UCTI

Enly by

whet

struk

shing

epend

finan

ade!

allor

tesi

verb

destroyed the sovereignty of Haiti and Santo Domingo. They court the friendship of certain Generals and politicians among the natives, induce them to make binding promises to be redeemed when they come into power, and then finance the revolts which are to bring about the desired conditions. Such was the method employed time and again in Mexico where candidates for the Presidency were selected in advance by these foreign intriguers. One of the official representatives of a Great Power had the audacity to propose such a candidate for provisional President and to promise speedy recognition by his Government. If one of those easygoing native adventurers were once in the presidential armchair, he would be obliged, as was the case with President Dartiguenave, whom the American Admiral Caperton imposed upon the Haitians,* to agree to everything including the renunciation of State sovereignty. 'Dartiguenave,' Admiral Caperton, as he reported to his Government, realises that Haiti must agree to any terms demanded by the United States. He states that he will use all his influence with the Haitian Congress to have Haiti agree to such terms.' And Secretary Daniels in Washington, when he ordered Caperton to assume charge of the Custom houses in Haiti, telegraphed : 'Confer with Chargé d'affaires for purpose of having President Dartiguenave solicit above action. Whether President so requests or not, proceed to carry out State Department's desire.' †

...

'Martial law,' writes an eminent American lawyer, 'has for six years held these tiny republics (Haiti and Santo Domingo) in its iron bondage. Journalists protesting in the name of our own immortal principles . . . have been "tried " by court martial and thrown into jail with hard labour. And yet the insolent American imperialist tells us that the occupation is designed to help Dominicans and Haitians who in turn love their military masters.'

This theory of 'helping' wealthy States that are supposed to be unable to take care of themselves is the political gospel of the second group of politicians who On Aug. 12, 1915.

+ United States Navy's secret despatch book on Haiti, as revealed before the Senate Committee and published by the (New York) ‘Nation,' Nov. 9, 1921.

Frank Walsh. See the 'Nation' (New York), Feb. 1, 1922.

invoke a mission from on high and a moral obligation
to take up the white man's burden.' And President
Harding and Mr Hughes have provided grist for their
mill by demanding a special treaty as a condition
of recognition. True, these two statesmen invoke the
highest principles of ethics and can quote Scripture for
their purpose.
But what they are asking cannot be
accorded without the violation of truth and justice; and
the upshot of their demand must be exactly what the
interventionist group desires-the relapse of the country
into civil war and chaos.

President Obregon cannot conclude any such treaty,
because he has sworn to respect the Constitution, and
the Constitution expressly forbids him to make a
compact of the kind required. If, therefore, he were to
set his hand to the covenant which, in Mr Hughes'
opinion, would qualify him for recognition, he would be
guilty of twofold perjury. Meanwhile, Mexico is deprived
of international credit; and the efforts of her present
rulers to reconstruct the country and educate the nation
are being nullified in the name of religion and morality.
In June 1921 President Harding publicly thanked God
that the United States are not as other nations are.
• If
all the nations of the earth,' he said, 'were as honest and
unselfish as this Republic, there never would be another
war.' The 'New York Times' (June 10, 1921), chronicling
this speech, adds by way of comment: 'When our Presi-
dents are tempted to do a little vainglorying at the expense
of other countries, would it not be well to pause and reflect
on its sure reception by them? In their hearts, they are
apt to consider Americans either prigs or hypocrites.'

On the one hand, then, we behold the Governments of the progressive nations co-operating to restore normal economic conditions to the world, and, on the other hand, we see the same Governments combining to hinder the return of normal economic conditions to the leading Latin-American Republic, as though Latin America and its peoples were living and working outside the pale of humanity and their affairs had no bearings upon those of the other races. This two-sided policy is calculated to put one in the unphilosophic frame of mind in which Voltaire, writing to d'Alembert, said: 'My compliments to the devil, for it is he who governs the world.'

E. J. DILLON.

Art

1.

2.

obliga

Presi

for t

condi

Envoke

ipture:

canno

Stice;

what

e cour

h tra

tion

mais

Art. 11.-INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.

1. International Relations. By James Bryce. Macmillan, 1922.

2. Diplomacy by Conference. By Sir Maurice Hankey. Proceedings of the British Institute of International Affairs, 1921.

THE lectures upon international relations with which Lord Bryce delighted an American audience in the summer of last year have now been given to the world. At the time of their delivery the illustrious author was, judged by the test of chronology, a very old man; yet, save for the constant evidence of a ripe and manifold experience, there is nothing of the octogenarian about these fresh and vigorous addresses. In firmness of grasp, in width of perspective, in glow of sympathy, in keen and voracious powers of assimilation, Lord Bryce's last political message is fully equal to the work of his brilliant prime and appears the more remarkable, when we reflect upon the principal subject-matter of these discourses, a bloodstained and revolutionary epoch, charged with far-reaching and controversial problems and coinciding with the author's extreme old age. That Lord Bryce should have been able to disengage the essential issues from the confused political texture of contemporary history, to relate them in due proportion to their proper place in the procession of time, and to extract from them the moral and political lessons which it was his purpose to convey to America, furnishes another illustration of the old saying that those whom the gods love die young.

Ever since the dawn of history men have been quarrelling and slaying.

Χάρμη γηθόσυνοι τὴν σφίν θεὸς ἔμβαλε θυμῷ.

War has been the rule, peace the exception. The forces which might have been expected to alleviate, if not to remove, the sources of armed discord from the world have proved too weak to overcome the elemental passions of mankind. Religion has brought not peace but a sword. Trade, far from knitting nations together in bonds of closer amity, has stimulated competition and sown the seeds of new controversies. Increased means

of intercourse as often as not promote irritation and distrust. On the whole,' as Lord Bryce observes, 'very little friendship comes out of the intercourse of nations.' Nor is it a passport to the good will of the foreigner to be distinguished in the sphere of moral excellence. 'Nobody ever heard of a nation whose virtues made other nations love it.' On the whole the spread of education through the world, providing as it does a common basis of experience, makes for peace and mutual comprehension; but one of the products of education is the newspaper press, which, by its constant striving after sensation, is, or may be, a powerful fomenter of international suspicions and animosity.

In the last resort the future of the world depends not upon artificial arrangements but upon the moral progress of the individual men who compose the communities into which the world is divided. A few figures of commanding moral stature, a Washington for instance, or a Lincoln, contribute to the cause of peace by elevating the general esteem in which their nation is held and by correcting such depreciatory estimates as may from time to time be founded on the casual information of the daily press. Experience, however, goes to show that the provocative act of a single statesman may be sufficient to endanger even a firm and long-standing friendship between nations. There is a political crisis. The newspapers, avid for sensation, spring forward to inflame it. All the latent sources of difference between the opposing countries are rushed into the forefront, all the causes making for amity are hurried out of sight, and, unless firm and prudent men take the helm, the ship of State may be suddenly swept from its moorings out into a stormy and uncharted sea.

For the edification of the American public nothing could be more timely than Lord Bryce's survey of the dangers which still threaten the peace of the world after the conclusion of the greatest and most devastating war recorded in history. The picture painted by the great historian is dark indeed. Perhaps in the light of the achievement of Washington and the promise of Genoa, the colours may be deemed too sombre, but no competent person will be found to contest the proposition that the Treaties of Peace have left behind them abundant

occasions for the renewal of strife. Lord Bryce, while recognising many of the difficulties of the negotiators, and in particular the unprecedented complexity and scale of the task with which they were confronted, comments with severity upon many features of the European settlement. The handing over to Italy of a quarter of a million of German Tyrolese, countrymen of the national hero, Andreas Hofer, in virtue of the secret treaty of 1915 between England, France, and Italy, the excessive mutilation of Hungary, the sharing out of Macedonia between Serbia and Greece, excite definite censure, while apprehensions are entertained as to the stability of the newly constituted States of Poland and Yugo-Slavia. The most sinister feature, however, of a depressing situation is still the continuance, in a highly exacerbated form, of the ancestral rivalry between France and Germany.

"There is no blacker cloud pregnant with future storm hanging over Europe now than that which darkens the banks of the Rhine. Not even after Jena in 1806, not even after Gravelotte and Sedan and the capitulation of Paris in 1871, has the prospect of reconcilement between the two neighbour peoples seemed so distant.'

It may be doubted whether Lord Bryce does not attach too great an importance in this regard to the devastations, deplorable as they undoubtedly were, of the German Higher Command while its armies were retiring in 1918; but there can be no doubt that unless and until tolerable relations are established between France and Germany, there can be no moral disarmament' in Europe.

No wise man will minimise the political difficulties of the new Europe. An historical student, if he had been asked to advise upon the political remedies to be applied after the war, would probably have recommended a less drastic prescription than that which was actually administered by the consultants in Paris. He would have been tempted to counsel the maintenance so far as possible of the status quo ante bellum with certain welldefined exceptions, such as the assignment of AlsaceLorraine to France, and of the Trentino to Italy, coupled with some minor adjustments of the Hungarian boundary