What We are Fighting For.

Taihape Daily Times, 7 January 1918, Page 5

What We are Fighting For.

LLOYD GEORGE EXPLAINS,

LONDON, January 5.

To-day Mr. Lloyd George, on behalf of the Government, made an important statement on war aims, before trade union delegates, who will presently consiuer the question of manpower.

Mr. Lloyd George began by saying that when the Government invited organised Labour to further assist to maintain the strength of the armies in the field, its representatives were entitled to ask that any misgivings regarding the purpose for which this precious strength was to be applied should be definitely clear. This was also true of all citizens of the country When millions were being called 'to suffer and die, and vast populations were being subjected to sufferings and privations, unprecedented in history, they were entitled to know the causes for which they were making the sacrifices. Only the clearest and greatest justice of causes could justify the continuance, even for one day. of this unspeakable agony of nations. We had arrived at the most critical hour of the terrible conflict. Before any Government made a fateful decision regarding the conditions under which it ought to either terminate or continue the struggle, it ought to satisfy the conscience of the nation. Therefore, during the last few days he had taken special pains to ascertain the views nnd the attitude of representative men of all sections o£ thought and opinion in the country. He had perused in detail with the Labour leaders the meaning and intention of that declaration. He had also discussed the same momentous question with Mr. Asquith, Viscount Grey and representatives of the great Dominions overseas. The result of these discussions was a natural agreement as regards 'the character and purpose of war aims and peace conditions, and in ' Avhat he was about to say he was speaking not merely the mind of the Government but of the nation and the Empire as ;a whole. He would commence by stating what Ave were not fighting for. We were not fighting a wa rof aggression against the German people. The destruction or disruption of Germany or the German people had never been one of our war aims. Most reluctantly, and quite unprepared for the dreadful ordeal, we were forced into the war in self-defence, in defence of the violated public law of Europe, and in vindication of the most solemn treaty obligations upon which the public system of Europe rested; and upon which : Germany ruthlessly trampled in the invasion of Belgium. We had to join

the struggle or see brute force triumph over public right and international justice. Only a realisation of the dreadful alternative forced Britain into the war. From that original attitude Britain had never swerved. It was not our wish to question or destroy the great position Germany held in the world, but rather to turn her from her hopes

and schemes of military domination.

see her devote all her strength to great and beneficent tasks in the world. We were not fighting to destroy AustriaHungary, or deprive Turkey of" Constantinople or her rich and renowned lands in Asia Minor and Thrace, which were -predominantly Turkish racially;

uor did we enter the war merely to ! alter or destroy the Imperial constitu- ] tion of Germany, much as we conI sidered that military, and autocratic j constitution a dangerous anachronism lin the Twentieth Century. Our viewj point was that the adoption of a really 1 democratic cons'litutioni by Germany i would be the most convincing ovid- ' ence that her old spirit of military do- ! mination was dead, and it would make ; it much easier to conclude a broad

I and democratic peace with her; but that was a question for the German j people to decide. Despite many adjurations from opponents and neutrals, the Central Empires maintained. A complete silence, as to the objects for which they were fighting. They uniformly declined to give any trustworthy information even upon so crucial a matter as their intention regarding Belgium. The only clear thing in j the vague reports of the recent enemy ! peace conditions was that under no circumstances would the German demand for restitution of her colonics • be given up. All the principles of j self-determination here vanished into j thin air. Before any negotiations could ■ begin the Central Powers must realise the essential facts of the situation. j The days of the Treaty of Vienna I were long past. We could not longer ! submit the future of Europe and civilisation to the arbitrary decisions of a few negotiators striving to secure, by chicanery or persuasion, the interest of»this or that dynastvf/or nation. The settlement of new Europe must be based on such grounds of reason and justice as would give some promise of stability. Therefore we felt that Govern in on f, with the consent or the governed, must be the basis of any territorial settlement after the war. Unl '•'" every nation -was prepared, whatever,

the sacrifices, to honour the national signature, it was obvious no peace treaty would be worth the paper whereon it was written. Therefore the first requirement of Britain and her Allies was the complete restoration of the political territorial and economic independence tof Belgium, and such reparation as would be made for the devastation of its towns and provinces. This was not a demand for a war indemnity like that imposed in 1870. It was not an attempt to shift the cost of warlike operations from one belligerent to another, which might or might not be defensible. It was no more and no less than -insistence that (before there could be hope of a stable peace, this great breach of the public law of Europe must be repudiated and as far as possible repaired. Separation meant recognition. Unless international right was recognised by insistence on payment for injury done in defiance of its canons it could never be a reality Next came the restoration of Serbia and Montenegro and the occupied parts of France, Italy and Boumania. The complete withdrawal of alien armies and reparation for injustice done was a fundamental condition of permanent peace.

"We mean," said Mr Lloyd George, to stand by the French democracy to the death on the demand they make for reconsideration of the' great wrong of 1871, when, without any regard for the wishes of the population two French provinces 'weue -"torn •; jfrom France and incorporated in the German Empire. This sere has poisoned the peace of Europe for half a century and until it is cured healthy conditions cannot be restored. There can be no better illustration of the folly and wickedness of using a transient military success to violate national rights. I will not attempt to deal with the question of Russiah territories under German occupation. Eussian"'-policy since the Revolution has parsed through so many phases that it is dimcult to speak without some suspension of judgment as regards what the situation will be when the final European peace terms are discussed. Russia accepted war because, true to her traditional guardianship of the weaker communities of her race, she stepped in to protect Serbia from a plot against its treaty conditions stood by her ally in a quarrel not her own. Her chivalrous respect for the treaty led to the wanton invasion of Belgium. The treatj r obligation of Britain to that little land brought us into the war. The present rulers of Russia are now engaged, without any reference to the countries whom RussTa*"brought into

the war, in separate negotiations with the comman enemy. I am indulging in

no reproaches, but merely stating faets with, a view to making it clear why Britain cannot be held accountable for decisions taken in her absence, and concerning which she is not con-

sulted or her aid invoked. None who knows Prussia and her designs upon Russia can for a moment doubt her ultimate intention. Whatever phrases she uses to delude Russia, she docs not mean to surrender one of Russia's fair provinces or cities now occupied by her forces. Under one name or another —and the name hardly matters these provinces will henceforth in reality be part of the dominions/- of Prussia, ruled by the Prussian sword in the interests of Prussian autocracy. The remainder of the people of Russia will be partly enticed, by specious phrases and partly bullied by threat of continued war against her impotent

' army, into a condition of complete ; economic and ultimate political en-- | slavement to Germany. We all deplore j the prospect. British democracy means j to stand to the last by the democracj ics of the other allies. We shall be I proud to fight to the end side by side j with the new democracy of Russia. So j will America, France and Italy, but if j the present rulers of Russia take acI tion independent of the Allies, we have j no means of intervening to arrest the catastrophe which wt?T assuredly befall Russia. She can only be saved by her own people. However, we believe an independent Poland, comprising all the genuinely Polish elements, who desire to form a part is an urgent necessity of the stability of Western Europe. Similarly though we agree with President AVilson that to break up j Austria-Hungary is no part of our war j aims, we feel that unless genuine, truly democratic self-government is granted to those Austro-Hungarian nationalities who have long desired it, it is impossible to remove the causes of unrest in that part of Europe which have so long threatened the general peace. On fhe same grounds we regard as vital the satisfaction of the legitimate claims of the Italians for the union of those of their own race j and tongue. We also mean to press for justice to men of Roumanian blood and speech. If the legitimate aspirations of these conditioM"were fulfilled by Austria-Hungary it would become a Power whose strength would conduce to tha'permanent freedom of Europe, instead of merely bo-, ing an instrument of the pernicious military autocracy of, Prussia., ...that; useTT the n>sn"rc"'S _ of ' her Allies for; the furtherance of T H'e'i' own. sinister purposes. We b?iieve'that outside

Europe the same principles should be applied. TURKISH DOMINATION DEFINED. i FATE OF GERMAN COLONIES. I TO BE DETERMINED BY INHABI- I TANTS. '< Received 8.55. LONDON, Jan 6. Lloyd George, continuing, said: While we don't challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homelands of the Turkish race, with its capital at Constantinople, nor the passage between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea being internationalised and neutralised, Arabia, Armenia, and Mesopotamia are in our judgment. entitled to a recognition of their separate national conditions. The exact form of such recognition in each particular case need not here be discussed, beyond stating it is impossible to restore these territories to their former Regarding German colonies, I repeatedly .declared they will be held for disposal by the Conference, whose decision must •have primary regard to the wishes and interests of the native inhabitants; v None of those territories are inhabited by Europeans, therefore the governing consideration in all these cases must be that the inhabitants should be placed under a control and administration acceptable to themselves, one whose main purposes will be to prevent exploitation for the benefit of European capitalists or governments. The natives should live in their various tribal organisations under chiefs and councils who are competent to consult and speak for their tribes, and thus represent their wishles and interests. Regarding their disposal the general principle of natlon--lal self-determination was as applicable to their cases as those of occupied European territories. The German declaration that the natives of German colonies have, through their military fidelity in the war, shown their attachment to and resolve under all circumstances to remain with Germany is applicable, not to the German colonies generally, but only to one of them, namely, German East Africa, and in that case the German authorities have secured the attachment, not of native population as a whole, which remains profoundly anti-German, but only of small warlike classes from whom their asharis or soldiers are ' selected. These they attached to

themselves by conferring highly privileged positions as against the bulk of the native population, whicu' e~nabled the askaris to assume a lordly oppressive superiority over the rest of tne natives. By this and other means they secured the attachment of a very small and insignificant minority, whose interests directly were opposed to the rest of the population, for whom they had no right to speak. The German treatment of the native population in their colonies was such as amply justified their fear to submitting the future of those "colonies to the wishes of nativeT'themselves

| REPARATION FOR INJURIES ! / DONE. i . j INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL ADVOCATED ■ TO SETTLE DISPUTES. ft * Received 9.30. Finally, there must be reparation for injuries done in violation of inter - : national law. The Peace Conference ! must not forget our seamen and the ' services they have rendered, and the outrages suffered for the common j cause of freedom. Lloyd George re- ! garded it as especially regrettable that the recently reported proposals of the Central Powers contained no reference to a permanent peace after the war. It was desirable, indeed, it was essential, that the post-war settlement shall not contain the seed for future war. But that's not enough. However wisely and well we make j territorial and other arr'ahg'einents, J there still remains many subjects of international controversy. Economic conditions after the war will be difficult in the highest degree owing to the diversion of human efforts •to war. There must follow a world shortage of raw materials, which will increase the longer the war lasts. It is inevitable that countries controlling raw materials should desire to help themselves and their friends first. Moreover, whatever settlement is made, it will be suitable only to the circumstances whereunder it was made, and las .circumstances change, changes in settlement Will be necessary. As as the possibility of dispute between nations continues, as long as men and women are dominated by passion am 1 airibiti&'ri and wrr is the only mcap's of settling disputes, all nations im ir <- live under the burden, net only of hav ing to engage in war rime after time but of being compelled to prepare feci possible o'iihreah. T-ha cruslk'r

weight o'&r&roctern armaments is . creasing J||e evil, . and compulsory military 'i<£|ilee is a vast wasJe of wealtn\aji#i%gdrt~lnvolved in warlike preparations. iLihese .are blots on cm/ civilisation, every thinking individual must\ be For these and similar" rea'sons we are confident a great attempt must be.made to establish by some -nrernatidnal organisation an alternative to war as a means of settling international /disputes. After all, war is "a. relio **£ barbarism, and just as law succeeded violence in individual disputes so -we believe it is destined ultimately to Replace war in settlement of controversies between nations. If then we asked what we are fighting for, we reply, as we have often replied, "For a! just and lasting peace." We believed.before peace can be .hoped for, three conditions must be fulfilled:—Firstly, sanctity of treaties must be~re-estab : lished; secondly, territorial settlement must be secured, based on right of self-determination or consent of governed; lastly, we must seek by creation of some international organisation to limit the burden of armaments and diminish the probability «rf i war. On these conditions the British Empire would welcome" peace. To secure these conditions our peoples are prepared to make even greater sacrifice than they .have yet endured

THE WORLD'S WHOLE FUTURE.

DEPENDS ON ANSWER FROM BERLIN.

Received 9 a.m.

LONDON, Jan 6,

Newspapers agree that Lloyd George's speech is momentotts and historic, and describe it as unexpected in scope, and the immediate gravity viewed from the standpoint of Cfte choice presented between the possibility of a settlement and a protracted war is redoubled. Now that the Allies' irreducible minimum is distinctly defined the onus is put on the enemy, which must now answer from Berlin, and the answer cannot fail to have a far-Teaching effect on the world's whole future.

AMERICAN OPINION, Received 9.35. NEW YORK, Jan 6. The New York Times' Washington correspondent states that the consensus of opinion is that Lloyd George's speech is the most effective counterstroke to Count Czernin, but does not add anything to previous utterances, and does not bring peace any~nearer. The speech may be followed by similar statements from France, Italy and America.