AMERICAN VIEW OF THE BRUSSELS CONFERENCE.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 121, 20 October 1874, Page 4

AMERICAN VIEW OF THE BRUSSELS CONFERENCE.

(New York Times, July 29th.) The convention now sitting at Brussels, under the Presidency of Baron Jomini, is regarded abroad with a large amount of distrust, The attempts that have been made to attribute its origin either to the German Chancellor or to a clique of French politicians come from a source of the most untrustworthy kind. There was at one time a project set on foot jointly by the English branch of the Universal Alliance and the French Society for Ameliorating the Lot of Prisoners of War, to hold a conference at Paris in May. But from the time when the former of these bodies waited upon the Czar at Buckingham Palace, during his recent visit to England, the Emperor seems to have appropriated the idea, and to him all credit or otherwise for the present conference must belong. But the Emperor of Russia, notwithstanding all the virtues that it is the fashion in some quarters to attribute to him, does not enjoy the full confidence of Euroropean statesmen. His conduct with regard to the Black Sea Treaty, and to his engagements in connection with the recent war in Asia, has left him in no very favorable light. The foreign policy of the Russian Government has never been known to be actuated by other than selfish motives, and the present Emperor has shown that under the same influence he is as ready as his predecessors not only to make treaties, but to break them, and to repudiate his most solemn obligations.

There is, then, sufficient justification for the strong suspicion with which his motives have been regarded. The Brussels Conference, be it remembered, is not a step toward either the millennium or universal peace. Its ostensible object is to lessen the horrors of war, but its real purpose is to increase the advantages and add to the power of the great military nations in time of war. Nothing would do this more effectually than a restriction of the privileges of the maritime Powers. Russia and Germany especially desire this. The former, atleast, has nothing to fear from her Continental neighbors, and if only maritime warfare were to be rendered comparatively harmless, Russia would have no opponents of any consequence anywhere. But in their relations to other States, this country and Great Britain have identical interests. Both are maritime Powers. Neither keeps a large standing army, and both are pre-eminently interested in commerce. And in order to show that this identity is not one of mere sentiment, nor one which has no practical value to ourselves, we have only to turn to some of the proposals which are to come under the consideration of the conference at Brussels. We will pass over those more closely affecting the rights of belligerents at sea, because they are rendered nugatory by the firm position taken in the premises by the British Government, whose representative has been instructed to withdraw from the conference in case of any such questions being introduced. There are others which equally affect us. In the event, for instance, of a nation being invaded by an enemy’s troops, the people are not to be allowed to defend themselves against the invaders. “ Armed bands of men are to be treated as criminals.” Volunteers raised for the temporary purpose of defence, are not to be regarded as belligerents. “If captured, they are to have no right to the privileges of prisoners of war, and may be summarily tried and sentenced as highway robbers and pirates.” Such rules are emphatically in the interest, not of peace, but of nations like Russia and Germany, and fearfully dangerous to a nation like ourselves. In the event of a war between the United States and a foreign power they would leave this country to be defended by the few armed troops which now constitute our standing army. And without a declaration of war, it would leave us constantly at the mercy of any strong military power. For it is (not to be said that such a war is not possible. If it were not irrelevant to our present purpose, we could, perhaps, point out circumstances which bring it within the region, at least of possibility! This, however, is not necessary, for, as we have said, whether in peace or war, a free, maritime, and commercial country like ours would be placed at constant disadvantage. If such a proposal became an international law, every citizen in every country would of necessity, have to go through a period of military service and be duly enrolled in the national army. And yet this is one of the propositions which the Emperor of Russia, and for that matter many members of the Universal Alliance also, will offer under the pretence that it is in the interest of peace. To some extent the principle was acted upon by the Germans during the late war with France. It is not, therefore, entirely new, but when it comes to be proposed for general adoption by the man who controls the largest armies possessed by any nation in the world, it may justly give rise to a well grounded suspicion of his intentions. The sessions of the Congress are to be held with closed doors, but public attention cannot be too closely directed to the general aspect of the scheme ; neither can too much care be used by the Governments of the maritime powers to prevent the adoption of any proposal intended to increase the power of the great military nations against liberty and the true interests of humanity.