Little Entente. M. Take Jonesco and the Small Entente. P. Lebesgue. New World, Mandates and America's stand regarding them. Cur. Hist., Apr., 1921. 14:101. Apr. 13, 1921, 112:532; Apr. 20, 1921. 1921. 112: 471; Apr. 6, 1921. 112:503; 112: 585; Apr. 27, 1921. 112: 607. Cur. Hist., June, 1921. 14:532. Mexico's progress toward stability. Cur. Hist., May, 1921. 14:331. Why the Obregon government has not been recognized. J. K. Turner. Nation, June 1, 1921. 112: 783. Monroe Doctrine. One hundred years of. J. A. Stewart. A. R. of R., May, 1921. 63: 514. Nationality. Dual nationality and election. R. W. Flournoy, Jr. Yale L. J., Apr., 1921. 30:545; May, 1921. 30:693. Nicaragua. [Interoceanic canal.] Cur. Hist., May, 1921. 14:336. Oil. Mesopotamian oil controversy. Cur. Hist., May, 1921. 14:305, 354. Dutch oil controversy. Cur. Hist., June, 1921. 14:404. Panama. American powers in. A. D. Rodriguez. Cur. Hist., May, 1921. 14:300. Peace Conference. The Big Four of the. Orlando. R. Lansing. Sat. Even. Post, Apr. 2, 1921. Persia at the crisis of her fate. P. Sykes. Fortn. R., May, 1921. 653: 826. Russian and British treaties with. A. C. Freeman. Soviet Russia, May 28, 1921. 4:513. 14: 303. Philippine independence. V. Trinidad. Cur. Hist., May, 1921. Poland-Russia. The peace treaty between Poland and Russia. Cur. Hist., June, 1921. 14: 479. What Poland gained from Russia. Cur. Hist., June, 1921. 14:489. Population. Forecasting the growth of nations. R. Pearl and F. C. Kelly. Harper's, May, 1921. 142: 704. Race question. The white man and his rivals. W. R. Inge. Q. R., Apr., 1921. 467: 234. Rhineland. France, England and. A. Colbeck. Fortn. R., Apr., 1921. 109: 541. Count Witte's memoirs. civilized mankind. M. I. Rostovtzeff. J. of Int. Rel., Count S. Witte. World's Work, Apr., 1921. 41: 587. The fate of. F. I. Kent. Kerensky y Lenin. N. Tasin. Nuestro Tiempo, Mar., 1921. 267: 253. The new Russian bourgeoisie. N. Hapgood. J. of Int. Rel., Apr., 1921. 2:529. The new Russian policy. New Republic, Apr. 6, 1921. 26:143. 4:430. Soviet Russia, Apr. 30, 1921. Proletarian and capitalist solidarity. N. Lenin. Soviet Russia, May 14, 1921. 4:481. Russia. The republics of ancient Russia. W. B. Steveni. New World, Mar., 1921. 4:343. Soviet Russia's return to capitalism. Cur. Hist., June, 1921. 14:521. The single economic plan. L. Trotsky. Soviet Russia, Mar. 5, 12, 1921. 4: 225, 262. Successes of Soviet Russia. Cur. Hist., May, 1921. 14:253. Three years of proletarian law. D. Kursky. Soviet Russia, Apr. 23, 1921. 4:398. Wireless telegraphy in Soviet Russia. A. M. Lyubovitch. May 14, 1921. 4:472. Soviet Russia, Santo Domingo's bitter protest. H. G. Knowles. Cur. Hist., June, 1921. 14:397. The evacuation of. F. Fiallo. Cur. Hist., May, 1921. 14:291. Protest of Santo Domingo's deposed president. F. Henriquez y Carvajal. Cur. Hist., June, 1921. 14:399. Self-determination. R. Lansing. Sat. Even. Post, Apr. 9, 1921. Sèvres Treaty. Bulgaria and the Turkish Treaty. Cur. Hist., May, 1921. 14:352. Faut-il reviser le traité de Sèvres? L. Abensour. La Grande Revue, Feb., 1921. 183: 644. Greece attempts to impose the. Cur. Hist., May, 1921. 14: 347. 31:58. La Paix par le Droit, The revision of the Turkish treaty: I. Armenia. Viscount Bryce. II. Smyrna. J. J. Stavridi. III. Thrace. N. Buxton. Contemp. R., May, 1921. 119: 577. Secret pacts of France and Italy with Turkey. G. R. Montgomery. Cur. Hist., May, 1921. 14:203. Siam. Americans to give up exterritorial rights in? J. B. P. Millard's R., Mar. 5, 1921. 16: 6. Siberia and the Japanese. F. A. Ogg. Cur. Hist., June, 1921. 14: 464. Japanese aggression in. S. C. Graves. Cur. Hist., May, 1921. 14:239. Siberia's new republic: its standing. F. B. Kirby. Cur. Hist., June, 1921. 14: 476. Silesian Plebiscite. Après le plebiscite de Haute Silesie. X. L'Europe Nouvelle, Apr. 2, 1921. 4:434; P. Millet, L'Europe Nouvelle, Mar. 19, 26, 1921, 4:363, 395. Le plébiscite Silésien. Th. Ruyssen. La Paix par le Droit, Mar.-Apr., 1921. 31: 126. Le dilemme de la Haute-Silésie. 1921. 52: 97. M. Toussant. Nouvelle Revue, Mar. 15, The Silesian crisis and Korfanty. Cur. Hist., June, 1921. 14:389. sztyk. New World, Mar., 1921. 4:351. Upper Silesian question, The. (I) S. Osborne. temp. R., Apr., 1921. 664: 478. Smuts, General. The man and his policy. C. Dawbarn. (II) J. H. Harley. Con R. of R. (London), Mar. Sovereignty. The technique of the pluralistic state. W. Coker. Amer. Pol. Sc. R., May, 1921. 15: 186. Spain. La vida internacional de España durante la guerra. R. Gay de Montellá. Nuestro Tiempo, Mar., 1921. 267: 298. The Syrian Question. S. P. Duggan. J. of Int. Rel., Apr., 1921. 2:571. Trieste, Salonica and Smyrna. H. C. Wood. Fortn. R., May, 1921. 653: 815. United States. America's foreign-born millions. Cur. Hist., June, 1921. 14:446. United States. Treating incoming aliens as human beings. F. A. Wallis. Cur. Hist., June, 1921. 14:434. Après l'arrivée au pouvoir de M. Harding. Le petrole et les cables. P. Scott Mowrer. L'Europe Nouvelle, Mar. 26, 1921. 4:397. Cable communications with South America. Weekly R., May 14, 1921. 4: 455. Mr. Lansing at Versailles. O. Brett. Headway, May, 1921. 1:65. 7: 149. American foreign policy. J. H. Latané. Europe. World's Work, Apr., 1921. 61: 619. Japan. World's Work, May, 1921. 62:36. (II) Relations with continental (III) Our relations with China and President Harding and his foreign policy. H. W. Horwill. 19th Cent., Mar., 1921. 529: 428. Foreign policy of the. Cur. Hist., May, 1921. 14: 189. The States and foreign relations. J. M. Matthews. Mich. L. R., May, 1921. 19: 690. A State's sovereign powers. F. P. Stockbridge. Cur. Hist., June, 1921. 14: 435. Woodrow Wilson's place in history. Gen. J. C. Smuts. Cur. Hist., Apr., 1921. 14:45. Versailles Treaty. Un Allemand qui justifie le traité de Versailles. S. de Callias et War. Commerce, concessions and. D. Y. Thomas. So. Atl. Q., Apr., 1921. 20: 105. 663: 322. Cur. Hist., Apr., 1921. 14:54. want the war? H. Delbrück. Contemp. R., Mar., 1921. A reply to Prof. Delbrück. J. W. Headlam-Morley. Contemp. R., Mar., 1921. 669:333. L'aide suédoise aux prisonniers de guerre. D. Maillart. R. Int. de la CroixRouge, Feb., 1921. 26: 129. L'Allemagne et la question des responsabilités. R. Daniel. L'Europe Nouvelle, Mar. 19, 1921. 4:366. Un jugement autrichien sur les responsabilités de la guerre. H. Hauser. L'Europe Nouvelle, Apr. 2, 1921. 4:440. War Debts. American policy and European debts. P. W. Wilson. Weekly R., Mar. 30, 1921. 4:293. Pourquoi les Etats-Unis devraient annuler la dette de guerre des Allies. F. J. Wade. R. Pol. et Parl., Feb., 1921. 106:165. The Inter-allied indebtedness. P. Fuller, Jr. Forum, Apr., 1921. 65: 411. Yap. The controversy over Yap Island. Cur. Hist., Apr., 1921. 14: 108. HOPE K. THOMPSON. CONFERENCE ON THE LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT AND PROBLEMS OF THE PACIFIC By JAMES BROWN SCOTT A conference of a group of Powers heretofore known as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers (the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan and the United States), to discuss the limitation of armament, and of these Powers, and Belgium, China, the Netherlands and Portugal, to consider Pacific and Far Eastern problems, will open in the City of Washington on November 11, 1921. Armament alone would not have fully justified the call of a conference. Armament does not exist for itself, and it is not an end. It is a means to an end, the end being the determination of one or more Powers to make the will of the state or states having armament prevail. The general interest of the Powers, and the special interest of some, centers in the Pacific. Hence, Secretary of State Hughes, speaking for and by the direction of President Harding, added in his first note to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers: It is manifest that the question of limitation of armament has a close relation to Pacific and Far Eastern problems, and the President has suggested that the Powers especially interested in these problems should undertake in connection with this conference the consideration of all matters bearing upon their solution with a view to reaching a common understanding with respect to principles and policies in the Far East. This meant that China was to be invited to the Conference, and it was so stated. The four Powers thus sounded by Secretary Hughes were willing to attend the proposed conference. China was more than willing. They were therefore invited to confer with the United States and one another, on armament, and all with China on the problems of the Pacific. Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal let it be known that they had interests in the conference which could not be overlooked by themselves, and should not be by the conferees. No one who has not forgotten the exciting month of August, 1914, would deny to Belgium a very present interest in the armament of its neighbors, although some people questioned its right to discuss the limitation of armament of the military nations. And Holland and Portugal are Far Eastern Powers. By common consent these three Powers were invited to take part in the discussion of the Pacific problems. Therefore, on August 11th, Secretary Hughes invited the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to a conference on both subjects, and China on Pacific problems, to which were added, on October 4th, Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal to send representatives to Washington to confer, on November 11, 1921, on the subjects contained in an agenda agreed to by the principal participants, and made public on September 21st: LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT. One. Limitation of naval armament, under which shall be discussed (a) Basis of limitation Territorial integrity (b) Administrative integrity (c) Open door,-equality of commercial and industrial opportunity. Concessions, monopolies or preferential economic privileges. (e) Development of railways, including plans relating to Chinese (d) (similar headings) Three. Mandated Islands. (unless questions earlier settled) Electrical communications in the Pacific. Under the heading of "Status of existing commitments" it is expected that opportunity will be afforded to consider and to reach an understanding with respect to unsettled questions involving the nature and scope of commitments under which claims of rights may hereafter be asserted. Why was the conference called? The invitation sent to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers for the armament side, and to China for the Pacific phase of the conference, make the purpose of the United States abundantly clear. The notes are so succinct and pointed that they are their own best summary. The invitation of August 11th to the four big Powers was thus worded: Productive labor is staggering under an economic burden too heavy to be borne unless the present vast public expenditures are greatly reduced. It is idle to look for stability, or the assurance of social justice, or the security of peace, while wasteful and unproductive outlays deprive effort of its just reward and defeat the reasonable expectation |