The Dominion MONDAY, APRIL 23, 1917. ANNEXATION

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3060, 23 April 1917, Page 4

The Dominion MONDAY, APRIL 23, 1917. ANNEXATION

. The cry.against annexation of enemy territory, which has been heard ol late m. Russia, raises a question in which Britain is at least as much concerned as any other member of the hntente group. We . are of course very much ..eofieerafld in Russia s attitude, towards the reconstruction ma of Eur but we h?,ve a, still more direct inwrest ia the annexation question as K Mates to-some of'the territories tho German colonies— which have been occupied by. British woops. The annexation of certain portions of the territory held by the enemy, or its disposal in some fashJon which would be no more agreeable than annexation to the dominant elements in enemy countries, is question upon which it is essential to have clear-cut ideas if. wo ■Are to have a' definite' goal in the war. Precisely in what form and with what driving force behind it the agitation against annexation has taken shape in Eussia our present state of information does not enable us to say; but in England the opponents of annexation have ■stated their case with such fulnessand freedom as to afford ample material .for a judgment upon the .merits of the case.. In particular the members of the • small pacifist group in the House of Commons, which includes Messes. Ponsonby, ■Ibevelyan, 'and Snowden, have i had ample opportunities of airing i their views, and presumably have left very little unsaid that they wished to say. in support'of their, leadiag contentions. They have nevertheless failed very .completely and obviously to make out the case they uphold, and would hardly have attracted as much attention as they have but for their adroit resort to generalities. In this way they are perhaps enabled -B> make a maximum impression upon those who do not trouble to think matters out for themselves,, but at the same time an answer to most if not all of what these critics of country) have to say in favour of non-interference with enemy territory is immediately and obviously suggested in rtheir own speeches and arguments. This appears very clearly in the ; reports contained in recent files of a peace debate which took place in the House of Commons towards the end of last February. The members named above took a prominent part, and Me. Ponsonby and Mr. TjieVelyan both contended that, so far as tho British part in it was concerned, the war had degenerated from a _ championship of small nationalities into a.fight for the extension of large empires, while Mr. ■ Snowden declared: that if the Germans had stated their terms and' those terms had provided for the evacuation of Belgium and tho in'vaded parts of France! they would have made it very difficult for the British Government to have refused peace negotiations. In the extent to. which they elaborated their case, however, these pacifists, as has been indicated, exposed its weakness. The keynote of the : pacifist contribution to the debate, so far as it related to the 'subject of annexation, _ was struck by Mr. Teevelyan when he said that a possible interpretation of the Allied proposals .regarding Austria-Hungary was that a policy of self-government and not independence of the subject races'of the Hapsburg Empire was in view—a guaranteed Home Kule. This, ho said, might be worth struggling for, but not a policy of disruption which we were not ready to apply where subject races of-Eussia or other countries were concerned. This will serve very, well as an example of what pacifist and anti-annexation ■agitation, if it succeeded, would really lead to. In the interests of the kind of peace ho desires, Mr. Trevelyan and those who share his views are. prepared to desert the races in bondage to enemy countries with no bettor assurance of an improvement in their . lot than a guarantee, which from Germany and Austria would be .worthless and which the Entente could only enforce by armed intervention — that, is to say, by fighting the present war over again. Somewhat similar issues arc raised in every instance where uncompromising opposition to any interference witli enemy territories is in question. Misgoveriuncnt of subject races unjustly held in bondago wag 'the root cause of this war and in the case equally of Germany, Austria, and Turkey the question to be determined is whether tho conditions that produced the war are to be restored or remedied. Forcible seizure of any part of tho recognised territory of a united people is a thing that should be repugnant to any civilised nation, but no such issue is raised in tho settlement which will have to be drawn up at tho end of this war. Since the revolution in Russia it is possible to say'that no member of the Entente is in any degree inspired by lust of conquest. But the Allies cannot consent to the restoration of pre-war boundaries as a basis of settlement, even with such acts of reparation as the restoration

of Alsace-Lorraine to frith* out dcsovtiiig- iho subject ami Oppressed races whose cause they have championed, nullifying their own heavy BacrififcS, and abandoning all nopcoi tlio better international order in and beyond .Europe Which the war has made possible-. Those wii'd declare, ae do some British pacifists that no disruption of enemy territory should be Contemplated, are in effect condoning and defending the policy of oppression and judicial murder by which Austria retained authority over her Slav aiid Italian subjects. They are iiphold- ! ing also the policy of extermination which the Turks have pursued against the Armenians and other subject races. The nations of the group stand in no need of territorial expansion, but some of the races to be liberated are probably incapable- of standing alone, for a- timo at least, and it is not in abstract objections .to annexation, biit in principles of justice and humanity that guidance must be looked for when the map of Europe is redrawn. In the disposal of the German colonies, also, full thought should be given to the interests of the African and other races whom Germany has in many cases subjected to brutal oppression and cruelty. As with some sections of the European problem one of the first questions to be- answered is whether we are on any ground entitled to abandon these people to their former fate.