The Dominion. MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 1914. THE METHODS OF MACHIAVELLI

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2242, 31 August 1914, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 1914. THE METHODS OF MACHIAVELLI

Every normal-minded man will admit that the relations between members of the same family and citizens of the same State are governed by the moral law. There may be differences of opinion regarding the details and merits of various moral codes, but it is quite clear that public and private life would be intolerable if the ethical.element were entirely excluded from our family and social relationships. There is not, however, .as strong a consensus of opinion regarding the possibility or desirabilty of applying the ordinary principles A>f morality to the dealings of one 'nation with another. Indeed, some people have not hesitated to declare that there is no such thing as international morality. The most notorious expression of this' point of view -is Machiavelli's advocacy of the systematic subordination of right to expediency, and the use of treachery, cunning, and artifice in the sphere of politics. Gitoriua, on the other hand, held that human life is essentially a society, and that certain laws, of which fidelity to plighted word is tho. most important, ares as immutable as human nature. .Machiavelli practically tells us that the ordinary ideas of right and wrong have no place in international politics, and this seems to be the attitudo of the German Government vin connection with the present war. "' The German Chancellor, in his interview with the British Ambassador (an account • whlc l» appeared in Saturday's issue of The Dominion), expressed surprise that Britain should K o to war just for,tho word "neutrality" —just for a scrap of paper." It seemed to him ridiculous, and when the British Ambassador declared that Britain would keep her solemn compact, the question of national honour does not appear to have-had any place in the Chancellor's thoughts, for he wanted to Know at what price tho compact would be kept. One might easily imagine such a conversation taking placo between Machiavelli and Gnonirs had they lived in the same generation,, for tho German Chancellor's attitude regarding the neutrality of Belgium is thoroughly Machiavellian whereas Sir William Goschen's declaration that fear of consequences could hardly be regarded as an excuso for breaking a solemn engagement is quite in accordance with the principle of international morality laid down by Grotius. . The policy of Machiavelli has been described as "unscrupulous efficiency"— play. iun to win and. counting nothing

disgraceful except failure. This is what Germany has been doing ever since the day's of Bismarck, and the interesting conversation between the Chancellor and the Ambassador shows that Germany still holds that considerations of right and wrong are out of place in international politics. In other words, it is price—not honour or obligation—that counts in these_ affairs. _ It is quite obvious that if the relationships' between nations are entirely "outside the jurisdiction of the moral law it is vain to talk of national rights or of tho duty of one State to another, for no nation could then have any rights" except those which it could maintain by force. Therefore, small countries like Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland could have no rights as against a great Power like Germany. Indeed, the German Chancellor bluntly declares that the treaty which guarantees Belgium's neutrality is only a "scrap of paper." In contrast to this utterly immoral attitude, Mr. Asquith holds that treaties ought to be faithfully observed, and states that Britain is at war because she is determined to keep her solemn obligations in the discharge of a binding trust. The Germans are showing tie civilised world that the methods of Machiavelli in diplomacy lead to methods of barbarism in warfare, which must shock the whole civilised world. , ■ '