THE BASIS OF PEACE

Otago Witness, Issue 3336, 20 February 1918, Page 25

THE BASIS OF PEACE

SPEECH BY PRESIDENT WILSON. MUST BE PERMANENT PEACE. NOT ONE OF SHREDS AND PATCHES. President Wilson on the 11th addressed Congress as follows: —"On January 8 I addressed you on the subjects affecting the war as our people conceive them. The Prime Minister of Great Britain had spoken in similar terms on January 5. To these addresses the German Chancellor replied on January 24, and Count Czernin for Austria'on the same day. It is gratifying to have our desire so promptly relieved that all exchanges of views on this great matter should be made in the hearing of all the world. Count Czernin's reply, which is directed chiefly to my own address of January 8, is uttered in a very friendly tone. He finds in my statement a sufficiently encouraging approach to the views of his own Government to justify him in believing that it furnishes a basis for a more detailed discussion of purposes by the two Governments. He is represented to have intimated that the views he was expressing had been communicated to me beforehand, and that I was aware of them at the time he was uttering them; but in this I am sure he was misunderstood. I had received no intimation of what ho intended to say. There was, of. course, no reason why he should communicate with me privately. I am quite content to be one of his public audience. Count von Hertling's reply is very vague and confusing, FULL OF EQUIVOCAL PHRASES, and leads it is not clear where; but it certainly is in a very different tone from Count Czernin's and apparently of opposite purpose. It confirms rather than removes the unfortunate impression made •by what we had learned of the conference at Erest-Litovsk. His discussion and acceptance of our general principles lead him to no practical conclusions. He refuses to apply them to substantive items which must constitute the body of any final settlement. He is jealous of international action and international counsel. He accepts, he says, the principle of public diplomacy, bul» appears to insist that it be confined in this case to generalities, and that the several particular questions of territory and sovereignty upon whose settlement must depend the acceptance of peace by the 23 States now engaged in the war must be discussed and settled not in general council but severally by the nations most immediately concerned by interest or neighbourhood: He agrees that the seas should be free but looks askance at any limitation of that freedom by international action in the interest of common order. He would be glad to see economic barriers removed between nation and nation, for that could in no way im-i pede the ambitions of the military party with whom he seems constrained to keep on terms. Neither does he raise objection to the limitation of armaments; that is a matter to be settled of itself, he thinks, by the economic conditions which must follow the war. He demands the return of th 9 German colonies without debate. He will discuss with no one but Russian representatives what disposition is to be made of the Baltic peoples and provinces; with no on but the Government of France the conditions under which French territory shall be evacuated; and only with Austria what shall be done with Poland. I.n the determination of all questions affecting the Balkan States he defers, as I understand him, to Austria and Turkey; and with regard to agreements to be entered into concerning the non-Turkish peonies of the present Ottoman Empire to the Turkish authorities themselves. After a settlement all round, effected in this fashion by individual barter and concession, he would have 110 objection to a leag-ue of nations which would undertake to hold the new balance of power steady against external disturbance. '' It must be evident to everyone who understands what this war brought, in the opinion and temper of the world, that NO GENERAL PEACE, no peace worth the infinite sacrifices of t«heso years of tragic suffering, can possibly be arrived at in any such fashion. The method the German Chancellor proposes is the method of th« Congress of Vienna-. We cannot and will not return to that period. What is at stake now is the peace of the world. What we are striving for now is international order based upon the broad universal principles of right lyid justice, and no mere peace of shreds and patches. Is it possible that von Hertling does not see that, does not grasp it; is, in fact, living in his thought in a world dead and gone ? Has he utterly forgotten the Reichstag resolutions of July 19, or does he deliberately ignore them? They spoke of conditions of general peace, not of national aggrandisement or arrangements between State and State. The peacs of the woi-ld depends on the just settlement of each of the several problems to which I adverted in mj recent address to Congress. I do not mean that the peace of the world depends upon the acceptance of anv particular set of suggestions as to the way in which those problems are to be dealt with. I mean only that those problems, each and all, AFFECT THE WHOLE WORLD ; that unless they are dealt with in a spirit of unselfish and unbiassed justice, with a view to the wishes of the national convictions and racial aspirations towards secu-

rity and peace in the minds of the peoples involved, no permanent peace will have been attained. Thoy cannot be discussed separately in corners. None of them constitutes a private or a separate interest from which the opinion of the world may be shut out. Whatever affects peace affects mankind, and nothing settled by military force, if settled wrongly, is settled afc all. It will presently have to bo reopened. Is von Hertling not aware that he is speaking in the court of mankind—that all awakened- nations of the world now sit in judgment on what every public man of whatever nation may say on the issues of a conflict which has spread to every region of the world? The Reichstag .resolutions of July themselves frankly accepted the decisions of that court. There shall be no annexations, no contributions, no punitive damages. The peoples are not to be handed about from one sovereignty to another by international conference or understanding between rivals and antagonists. NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS MUST BE RESPECTED. " Peoples may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent and self-determination' is not a mere phrase but an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril. We cannot have general peace for the asking or by the mere arrangements of a Peace Conference. It cannot be pieced together out of individual understandings between powerful States. All parties to this war must join in a settlement of every issue anywhere involved. It is because what we are seeking is peace that we can all unite to guarantee and maintain it, and every item of it must bo submitted to common judgment, whether it be right and fair and an act of justice rather than a bargain between sovereigns. "The United States has no desire to interfere in European affairs or to actas arbiter in European territorial disputes. She would disdain to take advantage of any internal weakness or disorder to impose her own will upon other people. She is quite ready to be shown that the settlements she suggested are not the best or most enduring. They are only her own provisional sketch of principles, and her own idea of the way in which they should be applied. But she entered this .war because she was made a partner, whether she would or not, in the sufferings and indignities inflicted by the military masters of Germany against the peace and security of mankind; and the conditions of peace will touch her as nearly as they will touch any other nation to which is entrusted a leading part in the maintenance of civilisation. She cannot see her way to peace until the causes of this war are removed and its renewal rendered, as nearly as may be, impossible. This war had its roots in disregard of

THE RIGHTS OF SMALL NATIONS and of nationalities which lacked unity and force to make orood their claim to determine their own allegiance and their own forms of political_ life. Covenants must now be entered into which render such things impossible for the future, and those covenants' must be backed by the united force of all nations that love justice and are willing to maintain it at any cost. If t'he territorial settlements and political relations of great populations which have not organised power to resist are to bo determined by the contracts of powerful Governments which consider themselves most directly affected, as von Hertling proposes, why may not economic questions -also ? It has come about in the altered world in which we now find ourselves that justice and the rights of peoples affect the whole field of international dealing as much as access to raw materials and fair and equal conditions of trade. Von Hertling wants the essential bases of commercial and industrial life to be safeguarded by common agreement and guarantee. But he cannot expect that to be conceded him if other matters to be determined by the articles of peace are not handled in the same way as items in the final accounting. He cannot ask the benefit of common agreement in one field without according ft in another. I take it for granted that he sees that separate and selfish compacts with regard to trade • and the essential materials of manufacture would afford no foundation for peace, Neither will separate and. selfish compaets with regard to provinces and peoples. Count Czernin seems to s?e the FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF PEACE with clear eyes, and does not seem' to obscure them. He sees that an independent Poland, made up of all indisputably Polish peoples who lie contiguous to one another, is a matter of European concern, and that Europe must of necessity be concerned. He sees that Belgium must be evacuated and restored, no matter what sacrifices and concessions that may involve, and that national aspirations must be satisfied, even within his own Empire, in the common interest of Europe and of mankind. If he is silent about questions which touch the interest and purpose of his Allies more clearly than they touch those of Austria only, it must, of course, be because he feels constrained to defer to Germany and Turkey in the circumstances. Seeing and conceding, as he does, the essential principles involved, and the necessity of candidly applying them, ho naturally feels that Austria can respond to the purpose of peace as expressed by the United States with less embarrassment than could Germany. He would probably have gone much farther had it not been for the embarrassment of Austria's alliances and of her dependence upon Germany. After all. the tests of whether it is possible for either* Government to go any further in this comparison of views are the SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS PRINCIPLES to be applied, whish are these: First, that each part of the final settlement be based upon the essential justice of that particular case, and upon such adjustments most likely to bring a peace that will be permanent.

Second, that peoples and provinces are

not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were chattels and pawns in the game—even the great game now forever discredited—of the balanco of power; but that— Third, every territorial settlement involved in this wir must be made in the interest and for the benefit of the population concerned, and not as part of any mere adjustment or compromise of claims amongst rival Slates. Fourth, that all well-defined national aspirations shall be accorded the utmost satisfaction that can be accorded them without introducing new or perpetuating old elements of discord and antagonism that would be likely in time to break the peace of Europe, and consequently of the world. "A general peace erected upon such foundations can be discussed. Until such peace can be secured we have no choice lout to go on. So far as we can judge. the principles that we regard as fundamental are already EVERYWHERE ACCEPTED AS IMPERATIVE, except among the spokesmen of the military and annexationist party in Germany. If they have anywhere else been rejected the objectors have not been sufficiently numerous or influential to make their voices audible. The tragical circumstance is that, this one party in Germany is ap parently willing and ablo' to send millions of men to their death to prevent what all the world now sees to be just. I would not be the* true spokesman of the people of the United States if I did not say once more that we entered this war upon no small occasion, and that we CAN NEVER TURN BACK from the course chosen upon principle. Our resources are in part mobilised now, and we shall not pause until they are mobilised in their entirety. Our armies are rapidly going to the fighting front, and will go more and more rapidly. Our whole strength will be put into this war of emancipation—emancipation from the threat and attempted mastery of selfish groups of autocratic rulers 1 . Whatever the difficulties and recent partial delays, we are indomitable in our power of independent action and can in no circumstances consent to live in a world governed by intrigue and force. We believe that our own desire for a new international -order which reason and justice and the common interest of mankind shall prevail is the desire of enlightened men everywhere. Without that new order the world will be without peace, and human life will lack tolerable conditions of existence" and development. Having set our hand to the task of achieving it, we shall not turn back. "I' hope that it is not necessary for me to add that no word of what I- have said is intended as a threat. That is not the temper of our people. I have spoken thus only that the whole world may know the true spirit of America—that men everywhere may know that our passion for justice and for self-government is no mere passion of words, but a passion which, once set in action, must be satisfied. The power of the United States is a menace to no nation or people. It wall never be used in aggression or for the aggrandisement of any selfish interest of our own." It springs out of freedom, and is for the service of freedom." SPEECH FAVOURABLY RECEIVED. President Wilson's speech to Congress had a most favourable reception, and is likely to gain wide approal throughout the country. It is interpreted to mean that the main purpose of America is to drive a wedge further between Germany and Austria The New York Times says that President Wilson's address should convince the German people that military autocracy is the sole obstacle to peace.. The New York Herald says: " Unless the Central Powers accept the road to peace which President Wilson has outlined w-e shall continue the war, whatever the cost." The Tribune remarks that such a public discussion of war aims signalises the end of secret ( diplomacy. Newspapers all over the country laud the moral grandeur, consummate skill, and unanswerable logic of the address.