OUTLAWING WAR
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sia,—Without wishing to trespass upon your space with a discussion upon the many points raised in your last two issues, may I be allowed to emphasize what appears to be the fundamental difference between the League and the American view as regards the prevention of war ?
Briefly it is that the League still works on the principle that Peace can be "enforced," whereas the Americans regard the whole theory of military sanctions as an illusion and a snare. An illusion because the most militaristic conception of sanctions must rest in the final analysis, as Sir Austen Chamberlain himself has admitted, upon the pledged word. As a snare because the traditional power of the fighting services in world politics is such that, however exclusively preventive their provision may be at the start, the insertion of a grain of militarism in any agreement will ultimately engulf the whole.
With all this talk of the necessity of "sanctions" in League agreements there goes an invariable admission that if ever they came to be used the shock would well nigh destroy that institution. Is it wise to seek to provide a problematical security by such dangerous means ? Especially in view of the fact that the one big successful agreement on these lines since the War—Locarno—does not seem to have much in- creased a sense of security in French politicians, as we have constantly been reminded by the French Press, by the speeches at Geneva of M. Paul Honour and again only recently by M. Millerand's article in a London paper.
Mr. Kellogg's present proposals are by no means the whole story of the " outlawry of war " as advocated by Senator Borah, but as you say in your article they are of vast psychological importance, and on all sides we are coming to realize that the making of peace and the prevention of war are above all psychological problems. As for Mr. Borah's views on the subject, I maintain that they go further than any detailed proposal yet put forward for the replacement of war by law. The preliminary declaration delegalizing the institution of war would seem to be the only means of destroying the con- nexion between patriotism and militarism and thereby legalizing the activities of all those who are working to prevent race suicide. But if the proposal had stopped there it is doubtful if the sentimentality of the Americans would have overcome their shrewdness, and obtained for it the large amount of support it has.
The further suggestions call for the codification of the laws of peace under the dominating clause that all war shall be a crime, and the clothing of one of the international Courts with affirmative jurisdiction to work upon that code.
Two factors that cannot be denied are, first, that America sincerely desires to contribute to world peace, and, secondly, that she will not join the League of Nations as at present constituted. But this last by no means implies that she would not heartily co-operate with the League on such a basis as suggested.—I am, Sir, &c., HARRISON Bnowx, European Representative, American Committee for the Outlawry of War. 75 Gordon Mansions, Francis Street, London, W .C.1.
Previous page
