The Dominion. TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1919. PEACE AND ITS PROMISE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 237, 1 July 1919, Page 6

The Dominion. TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1919. PEACE AND ITS PROMISE

Many things combine to account for the comparatively undemonstrative fashion in which the people of . most of the Allied countries appear to have received the news of the signing of peace. First and most obviously a check is imposed on-popular rejoicing by the thought of tho fearful cost at which tho war was won. At the same time the feeling is widespread that much more than the completion of a Treaty is demanded in order that world peace may be re-established on a firm foundation. It is observed in one •of to-day'B cablegrams that behind the celebrations in England there was a feeling that tho signing had not 'Drought the certainty of an immediate peace. The same opinion no doubt prevails in all Allied countries, and that it does ■ prevail is perhaps the best assurance that could be given at this stage that the sacrifices of the war have not been incurred in vain. Undoubtedly the ruling tendency in the people of Allied nations to look forward thoughtfully, and oven anxiously, is of better augury for the future than the unthinking confidence that would be implied in care-free rejoicing. Strong emphasis has rigntly been (aid upon the gravity of tho problems that will be involved in maintaining, conditions of peaceful progress in the world as time, goes on, It cannot be recognised too clearly that in any future that can be envisaged the solution of these problems, will demand unsparing hnd unceasing effort. No good or useful purpose is served, however, by going on this account to the extreme of undervaluing the Treaty with Germany as an achievement in international statesmanship, and a substantial, though not absolute, guarantee of future peace. The prospects opened by the Treaty are admirably summed up by President. WiLSOft in the passage, cabled i today, of an address to the American people : —

The Treaty, if ratified, will furnish a, charter for tho new order of world affairs. Its severity is due to the great wrongs Germany did. It imposes no! thing that Germany cannot do. It ends the domination of selfish men who built up tho Empiro for tho gratification of their own ends. It does away with the riprht of conquest, and provides for helpful co-operation by Governments. It recognisqs tho inalienable rights of na* tionalitv, and furnishes guarantees of peaco for the future which hitherto wfire non-existent, Thoro is deep ground for satisfaction, confidence, and hope.

There is a firmer grasp of essential facts in this buoyant utterance than in the melancholy comment of Loud Rosebkry: "I rejoice at peace, but know nothing on a vital point— what is t<4 guarantee its execution." No one dreams that the Treaty with Germany ushers in an assured peace which will stand of itself. The temper of_ thoughtful anxiety reported in Britain and elsewhere shows, with other things, that the masses of the people are not more deceived on this point than their responsible leaders. President Wilson, while he acclaims the Treaty and tho Srospect it opens, has himself said latthe work of making the world secure for mankind is only now beginning. But while it would be absurd to regard the exemplary terms

imposed on Germany, or oven the creation of tlie League of Nations, as in themselves constituting' stable guarantees of peace, it. may be athrmed with "all confidence that the affairs of the. world arc now in a state more favourable than evei before to the maintenance ot peace. The implication conveyed in observations like that ot Loud Rosuim is that the establishment of ,tl c League of Nations and the objects it is intended to serve are pious aspirations which may never be realised. This, of course, is possible; it is hardly more than possible. Such a view as the one-time Liberal Prime Minister has expressed suggests that there is a _ likelihood, or at all events a possibility, of the nations of the world relapsing from sheer apathy, or for lack of foresight and energy, into the conditions of national detachment and antagonism which obtained before the war. Against the likelihood of such a, relapse there is at least to bo set a widely-awakened perception of the unmeasured perils it would entail. It is, of course, true that the League of Nations is organised on an essentially voluntary basis, and that nothing short of the spontaneous and whole-hearted co-opera-tion of at. air events the greater nations of the world will make it a living and all-powerful force in international affairs. But it is at the same time evident that_ the League offers the most promising means human wit has yet devised of - preventing war and enforcing international justice, and that no other alternative is in sight than a reversion to conditions which would make future conflicts between nations inevitable. To assume that the nations which have creatcd the League will allow it to perish, or to stand as an empty .pretence, is to regard them as lacking in the most elementary perception of what makes for their own security and welfare. There is an evident assumption in President Wilson's address to the-American people that a, refusal by the United States or any of the Allied Powers to ratify the Treaty is unthinkable. No dbubt the assumption' is well warranted, since such a refusal would invite a state i of international chaos. On much the same grouiids a refusal by the principal nations of the world to uphold the League of Nations and develop it as an effective force seems unthinkable. Based though it is upon voluntary co-op-eration, it offers to great and small nations the only visible avenue of approach to a better future. In its total scope the Treaty at best establishes the possibility of a secure and lasting peace. But the possibility undoubtedly will be realised if intelligent use is made of the means it affords of attaining such a peace, and it does not seem unduly optimistic to count upon a great driving force of world-wide public opinion in stimulating effort on these lines.