THE ETHICS OF INTERNATIONAL PUNISHMENT.
AGROUP of earnest and sincere if mistaken Pacificists are now engaged in circulating through the Press their own proposals for a just peace," together with a type- written precis of their proposals. The precis tells us that the proposals have " evidently been carefully considered," and that they bear the signatures " of a number of dis- tinguished men and women, some of them recognized experts in international politics." These signatories include " Sir Edward Fry, Sir Edwin Pears, Rt. Hon Thomas Burt, M.P., Lord Courtney of Penwith, Canon Horsley, Principal Sclbie, Messrs. G. P. Gooch, J. A. Hobson, L. S. Woolf, and other distinguished names." After this sample, not very impressive except for the names of Sir Edward Fry, Mr. Burt, and Lord Courtney, we turn to the full list of sig- natories, and we find that the other " distinguished names include Messrs. Fred Bramley and Alex. Gossip (of the Furnish- ing Trades Association), C. G. Ammon (President, Fawcett Association), H. Dubery (Parliamentary Secretary, Joint Committee of Postal Associations), H. H. Elvin (Secretary, National Union of Clerks), Mr. George Lansbury, Mr. Edward Carpenter, Dr. Estlin Carpenter, Mr. Sturgo Moore, and about a dozen other names. We confess to feeling a little doubt as to which of the two lists contains the "experts in international politics." For Sir Edward Fry that description might possibly be claimed, though here the claim should be for international law rather than politics. The other persons ou the list who have dabbled in foreign affairs are mostly expert s in failure. They are persons of the kind who did their very best to persuade us, quite sincerely no doubt, that the Prussiau tiger could be turned into a harmless necessary cat by calling it Poor Pussy " in sufficiently dulcet tones. The actual proposals put forward by this little group have at any rate the merit of being brief. They have the further merit of making their main purpose clear. That main purpose is to save Germany from any of the unpleasant consequences of defeat in war. The whole conception of the amiable persons who have drawn up these proposals is that we should rearrange Europe and the world, as if there had been no war at all, on lines that might have appeared equitable before the war_ Very emphatically these ladies and gentlemen lay down the doctrine that our duty is " to obtain for all the peoples in- volved the satisfaction of their just demands without leaving any people cherishing a permanent grievance such as would lead them to devote their energies to preparation for a future war." It is difficult to imagine the kind of mental world in which people who pen such a sentence as this must live. Before Germany declared war in 1914 nobody opposed her just demands. She was expanding in every direction. Her ships sailed in every sea ; her merchants and her bankers were established in every country ; she possessed great colonies recently acquired ; and she was preparing to acquire a further large sphere of territorial influence in Asia Minor. Wantonly and without provocation, she forced upon the world the greatest war the world has ever known. And now this little group of English dreamers come forward to preach that this great crime is to be forgiven and forgotten ; that we are to kiss and be friends, and go on exactly as we were before. They make this proposal on the implied plea that their morality is superior to the morality of their more commonplace fellow- citizens.
On their own theories, they are wrong. They wish us to look to the future rather than to the past. It is exactly fbr that reason that the world is right in insisting that Germany shall be punished for the crimes she has committed. if punishment does not follow crime, the experience of the world proves irrefutably that crime increases. There may be a few people who would preach as some Pacificists preach that it is waste of money to maintain a police force and to keep up jails, but there would certainly be greater waste of money and greater human suffering if we disbanded our police force, pulled down our jails, and. placed no check upon private greed and private passion. The burning of hayricks is a good illustration of the absolute necessity of imposing punishment, and heavy punishment., for particular classes of crime. It is a crime easily committed by an agricultural labourer who has quarrelled with his employer, and unless the punishment were heavy the hayricks burnt down in the course of a year would pay for the upkeep of a good many jails. Germany has set the hayrick of Europe on fire, and unless she receives a signal punishment, which the world will remember for centuries to come, other ambitious and cynically immoral Governments with careless or consenting nations will commit similar crimes.
To suggest, as is done in this well-puffed pamphlet, that the whole trouble can be avoided if only the nations of Europe will agree on some permanent basis of peace and some polite limitation of armaments, is to show a forgetfulness of events of the war which in itself is almost criminal in view of the gravity of the issues involved. Germany had explicitly agreed to observe the neutrality of Belgium. She hacked her way through Belgium under the plea that need knows no law. Even the authors of this pamphlet seem to have a vague appreciation of the injustice from which Belgium has suffered, for they propose as their first condition of peace the restoration of the independence of Belgium and full compensation to that country. They also propose the restoration of the independ- ence of Serbia and Montenegro, but in these cases there is to be no compensation. Yet the war was begun by the deliberate action of Austria, backed by Germany, in attacking Serbia, after Serbia had agreed to accept eight out of the ten demands of the Austr ian Government, and had begged that the remaining two demands might be submitted to arbitration. This act of violence was essentially as wanton as the attack on Belgium. It has led to the overrunning of Serbia and Monte- negro by German and Austrian troops, and to the perpetration of barbarities on a gigantic scale. The whole country has been laid waste ; men, women, and children have been savagely slaughtered. But, according to the signatories of this extraordinary document, Germany and Austria are to pay nothing for the crimes they have committed in Montenegro and Serbia. They are merely to walk out of the country again, leaving roofless houses and desolate fields.
This, however, is only the beginning of the pro-Germanism of this little group of people who set themselves up as the mentors of the world. They also definitely propose that all Germany's colonies should be restored to her ; or if this is in- convenient in particular cases, she is to receive some equivalent elsewhere. They further propose that Germany should be sup- plied with a field of economic development in Asia Minor. Not a word is said, except in the case of Belgium, of any pay- ment to be exacted from Germany to make good the ruin she has wrought or to punish her for the crimes she has committed.
As to the restoration of German colonies, it is worth while to remind English readers that there is a native African ques- t ion involved as well as a question of international ethics. On this point we are glad to see that General Smuts spoke with commendable emphasis on his arrival in England : " Nothing has given greater pleasure than Mr. Long's state- ment that no German colony can go back to Germany. The mere suggestion that any part should be returned is prepos- terous. I shudder to think of what would happen to the native population if any part were returned." That is exactly the verdict of every one who has seen the way in which the Germans wreaked their vengeance upon African natives who expressed a preference for British or French rule. By conquering the German colonies we have undertaken a moral obligation towards the natives of those colonies which snakes it impossible for us to consent to their restoration to German rule. From this point of view it does not matter to us whether these territories are rich or poor. But from the point of view of international morality the richer they arc the greater is the reason for taking them away from Germany as part of the punishment to be imposed upon her for beginning the war. Looked at from our own point of view, any value we obtain by the acquisition of whatever may be our final share of the German colonies will be but a small part of the cost which the war has imposed upon us.
On the whole, we welcome the publication of this simple- minded little document. It acts as a warning against the manoeuvres of other Pacificists who are working more surrep- titiously. It gives the country a measure of the intelligence of the people who preach pro-Germanism in our midst. They are not even able to understand their own theories. They do not realize that their dream of an international agree- ment for the maintenance of peace can never become actual unless there is some sanction behind the agreement. As the world is constituted at present, the only sanction for inter- national agreements is the sanction of war. Unless the nation that breaks its treaties runs the risk of having to pay a terrific penalty, treaties will not be observed. The proposals of this Pacificist group, so far from leading towards peace, will prepare the way for a succession of wars ; for if Germany could end the war with all her previous ambitions realized, and with no appreciable penalty for the harm she has done to others, she and other ambitious Powers would be ready whenever a good opportunity offered to plunge the world into fresh wars. The best way in which the Entente Powers can contribute to the permanent peace of the world is by inflicting upon Germany such a punishment as will deter other Powers from imitating her example for generations to come.
Previous page
