THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
(To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.") SIR,—The rock on which the League of Nations will split is that of national strategic necessity. As long as we claim the right to control territory, which otherwise we would admit we had no right to control, because it happens to be on one of our Imperial routes, there will be wars and rumours of them. Charles V. claimed rights over Portugal because it was between Spain and the Atlantic, and " it would never do to risk its falling into hostile hands." But Portugal could hardly be expected to see it like that. In the case of Egypt to-day, our only excuse for having remained is that we have elevated and improved conditions. As soon as Egypt could stand on her own feet we had undertaken to go and leave her to control her foreign policy. But if we have occupied Egypt because it was on the route to India, it is difficult to see how the first excuse can be true, because long after Egypt could take care of herself, and our justification for being there be gone, she would still be on the route to India. As to the Suez Canal, France had as much right to own and fortify it as America the Panama Canal, which is also a route to our Empire. We acquiesce in one case but not in another, and consequently the beneficent protestations of our Imperialism are open to the gravest mistrust and our Empire an obstacle to peace.
Previous page
