The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 1907. THE PEACE CONFERENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 154, 29 June 1907, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 1907. THE PEACE CONFERENCE.

Tar the cause that lacks assistance. For the wrong that needs resistance For the future te the distance, And the good that we earn do.

For a great variety of reasons, the Peace Conference, which has been in session during the past week at the Hague, is not likely to discover any practicable solution of the great international problems of the day. But incidentally, it may help to clear away misunderstandings and effect compromises,- and the aspects of international law with which it is i chiefly concerned are so confusing and inconsistent that almost any change is likely to be for the better. Nominally, the Czar is convener of the Conference; President Roosevelt having politely stepped aside, after practically securing its convocation. But though Russia is represented at the Hague, for obvious reasons she -will not attempt to take a leading part in the debates. England is the only country that appears to take the Conference very seriously just now, and her representatives in experience and technical knowledge are fully equal to their heavy responsibilities. Sir Edward Grey, late Lord Justice of Appeal, and Lord Reay, late President of the Institute of International Law, stand well for British legal talent and forensic skill; while our diplomatic point of view will be ably sustained by Sir Henry Howard, English Minister at the Hague, and Sir E. Satow, late Ambassador at Peking. -So far as the list of subjects to be discussed has been published, the Conference will be concerned chiefly with methods of warfare, and the conflicting rights of belligerents and neutrals. The importance of such questions was brought into unpleasant prominence toward the close of the Russo-Japanese war; and Germany's proposal to exempt mail steamers from search, and England's suggestion to abolish contraband of war altogether are, by a curious illustration of the irony of fate, directly due to the unprincipled and reckless conduct of the Power at whose request the Hague tribunal was established and the Peace Conference was first convened. But infinitely the most important and interesting subject which has been proposed for discussion at the Conference is the question of International Disarmament; and it is not at all likely that it will be raised in any formal or official way. England is the only Power that has ever seriously contemplated this remarkable step; and it is a curious comment upon the difficulty of finding" a common basis of agreement on such questions that the mere suggestion of disarmament has roused a bitter feeling of hostility toward England on the continent. No doubt Sir Henry CampbellBannerman and his philanthropic associates are perfectly sincere in their protestations about the desirability of freeing the nations from the crashing burden of military and naval armaments. But Englishmen are too prone to forget that foreigners seldom see eye to eye with us; nor do they appear to understand that, apart from differences in racial standpoint, the immense naval strength of England, and the rapid though necessary increase of her fleet in themselves cast doubt upon the honesty of her intentions. But whatever be the precise cause, the fact is incontestable that England alone wishes to discuss the question of disarmament at the Hague, while Russia objects to its introduction, Germany fiercely resents it, and the other Powers whose chance of peace in the future depends chiefly on German ambitions and German policy regard the scheme as altogether impracticable and visionary.

That we have not exaggerated the intensity of feeling roused in Germany by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's disarmament proposals, win be plain to anyone who takes the trouble t"o follow the Continental intelligence for the last two or three months in the leading English papers. The end of April was marked by a furious outburst of Anglophobia in the chief official organs of Germany, and many leading politicians protested violently against Britisa treachery and tbe Machiavellian policy of the British Premier, who was accused of plotting the ruin of Germany under his pretext of a desire for the reduction oi ! armaments. The agitation became so serious that Prince Buelow maj at last compelled to deliver a speech on this question in the Reichstag. He spoke with studied moderation, disclaimed any desire to judge other nations on such momentous questions, definitely declared that Germany could be no party to disarmament, and advised the Powers who believe in it to discuss jt among themselves. But though the Chancellor was cautious and discreet, many of the leading members of the Reichstag went far beyond the limit he had fixed for himself. Baron yon Hertling, leader of the Centre, said that no one, least of all Mr. Haldane or President Roosevelt, really believes in disarmament. Herr Bassermann, leader of the National Liberals, ridiculed the Liberal disarmament policy as only the fulfilment of an election pledge. The leaders of the Radical and Imperial parties spoke in the same strain, and all agreed that, lar from listening to any proposal for reducing her strength, Germany must continue to arm herself and to maintain that "eternal vigilance" -which is the inevitable price of national power. All this goes to show that, as the chance of preserving the neace of Europe depends chiefly °n th©-*fctitude.

of Germany, Sir Henry Camp-bell-Banner-man's sentimental policy of disarmament has really done far more to provoke than to assuage warlike feeling among the Great Pawers, and the prospects of a final solution of this great problem are less favourable than ever.

There is another question on which Germany is likely to feel strongly and to act with decision when it is raised at the Conference. Ever since the SpanishAmerican War, the Monroe Doctrine has been a bugbear to German statesmen. Now that so much of the best part of the world available for settlement has been taken up, Germany seems to think that her chief hope of colonial expansion lies in the direction of South America. But there the Monroe Doctrine intervenes; and on several occasions Germany has sounded other Powers for the purpose of discovering if they were prepared to take joint action with her against the arrogant assumptions of the United States. But in view of England's friendship for America, and the difficulty of coping with an antagonist so wealthy and powerful, at such a distance from Europe, Germany has not yet taken any definite stand about the Monroe Doctrine. Now, however, tHis defiant assertion of monopoly in the New World is to be backed up by a warning to European Powers that they must not in future attempt to use force for the recovery of debts. This Drago Doctrine was devised by South American jurists, and it is meant to apply more especially to the South American States which have learned from the experience of Venezuela that they may need protection against their European creditors. It is hardly to be expected that Germany, with many millions of money and many thousands of colonists already planted in South America, will accept this doctrine without a murmur. And it must be remembered thatf If the Monroe Doctrine is once formally adopted by an International Congress, it will rank as a principle of International law. So far it is merely an informal claim which has never been substantiated; and we may expect Germany to fight hard against its unconditional acceptance by the representatives of the European Powers.