The Daily News. THURSDAY, MARCH 23. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 269, 23 March 1911, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, MARCH 23. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

No current topic is of such fascinating interest as' the subject of international arbitration, and no excuse is needed for returning to it here, It seems reasonable that two countries—Britain and the United States—having no immediate quarrels that would under existing methods of settlement result in war, mi«-ht easily seal a treaty for the settlement of future international disputes by peaceful arbitration. The alliance would bind two great families of white folk into a finer fraternity, and, perclianco, eliminate a desire for armed conflict, at least between the countries named. Already the ineradicable jealousy that has in the past fomented war between nations has been shown. It is inconceivable in the present state of international relations that any nation armed to the teeth, and still arming, should desire to use arbitration instead of arms. Frenchmen, we are told, are already jealous that Britain, by strengthening her alliance with America, will be relieved of the necessity of depending on her friendship with France and Russia. Russia has ambitions, France has ambitions, Germany has ambitions. In the event of a general system of international arbitration taking the place of war, the position in regard to the annexation of new territory would presumably remain as it is now. It is, for instance, fairly plain that Germany intends to reach out and to colonise. To colonise she must have new territory. Is it possible by placid arbitration to decide Germany's right to new country? Under general disarmament, Japan's ambitions would be negatived. A board of international arbitrators might be convinced of the need Japan feels for extended territory. The idea of an international court of arbitration awarding Australia to Japan might appeal ,to some nations as an eminently just and reasonable business, but Australians would be entitled to view the matter differently, and international arbitration would not affect"the "uncivilised" races. Germany, or any other country, casting an eye on new territory peopled by more or less primitive people, could obviously receive permission to annex their lands, if an international arbitration court awarded them. It is at present unthinkable that any European nation could without arms persuade the heathen to hand over his country and to become peacahly subject to the white man. When the fighting instinct of primitive or semi-civilised man departs from him, it may be easier to form with the civilised nations a huge land jobbing concern in which the present owners need not be considered. The defensive alliance which M. Jaures, the famous French socialist, believes will result between the United States and Britain, would presumably give a better chance of general peace between civilised nations than any method that could be named. If "the progress of arbitration is due to the influence of the organised •proletariat," it has yet to be.sjip.wn.lbat.j

any organised international method will make the proletariat faithfully stick to arbitration under powerful national passions. One phase of the controversy is gratifying. The Church desires peace and will preach it. Everyone is aware that there has always been an affinity between the priest and the soldier. History is sprinkled with the names of numberless fighting priests. Every civilised nation sends its soldiers to war with chaplains among them. Divine service is held prior to the most bloody battles; bishops "consecrate the colors"; and, in fact, the Church has condoned and very frequently fomented war both civil and international. The words of two splendid churchmen —the Archbishop of York and Father Vaughan—are noteworthy. The first, who has consecrated many colors, said that statesmen has issued a challenge to Christians, who were bound to respond, and to concentrate upon further efforts in the cause of peace. But the fact still remains that prelates, and Christians generally, however much they may desire peace, would he warriors if called upon. It is of little service to eliminate the fighting spirit in one nation if it is not eliminated in the nation that desires new territory or has a quarrel to settle. Father Vaughan said it was shameful that treaties were ziecessary after twenty centuries of Christianity. The Christian nations have been tiio nations that have perfected the art of slaying. Christianity does not kill the aggressive instinct in man. If this instinct is dying down under the new influence of suggested arbitration, it is not yet apparent. Peace has been so often preached with a sword that one almost fears to believe that alteration can take place even in the twentieth century. The setting up of international arbitration courts cannot alter human nature, There will possibly be fighting while there are means to fight and something to fight about. The history of the world is a record of bloodshed, of aggression, of the seizure of territory, the settlement of quarrels, generally based on the most trifling causes. If the nations by a Parliament of Arbitration can decide quarrels without recourse to the means that have been adopted since ever there were men enough to fight, "the lion shall lie down with the lamb." , In the meantime, everybody is building superDreadnoughts.