A GREAT SPEECH

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2741, 8 April 1916, Page 13

A GREAT SPEECH

AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY

MR. ELIHU ROOT'S DENUNCIATION

f On the 15tll of February Ifr. ! EMhu ~ Hoot delivered a speech at the Oarnegio Hall, New York, which stirred Amerioa. It was in the main a denunciation ..of President Wilson's 'for-.. ' ; eign. policy, arid lias been. treated by the United States Press as indicating the issue on whioh tie Eepubliam Party proposes to fight the Presidential election later in the year. We print below* an extract, which is of partipular interest. as showing tho view held . . by a large proportion, probably the great majority pf the American people/ ' concerning President Wilson's attitude towards Germany's breaches of international law. and- the law of humanity.] _ Measured and restrained expression, said Mr. Hoot, in the course of his speeon,' Lacked to tie full by serious ' purpose, is strong and respected. Extreme and belligerent expression, unsupported by resolution, is weak and without effect. No man should draw a pistol who dares not shoot. The 1 Government, that shakes its fist first and its finger afterward falls into contempt. Our diplomacy haß lost its authority and influence because we have been, brave in words and irresolute in action. • Men-may; say that the words of our diplomatic, notes were justified; men may _ say /that our inaction was . justified ;' but no man can . say thai both our' words and our inaction were wise and creditable'. I have said that this Government lost the moral forces of the world fey • not truly interpreting the spirit of'the American democracy. nemooraoy and Human Rights. ■ The American democracy stands for something more than /beef: and .'cotton and grain and manufactures; stands for something that cannot be measured by rates of exchange and does not rise or fall with _ the balance of trade. The American people achieved liberty land schooled themselves to the service of justice before they acquired wealth, and they value their country's liberty and justice above all their pride of possessions., Beneath their comfortable optimism and apparent indifference they have a conception of their great Republic as brave and strong and noble \ to hand down to, their children the blessings of freedom and just and equal laws. They have embodied their princinles of government in fixed rules of right conduct which they jealously preserve, and with the instinct of individual freedom they stand for a government of laws and not of men. They deem that the moral laws which formulate the duties of .men toward each other are . binding upon nations equally with individuals. Informed by their own experience, confirmed by their observation of international life, thev have come to seo that the independence ■ of nations, the liberty _ of their peoples, justice and humanity, cannot be' maintained'' upon the complaisance, the good nature, the kindly feeling of the strong toward tho ,woak; that real independence, real liberty, cannot rest unon sufferance: that Deace and liberty can be preserved only ;bv the authority and observance of rules of national conduct founded unon the principles bfr-iustice.and humanity; , : only by the of low among • hations, responsive,, to the enlightened ; public opinion' of mankind. Liberty and Justice. • • To them liberty means not liberty for themselves.;alone, but for all'who are oppressed.. Justice means not ius- ' tice for themselves alone; but a shield for all whp'are. weak against the nparesslorrof the strong. When their depper natures are'.stirred-, ■they havis- a- spirit- i ual vision in which the sDread and per- ';

'• fection of free self-government . shall rescue the humble who toil and endure from the hideous wrongs inflicted upon them by ambition and lust , for power, and they Chens' in their heart of I hearts an ideal of their country loyal to . .the mission of' liberty for the lifting - up' of the oppressed and bringing in the rule of righteousness and peace. . '.To this people the invasion of Belgium brought a shock of amaze.ni.ent and horror. The people of Belgium- were peaceable, _ .industrious, ■ law-abiding, self-governing, and free. They had; no quarrel with any one on earth. They were attacked by overwhelming military power; their country was devastated by fire and sword; they were slain by tens of.- thousands; their independence iwas destroyed and their liberty \va:B subjected to the rule of an invader for no other cause than that they defended their admitted rights. There was no question of fact; there was no question of law; there was not aplausible pretence of any other cause. The admitted rights of Belgium stood in the way of a mightier nation's purpose. and Belgium was crushed. When the true nature of these events was realised, the, people of the United States did. not hesitate in .their feeling or m their judgment. Deepest* sympathy with downtrodden Belgium and stern condemnation of the invader , were practically universal. Wherever there was respect for law it revolted against the wrong done to Belgium. Wherever there was true passion for "tarty it blazed out for Belgium. Wherever there was humanity it mourned for Belgium. - . As the realisation of the truth spread it carried a vague feeling that not merely, sentiment but loyalty to the eternal principles of right was involved in the attitude of the American people. - Moral Treason. And it. was so, for if the nations were to be indifferent to this great concrete case for a century of military - power trampling \under foot at will the independence, the liberty, and the life of a peaceful and unoffending people in repudiation ■ of the faith of treaties and the law of nations and of morality and of humanity—if the public opinion of the world' was to remain silent upon that, neutral upon that, then all talk about peace and justice and international law and the rights of man', ' the progress of humanity, and the spread of liberty, is idle patter—mere weak sentimentality; then opinion is powerless, and brute force rule and will rule the world. If no difference is recognised between right and wrong, then there are no moral standards. There come times in the lives of nations as of men when to treat wrong as if it were rijjht is treason- to the right. The American people were entitled not merely to feel but to speak concerning the. wrong done to Belgium. It was. not like interference in the internal affairs of Mexico or any other nation, for this was an International wrong. The law protecting Belgium which was violated was our law and the law of every other civilised country. For gen, erations we had been urging on and helping in its development and establishment. We had spent our efforts and our money to that end. .In legislative resolution and executive declaration and diplomatic'correspondence and special treaties and international conferoncos and conventions ' we had played our part in conjunction i with other civiiised countries in making ■ that law. We had bound ourselves by, i ft, w s e had regulated our conduct by it, i and we were entitled to have other < nations observe it. ' ;

J. hat law was the protection of out peace and security. It was our safeguard against tho necessity of maintaining great armaments and wasting our substance in continual readiness for war. Our interest in having it maintained as the law of nations was a substantial, valuable, permanent interest, ju3t as real as your interest and mine

in having maintained and enforced the laivs against assault and robbery and arson which protect our personal safety and property. 1 Duty of the United states. Moreover, that law was written into a solemn and formal convention, ana' •ligned and ratified by Germany and Belgium, andFrauce, and the United •.States,' in which those other countries agreed with us t'hat the law should be observed. When Belgium was invaded, that agreement was 1 binding not onlj morally but strictly and technically, because there was then no nation a party to the v war. which was not also a party to the' convention. . • Tho invasion of Belgium was a, breach of contraot with us for the maintenance of a iaw of nations which was the pro- • tection of our peace, and the interest which sustained the contract justified an objection to its breach. There was no question here of interfering in the quarrels of Europe. We had a right to be neutral, and we were neutral as to the quarrel between Germany arid France, put wlieiv as an incident to the prosecution of that quarrel Germany broke the law which we were entitled to have preserved and which she had agreed with us to preserve, we were entitled to be heard in the assertion of our own national right. With, the right to speak came responsibility, and with responsibility came duty—duty of Government towards all the peaceful men- and women in America not to acquiesce in the destruction of the law which protected them, for if the world assents to this great and signal violation of the law of nations, then the law of nations no longer exists, and we have no protection save in subserviency or in force.

And with the right to speak there came to this, the greatest of neutral nations, the greatest of free democracies another duty to the cause of liberty and justice for which America stands —duty to the ideals of America's nobler nature, duty to the honour of ber past and the hopes of her future; for this law was a bulwark of peace and justice to. the world, it was a. barrier to the spread of war, it was a safeguard to the independence and liberty of all small, weak States. It marks the progress of civilisation. If the world consents to its 'destruction, the world turns backward towards savagery, and America's, assent would bo America's abandonment of the mission of democracy.False Neutrality. Yot the American Government acquiesced in the treatment of Belgium and the destruction of the law of nations. Without one word of objection or dissent to the repudiation 1 of law or the breach of our treaty or the violation of justice and humanity in the treatment of Belgium, our Government on- [ joined upon the' peoplo of the United ; States an undiscl'iminating and alb-em-bracing neutrality, and tho President [ admonished the people that they must i be neutral in all in act and word and thought and sentiment, i We were to be, not merely neutral as to tho quarrels of Europe, but neutral as to the treatment of Belgium, neutral between right and wrong, neutral between justice and injustice, neutral between humanity and cruelty, neutral botween liberty and oppression. Our Government aid more than acquiesce, for in the first Lusitania Note, with tho unspeakable horrors of the conquest of Belgium still fresh in our minusj 011 the very day after the report of Clio Brycc Commission on Belgian atrocities, it wrote these words to the Government of Germany:—' "Recalling the humane and enlightened attitude hitherto assumed by the Imperial German Government on matters of international right, and particularly with regard to the freedom of tho seas, having learned to recognise the Gorman views and the German iniUtoncu in the field of international obligation

as always .engaged upon the Bide of justice and humanity, etc." And so the Government of the United States appeared as approving the treatment of Belgium. It misrepresented- the people of the United States in that acquiescence and apparent approval. It was -not necessary that the United States should go to war in defence of the violated law.Are' We Weak and Sordid? A single official expression by the Government of the United State's, a single, sentence denying assent und recording disapproval, of what (iurmany did in Belgium, would Lave given to the geople of America that leadership to wnicli they were entitled in their earnest groping for the light. ■ It would have ranged' behind American leadership the conscience' and morality of the neutral world. It would' Have brought to American diplomacy the respect and strength of loj'alty to ft great cause.

But it was' not to be. The American Government failed to rise to the demands of the great occasion. Gone were the old love of justice, the old passion for liberty, tile old sympathy with the oppressed, the old ideals of an America helping the world toward a better future, and there remained in the ej'es of mankind only solicitude for trade and profit and prosperity and wealth. .

Tne American Government could not reauy have approved the treatment of Belgmm, but under a' mistaken policy it snrank from speaking the truth. That vital error has carried into every effort of, our diplomacy the weakness of a false position. Every Note of remonstrance against interference with trade, or even against the destruction of life, has been projected against the background of an aban-. donment of the principles for which America once stood, and has been weakened by the popular feeling among the people of Europe, whoso hearts are lifted up by the impulses of patriotism and_ sacrifice, that America has become ivcak and sordid.

Such policies as I have described are doubly dangerous in their effect upon foreign nations, and in their effect at home. It is a. matter of universal experience that a weak and apprehensive treatment of foreign affairs invites encroachments upon rights, and leads to situations in which it is difficult to prevent war,' while a firm and frank policy at the outset prevents difficult situations from arising, and tends most strongly to preserve peace. _ On the other_ baud, if a Government is to be strong in its diplomacy, its own people must be ranged in its support by leadership of opinion in a national cause worthy to awaken .their patriotism and devotion. - Stumbling Towards War. Wo have not been following the path of peace. . We have been blindly stumbling along the road that, continued, will lead to inevitable wa,r. Our diplomacy Jias dealt with symptoms and ignored causes. The great decisive question upon which our peace depends is the question whether the rule of act Ton applied to Belgium is to be tolerated. If it is tolerated by. the civi--22. Y or '4' nation will have to ngitc for its life. There will be no oscape. That is the critical point of defence for the peace of America. Lost Leadership. When our Government failed to tell the truth about Belgium, it lost the opportunity for leadership of the moral sense of the American people, and itlost the power which a knowledge of that leadership and a sympathetic response from the moral sense of the world would liavo given to our diplomacy.