The Dominion. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1911. AMERICA'S PART

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2339, 22 December 1914, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1911. AMERICA'S PART

The attitude of the United States towards the war, which finds its latest expression in the announcement that America will make no representations to Germany on the subject of the naval bombardment of undefended towns on the English coast, is not exactly calculated to excite respect for the greatest of the neutral Powers or raise its prestige. The announcement is coupled with a statement that American newspapers have pointed out that America was . involved by such 'a broach of international law, but that President ■ V\ ilson wishes to avoid all entanglements in the present conflict. This reason for non-intervention is so excceaingly bad that ifc is a wonder it was stated. The celebrated plea of watchful waiting," inane as it was, would have served better to throw a decorous veil over the facts than a piam admission that America chooses to refrain t from taking up her responsibilities as a neutral Power and a leading party to The Hague Convention, because her governors are ?t • j -^ e . consequences. The l/nited States in past years took a piominent part in the'international consultations which have led' to the training of the laws and regulations !™ n 5 to war which are embodied m Ihe Hague Convention. ■' Tho Convention is a sacred and binding treaty in . which America is engaged equally with Britain, Germany, and other Powers which aro now at war. inc question at stake is not whether America is likely to become involved in the war or not, but whether she 15 ? r , I s , prepared to honourably uphold her treaty obligations, .p order to see what the official attitude of America really amounts to, it is only nocessary to compare German practice in the war with the 10V l the Convention which she has so shamefully violated. It contains, amongst others, the following articles:—

pA™?® 1;- ? : ' i e,, te "ttorr '°f neutral Powers is mviolablo. Article 2,-Belligcrents are forbidden to move troops or convoys, whether of munitions ot war or supplies, across the terntory of a neuJtral Power. Article 10. The fact of a neutral Power resisting even by force, attempts to vio- ? its neutrality, cannot be regarded as a hostile act. 1 Article 22.—Belligerents have not got an unlimited right as to the choice of means of injuring the enemy. Article 25. The attack or bombardment by ,any means whatever of undefended towns villages, dwellings, or buildings is forbidden. Article 27—In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must bo Itaken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to piiblic worship, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where tho 6ick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. It is the duty of the besieged to indicate such buildings or places by distinctive or visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand. . Article 4G—Family honour and rights, individual life, and private property, as well a 9 religious convictions and worship, must be respected. Private property may not be confiscated. Article 47.—Pillage is expressly forbidden. Article 50.—N0 collective penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall bo inflicted-upon the fwpulation on account of tho acts of individuals.for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible.

The facts of the position are obviously not in dispute. Since she entered the war Germany has openly | and without disguise treated The Hague Convention with contempt. She has invaded the territories of neutral States, conducted a vindictive war against a nation defending its neutral rights, and committed crimes innumerable against international law, of which the latest example is the shelling of undefended towns on the English coast. It is not more true that Germany has committed these crimes ' "than that America has tolerated them practically in absolute silence. She has tamely acquiesced in the criminal violation of ah international treaty which she had done much to promote and had pledged her national honour to uphold and maintain. It is only fair to_ admit that tbe spirit of American diplomacy by no means reflects the spirit of the American peoplo. In contrast with the meek silence of their rulers, the peoplo of tho United States havo freely voiced their indignation at the brutal atrocities and infractions of international law with which Germany has stained her cause in the war. Even German agents now admit that it is impossible to get the American people to view the German cause wjtti sympathy. This, however, in no way absolves, but rather acccntuatcs, the weakness of the American Government in neglecting its duties as a party to The Hague Convention. Great nations cannot afford, any more than individuals, to ignore obligations which they have incurred by entering into sacred and binding agreements. It appears to be tho fashion at the moment, even with an influential section of the British Press, to flatter the susceptibilities of the United States, rather than point to the limitations of their foreign policy, but it is safe to say that th'tt fifl.i] verdict of the world upon the policy of avoiding entanglements at any cost, even that of honour, will be anything but ploaoing to ju authors. i