceau (Premier of France) has cabled to Mr Lloyd George: "Heartiest congratulations of all Frenchmen on your admirable speech, in which the true facta are so happilv assembled." NEW YORK, January 6. The New York Times Washington correspondent states that the consensus of opinion is that Mr Lloyd George's speech is the most effective counter-stroke to Count Czernin.

AMSTERDAM, January 7. Herr Harden urges the immediate summoning of the Reichstag as the only means of convincing the world that Germany is sincere. If the Reichstag misses this supreme chance, the war muet continue, and nobody can foresee the end.