New York Times Current History The European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915 Part 45

Is it not sound policy as well as an imperative duty to take some step here and now to "stop the rot" and to make good here and now as much as we can of what we have won and wish to keep?

Belgium's Wrongs.

Admittedly a "guiltless and unoffending nation,"[1] whose neutrality and independence had been solemnly guaranteed by treaty, to which the powers concerned in the war were parties, has had her treaty rights violated by one of these powers on the cynical plea that there is no right or wrong as against national interest, that necessity obeys no law, and treaties are "sc.r.a.ps of paper." This is not matter for inquiry or judicial decision at some later date. It has been frankly avowed by the German Government from the outset of this war.

[Footnote 1: Theodore Roosevelt.]

Again, this admitted wrong is not the sudden and unavoidable outcome of events unforeseen and uncontrollable. It has been deliberately planned years ahead, with elaborate preparation of railway and other facilities, and with every invention and contrivance, to rush in irresistible forces; to subvert and destroy the independent State that Germany was herself pledged to defend.

Thirdly, this policy of absolute annihilation of Belgium, of its right to live its own life, its right even to preserve those monuments of its n.o.ble and beautiful history which had become treasured heirlooms of the whole world, has been carried out with a ruthless barbarity to the people, and especially the non-combatants, for which it is hard to find a parallel in the worst incidents of the Thirty Years' War or of the devastation of the Palatinate. To bring the actual guilt home to those who actually did or ordered these deeds to be done in individual cases is one thing. The broad fact that these barbarous deeds were done stands manifest and insistent, and demands such instant action as can be taken by a great and responsible people.

And, lastly, there is the undisguised adoption of the policy of terrorizing non-combatants to submission by such acts as forcing women and children to walk before the advancing enemy, the wholesale burning of houses, shooting of hostages and other non-combatants, and the dropping of bombs from aeroplanes not on forts or troops, but on places where women and children can be killed or injured.

And all this tragic sweeping away of such good things as had been won with worldwide consent, at the instance of the Czar in initiating The Hague policy, has gone on, so far as it could go on, with equal horror, throughout Northern France. Rheims and Senlis have suffered the fate of Louvain and Termonde and Malines, and Paris has had her quota of women and children wantonly slain by bombs, exactly like Antwerp.

The Threat to England.

And America knows, as we here in England know, from the open menace of the German press, writing of England as the _one supreme enemy_, that it is the full intention of Germans, if they can, to carry through England, too, even more ruthlessly, the same policy.

We are fighting here, and are confident that we shall fight with success, not only to protect our English homes and to guard the historic buildings of this land but to make an end of this Prussian terrorism of the world; to secure no national aggrandizement, but to secure a permanent and solid peace, based on guaranteed liberties, and a rational settlement of the question of armaments.

These questions touch us all the more because many of us have been the most persistent friends of international peace and have specially labored to promote happy and friendly relations with the German people.

The present writer, who was honored by election as President of this year's National Peace Congress, has been a.s.sociated with the work of men like Lord Bra.s.sey, Sir John Lubbock, (later Lord Avebury,) as a member of the Anglo-German Friendship League, and has repeatedly in Parliament argued against any hostile or provocative att.i.tude toward Germany. This war is our answer and our reward!

America in the Settlement.

So far as can be judged from authoritative words of President Wilson and ex-President Roosevelt, America does and will claim a right to share in the final settlement of the terms of a permanent and stable peace.

If that claim is sound, if the efforts of America to create better machinery for securing peace and for generously and humanely vindicating the liberties and happiness of nations and of the individuals who make them up do ent.i.tle America to a voice, and a potent voice, in the work of mending and remaking the world after this terrific catastrophe, then I would submit with all respect that it is really idle to wait till all the recognized principles of what has been held to be right or wrong as between nations, and what has been held to be right or wrong in the methods of conducting war have gone overboard, without one word of protest; we must save the world first, if we are to have a real chance of remaking it on lines which are worth having.

Nothing but good could come from immediate action by the American Executive to a.s.sert as they, best of all nations, could a.s.sert, now and at once in terms uncompromising, unanswerable, that the ground taken up by international consent in the past generation must be held now and hereafter, and accepted as an essential basis of the final settlement.

Such a p.r.o.nouncement now by America would make a landmark in history--would render a measureless service to the whole world in emanc.i.p.ation from the persistent degradation of the twin doctrines that might makes right, and that necessity knows no law, and would bring to America herself imperishable honor and glory in the fearless a.s.sertion and eternal consecration of her own n.o.blest ideals.

I would submit further that such a national declaration by America involves no violation of neutrality, and is in no sense inconsistent with the spirit of official utterances already made.

To take the latter first--we have had notable utterances from the President and from the ex-President.

President Wilson seems to have given a sympathetic hearing to the mission which laid the case of Belgium before him, both as to the violation of Belgium's neutrality and as to the cruel treatment of the non-combatant population and the wanton destruction of towns and villages and of precious historical monuments. He is understood to have promised an investigation, and it is gathered from the Independance Belge this week that this investigation has been, and is being, carried out by American Military Attaches in Belgium, and also at the London Emba.s.sy of the United States.

Again, President Wilson's recent letter to the Kaiser, while confirming neutrality in precise terms, went on to intimate that there must be a "day of settlement" and that "where injustices have found a place results are sure to follow, and all those who have been found at fault will have to answer for them." If the "general settlement" does not sufficiently determine this, there is the ultimate sanction of "the opinion of mankind" which will "in such cases interfere." He would apparently reserve judgment until the end of the war, but in no way disclaims or surrenders American responsibility.

Mr. Roosevelt is not tied by official responsibility, and can speak with less restraint and more freedom. In The Outlook he has substantially accepted and indorsed all that is material in the Belgian case.

America should help in securing a peace which will not mean the "crushing the liberty and life of just and inoffending peoples or consecrate the rule of militarism," but which "will, by international agreement, minimize the chances of the recurrence of such worldwide disaster," and "will, in the interests of civilization, create conditions which will make such action" as the violation of Belgian treaty rights "impossible in the future."

Like President Wilson, he seems to think that the time for judicial p.r.o.nouncement on acts presumably guilty and wrongful will come at the conclusion of the war. At the same time he surrenders no part of America's responsibility, but reaffirms it with all the force of his trenchant style.

But elsewhere, and later, he has insisted on the "helplessness"--the "humiliating impotence created by the fact that our neutrality can only be preserved by failure to help to right what is wrong."

Mr. Roosevelt's Remedy.

And he has gone on to adumbrate his practical remedy--"a world league"

with "an amplified Hague Court," made strong by joint agreement of the powers, to secure "peace and righteousness," and to vindicate the just decisions of such a court by "a union of forces to enforce the decree."

He adds that this might help to obtain a "limitation of armaments that would be real and effective."

That so happy a plan may be capable of realization would be the hope of all wise men.

But where I take exception with Col. Roosevelt is as to America's present "impotence"--that nothing effectual can be done by America without breaking her own neutrality.

That view I wholly traverse. It might conceivably be felt by America, under certain grave eventualities, that neutrality must be broken.

But it is clear that the articles of The Hague Convention of 1907 amply provide for the type of action here and now by the United States which I have ventured to lay before American statesmen in this paper. And, in my opinion, it is conceivable that more good might be achieved by America taking that action, while maintaining her neutrality.

It goes without saying, it really needs no demonstration, that nearly every international agreement embodied in The Hague Convention has been broken, wholly or in part, in the letter and in the spirit, in the proceedings of this unhappy year.

The violation of the territory of a neutral State by the transit of belligerent troops and other acts of war is forbidden, (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, &c.) It is the duty of the neutral State not to tolerate, (Article 5,) but to resist such acts, and her forcible resistance is not to be regarded as an act of war, (Article 10.)

Interference with Neutrals.

That, of course, covers the case of Belgium completely and establishes absolutely that there is, and need be, no breach of neutrality in resistance thus legally sanctioned to illegal interference with neutral rights.

It is hardly necessary to recapitulate the articles that have been torn up. To refer to the most striking, there is the repeated bombardment of undefended towns, pillage incessant throughout Belgium and Northern France, (Articles 28 and 47;) the levying of illegal contributions, (Articles 49 and 52;) the seizure of cash and securities belonging to private persons, banks, and local authorities, (Articles 52 and 56;) collective penalties for individual acts for which the community as a whole are not responsible, (Article 50.) Articles 50 and 43 should have made impossible the punitive destruction of Vise, Aerschot, Dinant, and Louvain, and numberless villages; Article 56 should have preserved from destruction inst.i.tutions and buildings dedicated to religion, education, charity, hospitals, &c. All these wrongful acts, committed everywhere, have been prohibited by these articles.

The gradual introduction of the policy of terrorism has been ably traced by perhaps the highest French authority on international law, Prof.

Edouard Clunet, formerly President of the Inst.i.tute of International Law, in a recent address.

"Bombardment par intimidation" was adopted by the Germans in 1870 and used at Stra.s.sburg, Paris, Peronne, &c., sh.e.l.ls being directed and conflagrations spread in the inhabited parts of towns apart from the fortifications. Germany herself a.s.sented to serious mitigations of this practice at the Conference of Brussels in 1874 and at The Hague in 1907.

The worst evolution of the policy of terrorism has been in the throwing from aeroplanes of bombs, explosive or incendiary. M. Clunet lays down that, by the most recent decision of the inst.i.tute, bomb throwing from aeroplanes must follow the rules of bombardment by artillery. This would prohibit such bombs without formal notice. But in Antwerp bombs were dropped without notice over the Royal Palace, to the peril of the Queen and her young children, and the number of peaceable inhabitants killed or injured was thirty-eight, three children being mutilated in their beds. In Paris, besides the bombs dropped on Notre Dame, bombs were deliberately dropped in the public streets and a number of peaceable victims killed or wounded. The dropping of bombs as an act of war on fortresses, ammunition depots, Zeppelin sheds, &c., is, of course, legal. But the bomb dropping adopted in Belgium and France, and threatened in England, if the opportunity arises, is undisguised terrorism, and not war.

It is important to note also that at Brussels in 1874 Antwerp addressed a pet.i.tion to the conference praying that any bombardment should be limited to fortifications only. The commission of the conference, which included three well-known German Generals and two professors, recognized the justice of this plea and recommended Generals to conform to it.

But the one point that should appeal most strongly to the patriotism as well as the idealism of America is the fact that the instructions of 1863 for armies in campaign, drawn up by the United States Government in the height of the civil war, first codified the laws for the conduct of war, and have been the source and starting point of all these later international agreements.

And it should be remembered that both Germany and America signed the Fourth Convention of The Hague with its annexed regulations as to sieges and bombardments (Articles 22 to 28) and the further provision which may even yet be applied punitively to the proceedings of the present war.

"The belligerent who shall have violated the provisions of the said regulation shall be held liable for an indemnity."

And if it be thought that America can render no help in such a position as the present without violating her neutrality, the answer is that by Article 3 of Convention 1 of The Hague, 1907, neutral powers have the right to offer their suggestions (bons offices) or their mediation, even during the course of hostilities. And further: "The exercise of this right must never be considered by one or the other of the parties to the conflict as an unfriendly act."

With all submission, I earnestly urge on the leaders of American thought to support this attempted interpretation of the supreme duty and the n.o.ble opportunity the present position places before their country.

One more word. I referred to the possible benefit of neutrality being maintained while this protest against wrong and appeal for right is at the same time advanced.