THE QUADRUPLE TREATY.
WHEN we read the language of the Quadruple Treaty for the preservation of peace in the Pacific, the Treaty which has emerged as rapidly as triumphantly from the Washington Conference, we felt as though we were walking on air. More has been done than we dared to hope. There is an excellent prospect now of the world being regulated under a new way of life. " How much the greatest thing it is that ever happened, and how much the best ! " Charles James Fox exclaimed when he heard of the storming of the Bastille. We shall not attempt to determine the degree of sincerity with which Fox spoke, but we can apply his words with all conviction and literalness to the Quadruple Treaty. This Treaty applies not only to the Northern Pacific but to the Southern Pacific ; it embraces Australia and New Zealand ; it tranquillizes more than half the world. It does not scotch the wranglings of the North merely to give them an opportunity of breaking out in the South. But though the Treaty is very long in its reach it does not overreach itself in the sense that it attempts too much. Great Britain, America, France and Japan do not pledge themselves automatically to go to war in defence of a particular territory or a particular cause, but pledge themselves in words of unmistakable moderation and plainness to consult with one another as to how to keep the peace. Whether the contracting parties disagree with one another, or whether any of them is threatened by some Power outside the agreement, there is to be consultation when ordinary diplomacy has failed. In other words, there will be no war without an arranged breathing space for solemn consideration. No treaty can be torn up without notice. Obviously this plan avoids altogether the objection to the famous Article X. of the Covenant, which hands over the responsibility of making war to the League of Nations, and thus seems to take away from the American Congress one of its most cherished rights of decision. The Treaty is undertaken in a spirit which gives more promise than anything we have ever, heard of. It is signed by people intent upon preserving the sanctity of treaties. Everybody who knows anything about the history of the American ConstitutioU and about the character of American institu- tions knows that sanctity of contract has always been foremost in the minds of American statesmen. It is this principle inspired by America and Britain, both of whose polities derive from the English Common Law, which has been translated into the Treaty. The Treaty has been called an agreement between gentlemen, and the phrase was well chosen.
We said that we felt like walking on air, but though that is not an unfair description of the exultation which is justified by the prospect now opened up, we ought to say that the authors of the Treaty have been very careful to keep their feet near the solid earth of realities. There is no danger in this case of being misled by words. When one is considering instruments for contriving a state of perpetual peace the mind naturally leaps back to that strange and mystical document which was the basis of the Holy Alliance. Rumour attributed that document to the Baroness von Krfidencr, but, however that may be, the Treaty accurately reflected the sort of revivalistic temper in which the Czar Alexander I. found himself at the time. Metternich called it a loud-sounding nothing " and Castlereagh—about whom we have something more to say elsewhere in a book review—called it " a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense." Consider, for instance, Article II., which promised fraternity and affection :- " In consequence, the sole principle of force, whether between the said Governments or between their subjects, shall be that of doing each other reciprocal service, and of testifying by unalterable good will the mutual affection with which they ought to bo animated to consider themselves all as members of one and the same Christian nation ; the throe allied Princes looking on themselves as merely delegated by Providence to govern three branches of tho Ono family, namely, Austria, Prussia and Russia, thus confessing that the Christian world, of which they and their people form a part, has in reality no other Sovereign than Him to whom power really belongs, because in Him alone are found all the treasures of love, science and infinite wisdom : that is to say, God, our Divine Saviour, the Word of the Most High, the Word of Life. Their Majesties consequently recommend to their people, with the most tend& solicitude, as the sole means of enjoying that peace which arises from a good conscience, and which alone is durable, to strengthen themselves every day more and more in the principles and exercise of the duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind."
The deplorable outcome of that maze of words was that the Holy Alliance became a tyranny in some respects worse, because more narrow, than that of Napoleon him- self. For the members of the Holy Alliance—Russia, Austria and Prussia to begin with, and several European States which came in later, though Britain of course always stood apart—felt themselves justified in resenting any movement, however righteous, which threatened the status quo. Was not the status quo the Ark of the Covenant, which symbolised affection and fraternity ? Therefore down with anybody who protested or made a movement to assert his rights I But the new Quadruple Treaty avoids much more than the frenzied mysticism of Alexander I. It avoids the obvious pitfalls which lie in the way of nearly all foreign treaties presented for ratification to the American Senate. It does not alienate the Democrats while it gratifies Republicans, or alienate the Republicans while it gratifies the Democrats. The most recent and most famous case of a Treaty lost because no care was taken to make a little detour round the pitfalls was the Treaty of Versailles. If President Wilson when he went to Paris had acted in recognition cf the simple fact that a third of the Senate' has the power to reject any Treaty, he would have taken great pains to conciliate the political minority at that time. He would have associated with himself eminent Republican Senators, and the result would probably have been a Treaty that might have differed in many respects from the Treaty of Versailles as we have it, but which would have been acceptable to the American people as a whole. President Harding by his different methods is gaining a great deal that was withheld from Mr. Wilson. A sign of this was the glowing speech of Senator Lodge. It was he who presented the Treaty to the full Conference and recom- mended it without reserve. What a marvellous change ! For Mr. Lodge all his life has been a champion of those American traditions which insist upon the avoidance of what Washington called "entangling alliances." As Mr. Lodge is chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, we have every hope that the new Treaty will have a prosperous voyage through the Senate. Mr. Lodge pointed out that the Treaty relied for its validity upon international good feeling rather than upon force of arms:— " What really counts " (he said with deep feeling—we quote from the Times) " is the intention of the nations who make the agreement. In this hour of trial and darkness which has followed the war with Germany the spirit of the world is no longer the same. If we enter upon this agreement, which rests only upon the will and honour of those who sign it, we at least make the great experiment and appeal to men and women of the nations to help us to sustain it in spirit and in truth."
We sincerely believe that Mr. Lodge will never regret having recommended this " great experiment," and we congratulate him heartily on the memorable force and courage with which he did it. As for Mr. Balfour, it is indeed a crown to his career that he should have succeeded in getting the ethos of the English-speaking races expressed in this remarkable Treaty. It is well known that he went to Washington reluctantly, as he much needed a rest and was doubtful of his physical powers. But he must feel now far more than repaid for his self-sacrifice and his ungrudging sense of duty. There never was a time when Mr. Balfour did not regard a perfect understanding between America and Britain as both necessary and attainable. He has always been one of those who instinctively feel that it is contrary to nature to speak of Americans as " foreigners." We who are journalists may be allowed to take a peculiar pride in the triumph of Mr. Harding, the first American President who had spent his life in the pro- fession or occupation of a journalist. We have always felt that a man who is really a first-rate and conscientious journalist is capable of anything—not in the damaging sense in which Voltaire used the words. He is capable, we mean, of the highest forms of public work just because his writing and editing have required him to penetrate quickly into the heart of subjects, to express his meaning clearly—which he cannot do till he has seen the meaning clearly—to distrust vague phrases, and to be a pretty good judge of men, because men unfold their characters in their contributions even though Baron may have been wrong in thinking that the style was always the man. Mr. Harding's campaign for peace is an illus- tration of these qualities in operation. He has not been too ambitious. He has made secure each piece of ground before he has gone on to the next. He has seen clearly what he wanted, and how he might get it, and he has avoided the terrible mistake of throwing people into paroxysms of disappointment and disillusionment by presenting an impressive programme before he had con- sidered the details for putting it into effect.
We must not end without saying a word in praise of the wisdom and placability with which the Japanese representatives have behaved. We have no doubt whatever that the Japanese nation will have cause to bless the day when their delegates at Washington con- sented to allow the Anglo-Japanese Alliance to be abrogated by being absorbed in a much larger and more fruitful compact. Of course, there were moments of hesitation at Tokyo. There is a ,mercantile or peace party there and a militarist party, just as there were these two corresponding parties in Germany before the war. But in Germany the peace party, in spite of the delusions of the British Liberal Cabinet, did not count. It was simply snowed under, and in the end it became a vociferous -section of the war party. In Japan it seems to be quite otherwise. We are interested to read in a message from Mr. H. W. Nevinson in the Manchester Guardian that Prince Tokugawa, leader of the Japanese delegation, preached in an American church a few days ago and commended American idealism. He said " Japan came to the Conference to offer on the altar of inter- national peace the soothing influence of love and charity, -without jeopardising her safety or existence." He then described the history of Japanese military and naval developments, but added, " The times have changed and the whole world is advancing. The policy of aggression and military rivalry has gone. A new spirit of inter- national understanding andco-operation has been called into existence. Japan is not slow to recognize the change." Only a few weeks ago we were being told that nothing could come of the Washington. Conference because the only conceivable agreement depended upon the partition of China, or at least upon some derogation from the independence of China. Not the least remarkable thing about the Quadruple Treaty is that it is wholly inde- pendent of concessions from the Chinese. The Chinese delegates have been satisfied on this subject. From whatever point of view we look at the Treaty, we are convinced that if it cannot give us all that it promises, nothing else in our time is likely to do so. Good will and good faith, tempered by sanity and an appreciation and knowledge of realities, are at last prevailing. These are " ruling and master principles." Those who believe that some gross and material motive can alone direct the world may not yet be convinced ; but we will say of them what Burke said in one of his greatest speeches, that on Conciliation with America :- " To men truly initiated and rightly taught, these ruling and master principles, which in the opinion of such men as I have mentioned have -no substantial existence, are in truth everything and all in all."
Previous page
