THE ERECTION OF FORTIFICATIONS ON THE NICARAGUA CANAL.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—In the Spectator of December 22nd I noticed you referred to the opinion held by some people that her Majesty's Government ought not to object to the erection of fortifica- tions on the proposed Nicaragua Canal, but that they should only insist upon its neutralisation, and further, that such fortifications would be no more than a guarantee of neutralisa- tion. To guarantee neutrality by erecting fortifications is, I believe, without precedent in international arrangements. In all cases where a territory has been neutralised the destruction of all standing fortifications has always been deemed essential. To take one instance, when the Ionian Islands were united to Greece, and neutralised, a clause was inserted which declared that, "as a necessary consequence of the neutrality which the Ionian Islands are thus to enjoy, the fortifications constructed on the Isle of Corfu and in its immediate dependencies, having no longer any object, shall be demolished." It is true that the chief reason her Majesty's Government are at the present moment refusing to agree to the erection of fortifications on the canal, is because the United States wish to use them in order to make their control absolute, and also to enable them to use the canal as a line of national defence. To such a deneutralised canal, naturally, our Government cannot agree, for under such conditions it could never be of equal benefit to all nations, as we have always stipulated it should be. Supposing, however, at some future time the United States Government change their policy, and no longer demand the absolute control of the canal, but offer instead to construct it, provided we agree to allow them the management of it and the right to erect forti- fications merely for the maintenance of neutrality, it is argued, as I have said before, that under such conditions we ought to withdraw our opposition. Before answering this argument in any detail, I would point out how strongly our Government seem to be opposed to the erection of fortifications, and that this opposition cannot be said to arise from any petty motive, since they have expressed their willingness to give way to the United States on every other point, even so far as to grant the United States sole control of the canal in oi der to facilitate its construction by that country. More- over, does not the fortification of the canal for the maintenance of neutrality seem to be a confusion of ideas ? Neutrality in the case of an interoceanic canal sig- nifies that the canal is not to be made an object for attack or to be used as a means of hostilities. To be perfect, all maritime Powers must agree to observe this neutrality. This they would naturally do, as it would only be to their interest to do so. On a canal so neutralised what need is there for fortifications, and further, would not their erection imply a distrust of the good faith of other nations P In what other light can the erection of fortifications for the mainte.
nance of neutrality, after all other nations have pledged them- selves to observe that neutrality, be viewed ? Again, would not distrust by one Power be likely to engender distrust in others, and would not other Powers be justified in doubting the sincerity of the nation erecting fortifications ? It can never be argued that under such circumstances the erection of fortifications would add to the moral standard of international relations, or to the prestige of the Powers agreeing to their erection, or help to perfect the neutralisation of the canal. It is the perfect neutralisation of the canal on which I am insisting; if it were possible to obtain this by the erection of fortifications I should not oppose them. It is because I consider they would always be a menace rather than a safe. guard to the perfect neutrality of the canal that I object to their erection. Finally, what reason is there to be dissatisfied with the form of neutralisation of the Suez Canal, which, in spite of the absence of fortifications, has never been violated ? What reason is there to suppose it will be otherwise in the case of the Nicaragua Canal ?—I am, Sir, Sze., R. B.
Previous page
