PROBLEMS ALL OF WORLD-WIDE CONCERN 161 not grasp it, is in fact living in his thought in a world dead and gone? Has he utterly forgotten the Reichstag resolutions of the nineteenth of July or does he deliberately ignore them? They spoke of the conditions of a general peace, not of national aggrandizement or of arrangements between state and state. The peace of the world depends upon the just settlement of each of the several problems to which I adverted in my recent address to the Congress. I, of course, do not mean that the peace of the world depends upon the acceptance of any particular set of suggestions as to the way in which those problems are to be dealt with. I mean only that those problems each and all affect the whole world; that unless they are dealt with in a spirit of unselfish and unbiased justice, with a view to the wishes, the natural connections, the racial aspirations, the security and the peace of mind of the peoples involved, no permanent peace will have been attained. They cannot be discussed separately or in corners. None of them constitutes a private or separate interest from which the opinion of the world may be shut out. Whatever affects the peace affects mankind, and nothing settled by military force, if settled wrong, is settled at all. It will presently have to be reopened. SPEAKING IN THE COURT OF MANKIND Is Count von Hertling not aware that he is speaking in the court of mankind, that all the awakened nations of the world now sit in judgment on what every public man, of whatever nation, may say on the issues of a conflict which has spread to every region of the world? The Reichstag resolutions of July themselves frankly accepted the decisions of that court. There shall be no annexations, no contributions, no punitive damages. Peoples are not to be handed about from one sovereignty to another by an international conference or an understanding between rivals and antagonists. National aspirations must be respected; peoples may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. "Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril. We cannot have general peace for the asking, or by the mere arrangements of a peace conference. It cannot be pieced together out of individual understandings between powerful States. All the parties to this war must join in the settlement of every issue anywhere involved in it because what we are seeking is a peace that we can all unite to guarantee and maintain and every item of it must be submitted to the common judgment whether it be right and fair, an act of justice, rather than a bargain between sovereigns. NO DESIRE TO INTERFERE IN EUROPE'S AFFAIRS The United States has no desire to interfere in European affairs or to act as arbiter in European territorial disputes. She would disdain to take advantage of any internal weakness or disorder to impose her own will upon another people. She is quite ready to be shown that the settlements she has suggested are not the best or the most enduring. They are only her own provisional sketch of principles and of the way in which they should be applied. But she entered this war because she was made a partner, whether she would or not, in the sufferings and indignities inflicted by the military masters of Germany against the peace and security of mankind; and the conditions of peace will touch her as nearly as they will touch any other nation to which is intrusted a leading part in the maintenance of civilization. She cannot see her way to peace until the causes of this war are removed, its renewal rendered, as nearly as may be, impossible. RIGHTS OF THE SMALL NATIONS This war had its roots in the disregard of the rights of small nations and of nationalities which lacked the union and the force to make good their claim to determine their own allegiances and their own forms of political life. Covenants must now be entered into which will render such things impossible for the future; and those covenants must be backed by the united force of all the nations that love justice and are willing to maintain it at any cost. If territorial settlements and the political relations of great populations which have not the organized power to resist are to be determined by the contracts of the powerful Governments which consider themselves most directly affected, as Count von Hertling proposes, why may not economic questions also? It has come about in the altered world in which we now find ourselves that injustice and the rights of peoples affect the whole field of international dealing as much as access to raw materials and fair and equal conditions of trade. Count von Hertling wants the essential basis of commercial and industrial life to be safeguarded by common agreement and guarantee, but he cannot expect that to be conceded to him if the other matters to be determined by the articles of peace are not handled in the same way as items in the final accounting. He cannot ask the benefit of common agreement in the one field without according it in the other. I take it for granted that he sees that separate and selfish compacts with regard to trade and the essential materials of manufacture would afford no foundation for peace. Neither, he may be assured, will separate and selfish compacts with regard to provinces and peoples. PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED 163 Count Czernin seems to see the fundamental elements of peace with clear eyes and does not seek to obscure them. He sees that an independent Poland, made up of all the indisputably Polish peoples who lie contiguous to one another, is a matter of European concern and must of course be conceded; that Belgium must be evacuated and restored, no matter what sacrifices and concessions that may involve; and that national aspirations must be satisfied, even within his own Empire, in the common interest of Europe and mankind. If he is silent about questions which touch the interests and purpose of his allies more nearly than they touch those of Austria only, it must of course be because he feels constrained, I suppose, to defer to Germany and Turkey in the circumstances. Seeing and conceding, as he does, the essential principles involved and the necessity of candidly applying them, he naturally feels that Austria can respond to the purpose of peace as expressed by the United States with less embarrassment than could Germany. He would probably have gone much farther had it not been for the embarrassments of Austria's alliances and of her dependence upon Germany. "" After all, the test of whether it is possible for either Government to go any further in this comparison of views is simple and obvious. The principles to be applied are these: First, that each part of the final settlement must be based upon the essential justice of that particular case and upon such adjustments as are most likely to bring a peace that will be permanent; Second, that peoples and provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were mere chattels and pawns in a game, even the great game, now forever discredited, of the balance of power; but that Third, every territorial settlement involved in this war must be made in the interest and for the benefit of the populations concerned and not as a part of any mere adjustment or compromise of claims amongst rival States; and, Fourth, that all well-defined national aspirations shall be accorded the utmost satisfaction that can be accorded them without introducing new or perpetuating old elements of discord and antagonism that would be likely in time to break the peace of Europe and consequently of the world. A general peace erected upon such foundations can be discussed. Until such a peace can be secured we have no choice but to go on, So far as we can judge, these principles that we regard as fundamental are already everywhere accepted as imperative except among the spokesmen of the military and annexationist party in Germany. If they have anywhere else been rejected, the objectors have not been sufficiently numerous or influential to make their voices audible. The tragical circumstance is that this one party in Germany is apparently willing and able to send millions of men to their death to prevent what all the world now sees to be just. NO TURNING BACK FROM COURSE I would not be a true spokesman of the people of the United States if I did not say once more that we entered this war upon no small occasion, and that we can never turn back from a course chosen upon principle. Our resources are in part mobilized now and we shall not pause until they are mobilized in their entirety. Our armies are rapidly going to the fighting front, and will go more and more rapidly. Our whole strength will be put into this war of emancipation-emancipation from the threat and attempted mastery of selfish groups of autocratic rulers-whatever the difficulties and present partial delays. We are indomitable in our power of independent action and can in no circumstances consent to live in a world governed by intrigue and force. We believe that our own desire for a new international order under which reason and justice and the common interests of mankind shall prevail is the desire of enlightened men everywhere. Without that new order the world will be without peace and human life will lack tolerable conditions of existence and development. Having set our hand to the task of achieving it, we shall not turn back. NO WORD INTENDED AS THREAT I hope that it is not necessary for me to add that no word of what I have said is intended as a threat. That is not the temper of our people. I have spoken thus only that the whole world may know the true spirit of America— that men everywhere may know that our passion for justice and for selfgovernment is no mere passion of words, but a passion which, once set in action, must be satisfied. The power of the United States is a menace to no nation or people. It will never be used in aggression or for the aggrandizement of any selfish interest of our own. It springs out of freedom and is for the service of freedom. URGES PEACE TALK IN CIRCLE 165 10. ADDRESS OF COUNT GEORG FRIEDRICH VON HERTLING, CHANCELLOR OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE, TO THE IMPERIAL REICHSTAG FEBRUARY 25, 1918.1 Gentlemen: The Reichstag has a right to receive information on the international political situation and the stand taken by the Imperial leaders in regard thereto. I am complying with the duty arising therefrom, even though I entertain certain doubts on the other hand regarding the utility and success of the former conversations held by the ministers and statesmen of the belligerent Nations before the public (Very correct-on the right). A Liberal member of the English Lower House and former minister, Mr. Walter Runciman, recently expressed the opinion that peace would be brought much nearer if, instead, competent and responsible representatives of the belligerent powers would unite in a closer circle for a mutual expression of opinion (Very correct). I can only agree to this. This would be the way to remove all the many intentional and unintentional misunderstandings and to compel our opponents to take our words as they are meant and also come out for their own part in plain language. I can at least not find that the words which I have spoken here on two occasions have received an objective and unprejudiced consideration in the enemy countries (Very correct-on the right). Furthermore a discussion in a close circle could lead to an understanding on the many individual questions which come into consideration in connection with the settlement of present differences and which must be disposed of before an agreement can be reached. I am thinking in this connection particularly of our attitude toward Belgium. It has been repeatedly stated from here that we do not intend to keep Belgium or to make the Belgian Nation a part of the German Empire, but that, as was stated in the papal note of August 1 of last year, we must guard against the danger that the country with which we wish to live in peace and friendship after the war (Bravo!) should become the seat or the concentration place of hostile machinations in either direction. Such a circle should treat of the means of attaining this end and thus serve the general world peace. Therefore, if a motion to this effect Translation inclosed in No. 2073, The Hague, to the Department of State. It will be noted that the remarks of members of the Reichstag are interpolated. The opinion referred to was expressed in the House of Commons February 13, 1918. He said: "He believed that toward the end of the war the only common ground would be a desire for peace without any very definite notion about what that peace might mean. He would give almost anything to have the statesmen of the belligerent countries talking. No harm could be done by that, and the greatest contribution which could be made to the peace of the world at this moment would be that those who represented those nations should have some chance of drawing together and exchanging views. . . . Whatever transactions might take place, the people of this country were not likely to waver one hair's breadth from the objects which they had when they entered the war. The Government need not fear the weakening of the national will."-(London Times, February 14, 1918, page 10.) |