The Navies of the Atlantic announcement of the Secretary of
State in TWashington that his Government would welcome the prohibitiOn of the submarine has not had the serious attention that such an important naval proposal deserves, coming from a country which proclaims also its intention to be the predominant naval Power in the world. Some people are inclined to " pooh-pooh " it as though the attitude of France at the Washington Conference would alone rob it of any seriousness, and Mr. Kellogg knows that perfectly well. Others say that the shadow of the coming Presidential Election already obscures everything : the greatest stake in the great game of politics is about to be played for ; no political question, domestic or foreign, can be judged apart froth its relation to the election. Others hint that the lamentable loss of a large submarine with all hands has lately made the Americans chary of going on with anything so dangerous, even in peace time, as submarine developments. Yet again, it is whispered that a reduction of expenditure on submarines may make the proposals for cruisers at vast cost seem less outrageous to the taxpayer. Reasoning of that kind has enough force to restrain us in any temptation to cry, " The Americans are committed to this : we will hold them to it." But it cannot prevent our feeling very strongly that here is an expression of agreement with British ideas : here is the first move of somebody else along the lines that we have wanted to follow ; it comes from the country whence, above all others, it is most Welcome ; let us give it all the encouragement we can and see whether our countries can make anything of it together. We credit Mr. lellogg and his Government with a motive due to the special horrors of submarine warfare that came into the glaring 'light after 1914. There has been since then no general change in the Law of Nations in this sphere, but one step has been made towards a change by a Treaty binding five nations. Six years ago at Washington Great Britain proposed that all submarine construction should be prohibited. This proposal was based on a natural deduction from recent experience 'that the most important function of the submarine was as a commerce destroyer. The world had learnt that submarine warfare entailed violation of the rule that a merchantman must not be destroyed unless the crew and passengers have first been placed in safety. But Lord Balfourgot no support for the proposal, because the Other nations felt that they needed submarines as a useful and comparatively inexpensive weapon for coast defence. However, Article IV. was inserted in Treaty No. 2, and the signatory Powers are bound not to use submarines as commerce destroyers between themselves. They invited others to adhere to the same prohibition, but no one has accepted the invitation. They expressed a hope that the prohibition of submarines as commerce destroyers would be universally accepted as a part of the Law of Nations. There the matter stands to-day.
The more we desire to join hands with the United States in another advance after six years, the more we realize how the Americans handicap themselves and us by their determination- not to work on.: the lines chosen by everyone else-with whom .we want to work. The League of Nations and the Permanent Court of International Justice offer the best machinery. However, if America refuses to use the readiest means, we are not daunted by the added difficulties ; we shall work the harder to make our co-operation effective, and we shall not be guilty of the impertinent folly of telling the. Americans that we know better than they do whether it is their duty to the world or in their own interest to join the League. The first need seems to be a restatement of the Law of Nations on this subject. We say a restate- ment, not a change, partly because we cannot here begin a discussion on possible changes, and partly because we see little need of change. But during the War Germany could persuade herself that the Law of Nations did not apply to submarine warfare; because it grew up when the submarine did not exist. She said that the Law would have to conform to a new state of things brought about by the submarine. This should be possible for no future belligerent. We want to see it publicly stated that the new state of things must conform to the Law.
This country will support America in any further advance that will reduce naval armaments generally or in a particular arm ; in every effort to enthrone as supreme International Law, especially when it is plainlY in harmony with the Laws of God and forbids the murder on the high seas of neutrals and non-combatants, the inevitable accompaniment, as the Washington Treaty proclaims, of the use of submarines as commercd destroyers.
We have one warning to utter in offering our most willing co-operation. Americans must forgive our saying that they do not yet realize the value, the necessity, of precision in words. There are plenty of reasons for this into which we need not go now, but an example should show what we mean. President Wilson spoke with the best intentions of such things as " self-determination and " national aspirations," and thereby he caused himself and all Europe a world of trouble. He had not thought out the meaning and effect of hii phrases. If we and America are to co-operate there must be no misunderstanding due to catchwords or ill-defined phrases. Our readers, British and American, will be thinking of one which is in their minds, if not upon their lips. It is " the freedom of the seas." We here are all for that freedom. We are neither too proud nor too humble to claim, and we fear no contradiction of our claim, that the British Navy has been the greatest human instrument by which, under God, has been created and preserved the free use of the seas as highways for mankind, assured routes for man's traffic by which his civilization has progressed and the gifts of nature have been spread among the nations and the earth replenished., But there is a bastard meaning attached by thoughtless people to the phrase, as though it meant the freedom of nations to prolong for their own material benefit the horrors of war waged by other unfortunate belligerents freedom to aid and comfort belligerent armies fighting in other lands across the sea, in utter disregard oir flagrant contempt of that neutrality which the Law of• Nations most solemnly enjoins upon all non-combatant peoples.
Though we owe to America the inspiration of the Covenant of the League, it is Europe rather that we would remind that this Covenant sanctions the principle oi outlawing war by blockade. To the United States we say that there is no way in which we would sooner co-operate with them than in proclaiming to the world that if Satan should prevail and war unhappily arise, the Atlantic Navies will be found sharing the work of keeping the seas free from all that might supply corn-4 batants with the means of prolonging war. And we know of no pronouncement so likely to defeat the Devil'S designs.
Previous page
