The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 1917. PEACE WITHOUT ANNEXATION

New Zealand Tablet, 30 August 1917, Page 25

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 1917. PEACE WITHOUT ANNEXATION

fANY years ago now that champion of f religious liberty, Cromwell, appeared with a great army before a certain town 011 the river Barrow, with no friendly intentions. The defenders capitulated, making it a condition that they should be left free to practise their religion. Very soon they were told that Crom- ... . , well’s idea of religious freedom did not at all include tolerance of Catholics, and that they must conform to his ideas. They did not, as we all know—hut that is another story. Somehow recent comments on the formula, “Without annexations,’ recall to us Cromwell’s interpretation of religious freedom. The words at first sight seem clear enough, but when we consider what various meanings are now read into them a Delphian oracle seems lucid compared with them. Never before were so many nations engaged in one war * never before were so many problems raised by a war.’ If the worship of Moloch was at the root of all the trouble, it is also likely to make more trouble when there is question of a settlement. The words of President Wilson, “Peace without victory”—which, by the way, have Napoleon’s sanction as being the only’ formula that connotes an agreement ever likely to be stable • the policy of the Russians, “No Annexations,” and the Pope’s proposals, to which we referred last week are in

appearance in substantial accord, and apparently plain enough until obscured by self-interest on the part of the belligerents. * First, there arises the question, how would that sort, of settlement affect Alsace and Lorraine. Here is one answer which illustrates what difficulties of interpretation a simple phrase may occasion. “None of the Allies conceive that any part of Europe shall be transferred to the allegiance of another Government without the consent of the people. And when the Russian extremists 'ask that there shall be no annexations and no conquests, it only remains for us to define what is meant by annexations and conquests. Alsace-Lorraine will not be “annexed” to France. It will be liberated from Germany. It will return to France after its people have been consulted. This is, of course, a point of view taken by the Allies. We doubt if the Germans will agree that to take Alsace from Germany, even in that sense, can be interpreted as “No annexation.” From their viewpoint such an interpretation must seem very like Cromwell’s explanation of religious freedom to the people of New Ross. As regards Poland, the problem is easier. Poland was divided and numbered three times by Austria, Germany, and Russia. We are not certain that any of the three will restore with a good grace what they have held so long with a bad conscience; but here at any rate there is no question of annexation : it is a matter of restitution. But the tale is not yet ended : Italy will have a word to say about her claims to V Italia irredenta, even if she has not expelled her foes when the settling day arrives; but will Austria agree that to yield Trieste is in accord with the formula? And when these little matters have been arranged there will still be the Irish question for England to consider, Finland’s claims to be satisfied, and who can tell what Balkan imbroglio to be disentangled. Practically all the belligerents will be concerned, and the seemingly obvious expression, "No annexations,” is already tentatively interpreted in accordance with their various points of view. * In some Russian circles the formula is receiving a very drastic interpretation. The Petrograd paper, the Novoi/e. Vremya, says; “Peace without annexation is a watchword which needs to bo treated with care. Only when the Germans have renounced the annexations made by them during the last hundred years will we be able to say that they are conscientiously following the commandments of Social Democracy.” This refers not only to Alsace-Lorraine, but also to Schleswig-Holstein. The Germans took Schleswig from Christian IX. and handed it over to the Duke of Augustenburg. Later, Bismarck took the provinces away from the Duke and handed them over to Austria and Prussia. Finally he tore them away from the Austrians and “annexed” them to Prussia. In 1886 the Treaty of Prague declared that they should become the property of Prussia if the inhabitants of their own free will expressed a desire not to be under Denmark : they are still waiting for a chance to express their views on that matter. Evidently there was a case of fradulent and unjust annexation. Is Germany to be allowed to hold the provinces thus acquired ? Through them at present runs the Kiel Canal, without which the German fleet loses half its power. It is clear that the abandonment of Schleswig-Holstein will not be favorably considered by Germany should such a question arise. And there is no reason why it should not arise. She holds them unjustly, even with less right, or appearance of right, than she has to the French provinces of Alsace-Lorraine. England stood by calmly when she annexed them, and is at present paying dearly for her supineness in those days when British statesmen seemed so eager to help to build up the power of Prussia. And, if Russia is going to apply the formula so far back, why not go back a few years more to the time when by fraud and by chicanery unrivalled in the history of mankind the Union of England and Ireland was carried? If the Sinn Feiners have their way, Ireland will have a repre-

sentative at the Peace Conference for no other purpose than securing the repeal of that shameful Act of Union which English historians and statesmen regard as the blackest transaction in the history of Britain. We see, therefore, that the plain words of ' the Russian manifesto can lead to much searching of hearts on the part of the nations. President Wilson’s terms of “A Peace without victory” get rid of a great deal of the difficulty, the Pope’s Note goes further, inasmuch as it would provide that questions such as those we have barely alluded to might be arranged on the democratic principle of leaving to the nations and provinces concerned the privilege of deciding for themselves. * ,» To yield so far would certainly mean a drastic reparation for many of the nations, but it would also mean the most satisfactory settlement possible and the surest basis of a lasting peace. It would mean the resurrection of heroic Poland; it would lay the foundations of a prosperous and contented Ireland ; Finland would become independent; the inhabitants of the provinces annexed by Germany would choose their own rulers ; and in all likelihood the vexed Balkan question would cease to be a menace to the peace of Europe. In spite of the prejudiced opinions expressed about the Pope s Note we still consider that it contains the skeleton of a scheme upon which peace may be arranged ; and though it seems, in face of much that we read in the press nowadays, that the belligerents will not admit their willingness to discuss terms mutually, we are inclined to prophesy that at no distant date peace proposals will not only be discussed but accepted by all the Powers engaged in the war.