The Dominion. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1919. THE GERMAN COLONIES AND PEACE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 110, 3 February 1919, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1919. THE GERMAN COLONIES AND PEACE

According to one of to-day's messages agreement has been reached.at the Peace Conference in regard to the ihternationalisation of the German colonies. _ Official confirmation is lacking at time of writing, but as ne\vs stands it would seem that the various representatives, including those who speak for the British 'Dominions, have -agreed to a. plan under which the late enemy colonies ivill be held and governed by the countries or dominions most immediately interested under a policy to be broadly denned by the League of Nations. It is suggested that the Pacific and African colonies will be governed under the laws of the countries taking them over. Thus New Zealan'd laws would become applicable to German Samoa, and those of Australia to German New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago. At the moment it is not clear whether it would be left in each case to the trustee country to determine the fiscal- policy of a colony held in trust—news is in conflict on this point—but even if the arrangement, is on these lines the part allotted to the League of Nations need not be as nominal as some commentators suggest. Whatever scope of authority may be invested in the trustee countries it would remain an essential duty of the League of Nations to see that the late enemy colonies were turned to no military or naval uso, and also that the native inhabitants, were justly treated. As a whole the arrangement outlined is likely to be much more popular in the Dominions than the hulk of the cabled comment would suggest. Broadly speaking, there does-, not seem to be any reason why such an arrangement should not have been adopted as offering the best solution in sight.instead of in the way of a grudging concession by the 'advocates of one of.two sharply opposed and conflicting views. In- the course of the animated controversy which lias been in progross of late, some avowed champions of the British Dominions have taken up an attitude, no doubt with the best intentions, which the people of the Dominions would bo extremely loth to. support. The Morning Post, for instance, has said that apparently the British delegates' "want to surrender the territories Our soldiers and sailors i died to win for the Empire, whereas the Dominion delegates are faith-' ful to their trust, and refuse to betray it." This is a hopeless distortion of the facts. British soldiers and sailors did not die to win territory for the Empire, but in order that a foully criminal attack which threatened the rights and liberties of their own nation and those of humanity might be repelled and defeated, and that the conditions of future peace and "security might beestablished. It is in. order that these ends may be attained,- and not from any standpoint of gain by con-, quest, that the Dominions have insisted throughout that Germany must never recover her late colonies. At all times and in all sincerity the Dominions have, made much of the point that to allow Germany to re-' ;sume possession of the Pacific islands and other colonial territories over which her flag formerly flew would not only menace their own future,, but the future peace of tho whole world. They are bound, therefore, to readily accept, a plan of settlement which offers a reasonprospect of permanently eliminating the Germa,n menace without involving the straight-out annexation of the former German colonies by_ the British Empire. Whatever objections of weight there are to converting the German colonies into an international trust are of an immediately practical character, and rest upon the difficulty of evolving smooth-workirig methods of administration and avoiding any conflict of authority as between the League of Nations and individual nations.

On the other hand the considerations which should impel the Dominions to_ accept internationalisation as against annexation are heavily reinforced when account is taken of the bearing of this colonial question on tho general war settlement. Some of to-day's cablegrams imply that as an outcome of the contest over the disposal of the German colonies the "conservative conception" of the-Lcague of Nations has been strengthened, and prospects of setting up a strong international authority ha,ve been diminished. If this is so it is a matter for infinite regret. The opposite effect might have been expected, since it is obvious that if Britain and her Dominions- had refused to look at the colonial question from an international rather than a national'standpoint their action would have gone far to make the establishment, of a League of Nations impossible. Conversely, it might be thought that in accepting with other nations the principle of international control .where.the enemy colonial territories are concerned' they had done the first thing essential towards laying firm foundations for the League. To what extent tho Australian correspondent Me. Murdoch accurately reflects the attitude of oversea delegates and that of Mr. Lloyd George in reference to the colonial question may lie open to doubt. But it is plain enough that the attitude of both parties, as the correspondent describes it, is short-sight-ed and extremely ill-advised. There is cold comfort in the assurance that Mr. Lloyd George, though he gave way to President Wilson in regard to making the German colonies an international trust, held a trump card in reserve. The trump card, as the 'story runs, is Britain's ability to lead a European alliance which would form its own League of Nations, "based not upon fantastic schemes for the foreign supervision of territories strategically necessary for young democracies, but upon the great principles and traditions of British government." This is highsounding talk, but it is plain enough to any dispassionate observer that a European alliance out of touch with the United States would be no'substitutc for the comprehensive League of Nations it is hoped to create, and that the for-

mation of such an alliance would not mark in a real sense the success of any party at the Peace Conference, but_ the failure of all the nations which are there striving to establish conditions making for future peace and security in the world. It is impossible meantime to unreservedly endorse President Wilson's He ' has yet to elaborate them, in detail, and show them to be worthy of adoption. But the Peace Conference undoubtedly would stand out in history as a colossal failure if it did not establish a basis of co-operation between all the peace-loving nations of the world in upholding justice and safeguarding peace. It seems impossible that either Germany or ■Russia can for a long time to come be admitted to the League of Nations. With the United States also excluded the League would hardly be worthy of the name, the more so since the foreign policy of the United States is likely to largely determine that of the Latin Hepublics of Central and South America. Much greater significance, of course, attaches to what the Peace Conference does than to what is said about its doings. If the reported agreement in regard to the German colonies has in fact been reached it is not in doubt that a big step has been taken in the right direction.