IF THE EMPIRE FELL...

Southland Times, Issue 23840, 10 June 1939, Page 13

IF THE EMPIRE FELL...

The Rhine Is America's Front Line As Well As Britain's

DURING the last century Great Britain was the world power par excellence. It was the British Empire that established and consolidated the system of international exchange and intercolonial relations under which we live. But for some time England has shown an unmistakable weakness arising from the difficulty of maintaining her far-flung positions everywhere at the same time. I record this fact with genuine regret, not only as a Frenchman and European, but as a member of the white race. Britain has been able to play the role that she did during the last century because she was without a single competitor of imperial stature outside of Europe. In Asia she was confronted only with coloured peoples not yet aroused from the slumber of centuries. Today, however, it seems as if the Empire has grown too big. If she strengthens its defences in one portion of the world, it is only by exposing its.flank elsewhere.

At the very time when British hegemony threatens to disappear we have begun to realize the immense advantages that have resulted from it for the white race as a whole. From the 19th century right up to the Great War the world enjoyed a sort of economic internationalism which benefited all the Western nations. As soon as one left the shores of England during this happy legendary period, one entered a sort of “international mercantile republic” where the spirit of free trade and fair play held sway under the tutelage of Great Britain. A certain jealousy prevented the other Powers from admitting it at the time, but it was the British fleet that policed the oceans and maintained Western and European order throughout the world. There was no European nation that failed to derive benefit from this. ★ ft -ft THE supremacy of Europe in the world seemed such a natural thing that nobody took the trouble to analyze the conditions that made it possible. The Continental Powers were more unconscious than jealous of the debt that they owed England. Sheltered by this sense of false security, the peoples of Europe criticized John Bull to their hearts’ content, snickered at his setbacks and jeered at his difficulties. They failed to realize that it was Britain who stood guard on the outer frontiers of the white man’s rule, just as she once constituted the limes of the Roman Empire. At that time the domain of the white race extended farther than is the case today. The whites were not only present but dominant on all continents. People could not travel so fast as they do today, but they journeyed more securely. Frontier annoyances were lesser than today; monetary difficulties were virtually non-existent. British prestige provided protection, even if you were not British. Australia, South Africa and New Zealand exist by grace of this prestige and it is a moot point whether they could long survive it. The same is the case with the Dutch East Indies, and perhaps with French Indo-China.

For several years now the zone of white influence has tended to recede. Europe has lost vital positions to America; but that is of no particular importance since occidental civilization as such has not stood to lose by it. More alarming are the reverses suffered by white peoples, in the Far East, for example, at the hands of other forms of civilization.

One shudders to think what the defeat of England by a non-European or even a European Power would signify for the white race today. If Britain lost India or her possessions in the Far East, the prestige of the white race would crumble with that of Britain. This would be the signal for a wave of native unrest throughout the French Colonial Empire as well as in the other Empires of European Powers. In truth all Europe would totter under the effects of such a catastrophe, including

By ANDRE SIEGFRIED the famous French Author and Publicist

those European Powers who considered themselves victors in the war. Nor would America remain immune.

★ ★ ★ IS it not possible that some other Power may replace Britain in its role as leader of the white race? Inevitably one’s thoughts turn to the United States which, springing as it does from Anglo-Saxon stock, would appear to be the ideal continuation of Britain’s traditions.

. Immediately after the war, when.old Europe was showing such obvious signs of fatigue and exhaustion, the star of America touched its zenith. It was generally believed that the United States would strive to attain a sort .of world-wide hegemony. Its youth, its fabulous wealth and the brilliant success that it could point to in developing a continent, seemed to equip it ideally for such a role. People expected that the United States of America would replace England as the world’s source of capital, that the dollar would elbow sterling out of its position as the international money of exchange, that New York would expand into the warehouse and the discount centre for international trade. Some even saw America playing the part of the paladin of white civilization as a whole. Was a considerable portion of the white race not to be found in the Americas? It was quite probable that America would become the centre of gravity of white civilization. ★ 'k IN certain respects Britain even seemed anxious to encourage such a development. In 1901 she had abandoned the Panama Canal project wholly to the United States. In 1921 she granted the right of naval equality to her former colony. At that time I clipped an editorial from The Times, London, that illustrates the eagerness on the part of Britain to make concessions to her:

“For the first time in her history, America feels the need of developing a world policy in the full sense of the word. With a single bound she has passed from her previous position as purely a commercial Power, to a leading place among the financial Powers of the world. She has already begun to realize the extent to which this transformation must effect

her political relations with the rest of the planet. . . For the first time in her history she has come to appreciate the meaning of the expression “world communications,” that is, a merchant marine, secure commercial routes, fuelling stations and telegraphic cables to serve her national interests. The United States must acquire all these things, and acquire them she will.” But the 20 years that have elapsed since The Times editorial have shown that the United States has not obtained these accoutrements of world power. New York has not replaced London as the warehouse of the world, or as discount and acceptance centre; sterling remains the principal instrument for inter-Con-tinental transactions at least in the field of exchange. After a brief and unhappy experience with foreign securities, the American investor seems to have turned his back on the outside world. In the sphere of politics, America has undoubtedly assumed the hegemony of the western world, but it would be sheer exaggeration to present her as playing an imperial role in the world at large. The Americans appear unwilling to undertake responsibilities of that order. Public opinion remains hostile to intervention in the affairs of Europe or the Far East. It is much as though the United States were telling Britain: “Imperial responsibilities are your affair. Continue to shoulder them.” Without proclaiming so openly or perhaps even realizing it, Americans find it convenient to look to the British fleet for shelter against the Germans and the

Japanese. In short, America has become accustomed to a world where England reigns and from which all English-speaking nations derive advantage. /

★ ★ ★ WHAT would happen if England were to find the burden that she carries too heavy, and like the old Roman Empire decide to shorten her lines of defence? Is this not, indeed, what is happening today in the Far East? What would happen if some other European Power were to make pretentions to the role of world leadership? Here we are no longer in the domain of hypotheses: Germany is doing just that. One can well imagine what the world would look like if it were to come under German domination. Germany undoubtedly has the technical capacity for carrying out the part which so long has been fulfilled by Great Britain. But a world administered by the Germans would be a very different thing from the one that we have known under the aegis of Britain. Jacques Riviere, who was made prisoner by the Germans during the war, once wrote, “If the Germans were to assume leadership of the world, the forces of production that have remained shackled in our hands would go through a flourishing, development. Life would become, if not happier, at least more prosperous and abundant. The advantages that would ensue are indisputable. But the price of all this? That is what fills me with horror and terror.” The world must be defended from certain methods that would make it uninhabitable. From this point of view it is in the interests of humanity that the British Empire continue to perform its service to civilization. The problem thus posed confronts the Americas with the same urgency as it does Europe. In the struggle that will decide the fate of what we may call liberal civilization, the position taken by the United States will perhaps be decisive. Two conflicting tendencies manifest themselves in the United States. The first, a sort of instinctive reaction, leads many Americans to say: “Let us defend the American Continent and turn our backs on the rest of the world.” The second tendency operates less openly, but is perhaps more indicative of what the future has in store. It is against allowing the British Empire seriously to be menaced by an aggressor, because such an eventuality would endanger the positions of America in the world. Public opinion at present is apparently lined up behind the first point of view and it is to be feared that the United States will shut itself up in a policy of purely continental defence. But I believe that the second tendency will win out in the long run as it did in 1917.

★ ★ ★ BRITAIN has had to recognize that her line of defence is the Rhine. Similarly, the line England-France, with its continuation through Dakar and the Cape of Good Hope, has come to be considered by many Americans as the outposts of America’s defences. The partisans of such a policy press us to do battle in defence of our positions. But they omit to say whether we could rely on their assistance if we should go to war. We would be fighting their battles as much as our own. The weaknesses of the British Empire are too well known to merit repetition: the dispersion of her territories and the vulnerability of her lines of communication. But too often the strength that derives from the loyalty to George VI of his white subjects is completely ignored. United States belongs to the same civilization as Britain; influential American circles are inspired by a sense of solidarity with her. That itself is a source of power to the Empire that is rarely estimated at its proper value. The defensive front of the New World that has emerged from the Lima Conference is not a lasting solution because it leaves the most vital question of contemporary politics unanswered: the survival of a liberal hegemony and regime in the world. (Published by special arrangement with Magazine Digest)