The Dominion MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1918, AN ANGLO-AMERICAN ALLIANCE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 69, 16 December 1918, Page 4

The Dominion MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1918, AN ANGLO-AMERICAN ALLIANCE

Before the war the idea of a union of the English-speaking peoples was regarded as admirable but Utopian. Conditions have now changed so completely that the only question open,is how far and in what manner the unity of pur-, pose that has been established between.the people of the British Empire and those of the United States can be turned to account in maintaining and safeguarding world peace. A niost important suggestion in this connection was made the other day by ex-President Roosevelt. "I think," he wrote, •'the time has como when the 1 United States and the British Empire can agree to a universal arbitration treaty. We should say that under no circumstances shall thero be resort to war between the United States and the British Empire." Mii. Balfour spoke_ in similar words about the irnrjossibility of wftV between Britain and the United States when he visited the latter country in the early part of last year, but much has since 'occurred that gives fuller and richer .meaning to the expression of AngloAmerican unity. So far as tho spirit underlying Me. Roosevelt's proposal is only, ono verdiet.is.possible. An overwhelming body of opipion in both countries undoubtedly upholds the view, that war between them is unthinkable. If the idea of a universal arbitration treaty does pot find favour l it Will be only because it is doubted whether- any formal compact could bring the two nations into closer and L more : sympathetic touch than the informal understanding that npw exists. _■ Without >being joined as parties in any comprehensive treaty, Britain. and the United States have engaged in. naval and military co-operation of the closest possible character, and on a scale .of magnitude which is without precedent in the history of the world. Tp ask whether any. treaty could improve existing Anglo-American relations is not, therefore, to take up a merely negative attitude. One concrete objection to a formal treaty is that such, documents commonly become a bone of contention between political parties, and so tetod in a measure to defeat their own primary object. As an American writer observed recently:

One of the reasons why the" present unwritten alliance between America' and Great Britain is of stronger fibre than one that might-have been arranged by She Governments ;of the two countries is that, having been mado by tho two nations as such, it is freed ■ from the criticism to which a written international agreement is always subjected. Rival politicians seek to belittle the actions or accomplishments of those in power. People who have had ho hand in the directing of the national destinies arc prone to question the charting of those at the helm. ' In the unwritten alliance : brongbt about by tho peoples of the two countries as a whole there is room for.no element of jealousy, for each people is united and unanimous, and they meet, upon an equality that ensures mutual trust and liking. This' in- some, respects overstates the case for an unwritten, agreement, but it contnins a considerable element of truth. _ If only AngloAmerican relations* had to be con r sidcred it would be at least doubt- j ful. whether the existing state of affairs, could bo improved upon by a formal treaty.

It is obviously impossible, how : ever, to consider tho relations ' of the British Empire and the United* States as if they stood apart and isolated from the rest of the world. Such a proposal, as Mr. Roosevelt has made, commands attention not only a-s emphasising'the extent to. which Britain and America have drawn together during the last year 'or two, but as it bears upon international relations in general. Detail objections to an arbitration treaty linking the two.nations lose weight when it is considered that such an agreement might represent a 1 long step towards the international conditions that are postulated by the advocates of a League of Nations. A comprehensive compact excluding the possibility of war between the British Empire and the United States would undoubtedly offer a way of approach .to these conditions, and it ■ is all the more .necessary '.to scrutinise carefully" ' the; possibilities _ thus opened, since it is doubtful if any alternative way of approach is available. Thus far the advocates of a League of Nations have shown more eagerness to abolish war than fertility of invention in devising means to that end. Some of them are given to uttering pious platitudes which wither awayin the presence of practical objections. The difficulties opposing the early creation of a League of Nations on a comprehensive basis are great, and perhaps insurmountable. For instance, to include Germany would be morally equivalent to inviting and permitting malefactors of the worst type to sit in tho same council with honest and upright citizens. On the other hand her exclusion would leave our own nation and others saddled with the necessity of providing against renewed aggression, and would cons'titutc an impediment to the adoption of any disarmament proposal. Whether or not the creation of a League of Nations' is attempted .by the Peace Conference, some of the proposals made in this connection are bound to be rejected. , In particular the British Empire cannot for a moment allow any Utopian ideas about of the seas to interfere with its right to safeguard and protect its sea-borne trade and sea communications. From the British standpoint there is no equity in an arrangement which would leave Britain as incapable as any other country of affording such protection. To most countries open sea routes are a convenient ancl immensely valuablo and important means of communication, but aro not necessarily essential to their existence. To the British Empire they are a vital necessity. _ The transfer of sea-power to an international. authority would not be balanced by the general abolition ofconscription. Britain long agogave a lead in reducing her Army to a minimum, but she can as littlo submit to dictation where tho control and protection of sea > routes is concerned as another nation can in making provision for tho secur-

ity of its national railways and highways. It will bo time enough to talk about abolishing the British Navy or cutting clown its strength when the seas are definitely made secure by international compacts, backed by international force. Looking at the difficulties to bo overcome the full attainment of the League of Nations ideal seems distant, but it is not in doubt that an Anglo-American alliance would be a most promising step in this direction. Strong in mutual trust, the two nations are in a position to share the burden of policing the seas' in a fashion that would mako their own interests secure and command and deserve the confidence of other nations. # It is open to Britain and America to declare that no, nation shall create naval force with aggressive intent, and to enforce their ruling. Their alliance and joint maintenance of a supreme naval force would constitute one of the strongest possible guarantees of world peace—an infinitely better guarantee than would be afforded by the establishment of a fleet of ail nations. In all respects an Anglo-American alliance ■ would make for international security. Concluding such a compact, • both the British Empire and the United States would be even better placed than they are ■ now to develop permanently iriendly relations with other nations. The final result would be something less magnificent, than an all-comprehending League of Nations, . but it. is likely that from the standpoint of practical benefits it ..would not suffer in comparison. ' The, Roosevelt letter which has been quoted is one of a number of encouraging indications given that_ a strong body of opinion in America, while it rejects impracticable idealism, is keenly, bent on making the most of such firm guarantees of future .peace as an Anglo-American alliance would afford.