The Dominion SATURDAY, JANUARY 20, 1917. A SOCIETY OF NATIONS

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2982, 20 January 1917, Page 6

The Dominion SATURDAY, JANUARY 20, 1917. A SOCIETY OF NATIONS

The conditions of a durable peace laid'down'-by the British Foreign ; Secretary (Me. Balfour) and the united declaration of the Allies that they are prepared to act in concert with other Powers for the purpose of. creating a league of .nations to assure universal peace and justice are impressive indications that-the long-cherished idea of a society of nations living in concord, and respecting each othsv's rights and liberties, is becoming something'more than a splendid dream. _The war is making us. revise, our ideas as to what is possible. It has also given ■ rise to high expectations. Many peojile are hoping that after, the struggle is over a way will be found ■of greatly extending the' reign of law jind reason in. the sphere of international relationships. Mr. .Balfour contends that a stable peace cannot be established unless, behind international law and all treaty arfor preventing or limiting hostilities, there is some form of international sanction which would give pause to the hardiest aggressor. That four great Powers-ißri-tam, France, Russia, and Italyshould give official endorsement to a proposal .that the nations should league themselves together for the purpose of placing effective restraints on predatory Powers represents a real step forward.' Tho human. race may still have a long way to travel before it reaches the golden age of universal_ peace, but it would be; sheer'pessimism to contend that the progressive ' moralisation. of : politics is beyond the* capacity of'humanity: Pessimistsl tellus that all attempts'lio create,a fellowship of nations must fail, but the majority of .mankind persists in taking a more hopeful view. They' refuse to believe "that Nature has decreed that nations must for ever "livo in hatred, enmity, and strife." The German idea that war is an essential and permanent condition'of progress is based on a misinterpretation of the Darwinian theory. Tho present war has revealed thc # disastrous consequenccs of this misunderstanding of the term "strugglo for existence," combined with Machiavellian diplomacy. Reasonable people now recognise that more conscience must be put into international dealings. We arA beginning to see wisdom in some icleas which three , years ago were generally regarded as impracticable and _ Utopian. Professor Muirhead gives expression to the views of many thoughtful people when ho states that "the essential principle) oil which we are to go in all politics is .that the practicable is forbo measured by the right, and not the right by the practiaablo.'.' Herr von Bethmann Holmveg has declared that Germany is willing to co-operate with other States in tho formation of a League of Nations to enforce' peace: but it is quite impossible to. establish a rational reconciliation between the German theory of the State and that regard for the elementary moralities which must form the basis of any agreement among tho nations to co-oper-ate for their mutual benefit with - good-faith and good-will. It is possible that decisive defeat in this war convince tho Germans that an 'Empire wholly based on war" does not rest upon sure foundations. Defeat may make' them see that a State which disregards the moral law must,' sooner or later, come to grief. It may shatter Germany's delusion that she is the elect God-nation, and is therefore «it liberty to ignore the moral restraints which arc supposed to tho actions of other countries. According to the German view a, Stato has no moral character and need recognisc no binding obligations to. other States. Professor OORLEV, of Cambridge, contends . "ho root of tho whole problem ot international relationships lies in our attitude to the following question:

Does the collcctivo personality of tlio snll ? "Mr.a duty on its part to respect tho similar personality of other states in much tho fame way as an individual person ought to respect tho on fr 1 0 C - lnnn? Ot does it not. IF wo answer in tho affirmative wo vindicate the moral character of tho Mate, and it will lie possible for different Mates to lire together in friendship, respecting others and respected by them. 11. wo answer 111 the negative, then, with l'lclitp, we must liold lliat war <imf preparation. ior .war aro tho continual and necessary business, of a State. Hostile armies aro now deciding tho question not which of tlioso views is true, but which is to prevail in this generation and the next. Tho future of international morality depends upon the defeat of tho Germanic system. And when tho present danger is past the way should bo clearer for working out a. practical solution of tho age-long problems of statecraft—the reconciliation of freedom with order, and of national progress with international amity.

&o long as Germany _ adheres to her grossly materialistic theory of the Stato'she must be treated as an outlaw. _ She can have no place in any. family of nations.. She. cannot be trusted. Machiavellianism makes amity among States impossible.- It cuts the roots of international morality. Machiavelli, as a recent

writer remarks, v;ss the Treitscmkil and Rbiu?hauoi of the Itenaißsaccc, Ho made a science of eunping, deceit, and duplicity. He explained with care and exactitude when the. prince should break his word, when ho should betray .his servant, \y.ncn he should throw Over an ally 110 is pledged to support, and so on; and particular emphasis is laid upon the use of fraud to achieve his ends." In her dealings with other nations Germany has acted upon tho precepts of ]Vlachiawith ,unexampled brutality and thoroughness. She has not hesitated to play the part that Nietzsche assigns to tho masler race which to tho outside world is little better than an uncaged beast of prey, without conscience and free from all restraint. She is proud to ikon herself to Nietzsche's "blond beast, lustfully roving in search of booty.-and victory." Until this savage nation is tamed or caged, tho establishment of a just and lasting peace is an. impossibility. The war will decide which of two ideals of government is .to prevail in tho world.- On the one hand there is the English ideal, .which has been , well described by Sir Oliver Lodge as that of a commonwealth of natious, a, group of friendly States, working together, and each making its contribution to human welfare and progress. On the other hand there is tho .Prussian ideal of a smglo State dominating all others and imposing its will and culture by forco upon the rest of the world. Ihe 1 russian ideal is summed up in the words: "Be German or be damned." But the Allies are determined to save the world from Germanisation. They did not will the war, but they will certainly win it. The complete triumph of tlieir cause is the necessary preliminary to a state pace based on justice, and until they liavo shattered the power of Prussia the grouping of the na«jons into a friendly -family in •wnich each member will treat his fellows as "moral persons" is an impossibility. _A beaten and discredited Germany will afford a striking exemplification of the truth of Wordsworth's memorable" words: "He stands upon a hideous precipice who has outlawed himself from society by proclaiming, with word and act, that he acknowledges no mastery but power."