Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1920. AMERICA AND THE TREATY.

Hokitika Guardian, 23 March 1920, Page 2

Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1920. AMERICA AND THE TREATY.

This months spent in America on the discussion of the Peace Treaty have ended in the defeat of the great world document. The tale end of a cable message published yesterday contained this pregnant sentence: “Senators expressed the opinion that the Treaty is now dead, and without any hope of its rcvivication.” It is an extraordhi- , ary position and puts the great United States in what can be described only as an unworthy position as affecting the national honor of that country. Jt was to be expected that the inherent ineribsl of the Treaty coupled with President AVilson’s sponsorship and advocacy, would overcome the hostility of a Chamber, which it must be granted contains a majority of his political opponents. The vicissitudes of the Treaty in America are in striking contrast to its prompt acceptance in other countries. Both in France and in El»g- , land ratification was almost a. formal , affair. Opposition was confined in the main to small riiinorities, who considered that its terms bore too hardly on Germany. Thoir views may have been misguided, but there is no reason to doubt their sincerity. EVen those who professed little faith in the League and , to whom toe limitations of sovereignty involved in membership were unpalatable did not press their objections. The Treaty was regarded as a nsiti mal question, abpve party distinctions; no one saw in its discussion an opportunity for political manoeuvring. But in America. the issue has been less straightforward. Solicitude for Germany and antagonism to Britain may have affected the attitude of individual senators, and it is impossible not to believe that party considerations have had something to do with the adverse vote. Mr AVilson is a Democrat and declared he would stand or fall by the Treaty, the provisions of which he did so much to either mould or influence. At the same time he announced his intention to stand for a third term as President and that was a chance for a Republican Senate to assert itself, and administer a political rebuff by refusing to accept the Treaty without modification. At one time the prospects of ratification seemed bright, Mr Wilson's effective championship of tho League on hjs tour was undoubtedly hearing fruit. His exnla* nations of what precisely the covenant meant and what it did not mean removed many misapprehensions and had he been able to continue he might l ave created a body of opinion which the Senate would have hesitated to affront. As it was, since his breakdown the opponents of the unabridged Treaty became steladiSy holder. By adopting the reservation that America is free to choose whether or no she will co-ope-rate with the other members 'in protecting the integrity of a State, and punishing an offender as provided in Article 10, the Senate struck a blow at the very fabric of the covenant As if this were pot enough, it was followed ; by a flood of reservations hardly less vital. One of the most forpi’dahle weapons which the League possesses for dealing with a recaleijtr int State is a general boycott by its members; the Senate sought to retain for Congress the right of deciding whether America shall join ill it; obviously a boycott from which she stood aloof would lose many of its terrors. America retains the right to increase her njinamenVs without the League's consent. The effect of'these and other reservations, if they had been embodied in tile Treaty i\ij proposed to he ratified would have been to emasculate it. The European Allies c ould not conceivably have agreed to thong If America had insisted on preserving virtual freedom of action in anything that touched her own interests, her membership in the League would have been merely nominal. As it is the scope and functions of the 'League as originally conceived have been whittled down ; if America had Hpide the assumption and fulfilment of her obligations under its dependent on her own sweet wjll, its authority would have been reduced to a. shadow. It is unfortunate that ttie Senates should jiave refused to ratify the treaty as it stood, wjtli-

out but better this .than a. ratification >vith reservations which would have defeated its chief objects. Tlie impasse which has arisen fa to be deplored, and it leaves a stain on the intentions of America. The Treaty was not dealt with in the same spirit in which America entered the war. In America the tradition of non-interfer-

mice in European affairs dies hard. Safe in the remoteness and self-sufficient, she has always sought to avoid foreign entanglements ; “let alone and be let > alone” has been her motto. But onditions change; what was possible and desirable a few years ago may not be so any longer. By intervening in the war America renounced her policy of detachment. On what grounds now has she retraced her steps? Yet doing so is she justified in refusing to hear her share of the burden under which civilisation labours? She is jealous of any limitations to her sovreignty, yet society is bused on restrictions on individual freedom for the common ‘.ooj and if we arc to see an international society as contemplated by the League, the surrender must he made, the promise must he given, the responsibility must he assumed. If the hope of the world—a world “made safe for democracy”—depends upon the co-operation of tlie greater States, can one so wealthy and as America in honour stand aside? It is difficult to Believe that a nation capable of such idealism should fail to sec where her duty lies. For the moment the United States appears to have cast the die. The showing does not appear to he to her c rec lit, and we would not pass judgment in haste. Yet there is not much hope

of the situation being reviewed in favour and ill the light of circum--1 stances as the y present themselves the verdict of the world will he not to 1 credit of the mighty State which if she ■ would, could he such a factor to work . for the good of humanity at large. 1 American action throws a burden greater than ever on Great Britain, which still has to shoulder “the white man’s burden” in a deeper &nse than ever. I

It is for British people the world over to stand up more than ever for their Empire and assist by all the means in their power to help hear the burden to journey’s end.