The Dominion. TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1919. SOME PROBLEMS OF THE LEAGUE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 201, 20 May 1919, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1919. SOME PROBLEMS OF THE LEAGUE

The criticism of the Pcacc Treaty credited to-day to the Condon Observer is based upon extreme views which.it would perhaps be difficult to support convincingly in detail. One of its principal contentions will be accepted unreservedly, however, oven by those who arc not inclined to accept its gloomy estimate of international prospects. "The only hope," it observes, "lies in strengthening the League of Nations; otherwise the Treaty will not last five years." Nothing in fact seems to be | Better or more definitely establishecl than that the enforcement of the .Treaty as it is drawn is absolutely contingent upon the successful establishment and operation of the League of Nations. It is beside the point to say, as the Observer does, that the Treaty "opens up a hopeless vendetta between the Poles and the Germans, while the . Russians, the Magyars, the Bulgars, the Gcr-man-Austrians and the Jugo-Slavs will also have new feuds." In most of these cases, if not in all, the vendetta and the feud aro of old standing. An attempt is now being made V the associated nations to settle these feuds ia-accordance with justice. It is obvious enough that the state affairs thus established will be little likely to enduro unless the_ authority which set it up remains in being to sustain it. No one imagines that Poland, Czecho-S'lo-vakia, or _ Greatei' Serbia could, stand unaided without the guarantee of the associated nations. It is as evident- that the reparation provisions of the Treaty presented to' Germany would bo very likely to become a' dead letter in tho absence of an effective international author-, ity.

The most serious ground for uneasiness at this time is that .matters arevery far from being as-pmooth-ly in train as could be desired for the constitution of the League of Nations. _ Indeed, divergent "views and friction as between some of the associated nations are in evidence to an extent which is disquieting; still more so as indicating a failure in some cases to approach international problems in the spirit of mutual trust and co-operation which is called for than oh account of the detail differences raised. It was to bo expected that all the nations concerned would experience a certain amount of''difficulty in accommodating themselves to new international standards, and would feel keenly some of the sacrifices involved. This is part of the process of shaking down into entirely new conditions. It is more or less natural, also, that nations whose political development has been stunted, by oppression or in ' other ways, should show themselves most inclined to raise and obstinately assert claims and objections out of harmony with a general plan ,of inter-' national reconstruction on sound lines. Not a few examples of this sort of thing have been witnessed since the Peace proceedings took definite shape,,, and it is,, of course, manifest-that every assertion of national selfishness without regard to other- considerations is inimical to the League of i Nations and the international order it alone can make possible. But there is perhaps more substantial reason for uneasiness in the attitude of some of ihe greater nations which are associated in constituting the League. /It is cult, for instance, to regard the action of the United States Government _in reference to the German shipping seized in American ports as otherwise than_ flatly opposed to the spirit in which the nations ought to bo labouring to establish and safeguard peace. Although the opposing interest in this ease happens to be British, there is no difficulty in dispassionately weighing the facts. The only verdict possible is the/action of the United States on this occasion is selfish and grasping, and manifests an absolute indifference to any other in-' tcrpsts than its own. Britain's net losses of shipping during the warthat is to say, the amount by which her losses exceeded what tonnage she was able to replace by new construction and purchase—wero. over 3,400,000 tons. She is poorer, also, by some 1,600,0,00 tons which would been added to her mercantile fleet had the war years been■ years of peaceful progress. In all sKq is worse off by more than five million gross tons of shipping than she would have been but for tho war. Against this net loss the amount of enemy shipping at present in British hands is negligible. America, on the other hand, has enormously increased her pre-war mercantile fleet and her war losses were small. In the aggregate they amounted to considerably less than half the tonnage of the former German ships whibh arc now being placed the American register. It is, of course, liberty to acquire these ships thalt is m question. Britain, no doubt, would have been as ready as the United States |o pay their value into the reparation pool. Under an apportionment governed by justice the former German ships undoubtedly would have been allotted to Britain. The ratio of losses in itself is deoisive, and in addition tho German liners were driven into harbours of refuge by the British Navy. It should count, for much also that at a timo when a seriously depleted mercantile fleet was the mainstay of her national existence Britain devoted a large amount of shipping to the work of transporting American troops. Finally, although the Amcncan mercantile fleet is 119W being rapidly augmented,. the possession of adequate shipping is and always will be a far more vital concern, to Britain than it is to the United States.

A reversal of tho grasping policy -under which America has taken over the German ships is desirable, not only as a matter of fair play to Britain, but on _ much broad'er grounds. The incident commands attention above all as a glaring failure on the part of the United States to apply those principles upon which the League-of Nations and the better international order it connotes must be founded. It is indeed, in its scope, an apparent rejection of these principles. It is affirmed by President Wilson and by all who stand for the creation of the League of Nations that nations henceforth must abandon a policy of self-cen-tred isolation and show due and sympathetic regard for the rights and interests of their compeers. In ( taking over the ex-German ships tho

United States has so obviously failed to act in this spirit that the acquisition presumably will be condemned by a large part of the American population. It is surely not too much to, hope that on second thoughts the injustice will be remedied. The incident stands, however, 1 ' as a somewhat disturbing reminder that such conditions as will make the League of Nations a living reality will not be reachcd by easy growth, and that the new international order will have to be carefully fostered. It is a matter of universal agreement that' the United States is an indispensable partner .in an effective League of Nations. It is much more serious that such a nation should, under a practical test, show itself wanting in the right international spirit than that nations which only recently raised their heads above the European turmoil should be found similarly wanting. The essential result,_ however, is. to emphasise the necessity of unceasing effort towards establishing an effective international organisation.' However formidable the difficulties which stand in the way, it is not in doubt that they must be overcome if'the civilised nations of the world are to secure their future.