The Great Problems of British Statesmanship/Chapter 1
THE GREAT PROBLEMS
OF
BRITISH STATESMANSHIP
CHAPTER I
The Peace Congress and After
The Allies arrayed against Germany are practically agreed on the broad principles which will guide their action at the Peace Congress. The differences between them are rather apparent than real. The young Russian democracy has demanded a settlement 'without annexations and without indemnities.' That seems a purely negative programme. The other Powers have declared themselves in favour of a positive policy, which likewise has been summed up in two words. They have demanded a peace which is based on the principle of 'Restitution and Reparation.' Rightly considered, the two demands are identical. Men who have thrown over a Government which they detest, who have suddenly freed themselves from heavy shackles, naturally rejoice, and are apt to form in their joy vast plans which spring rather from the heart than from the head. Time is needed to awaken such men to the sober realities of this workaday world. The heady wine of democracy has had the same effect in Russia which it had in France at the end of the eighteenth century. The Russian declarations remind one of Article VI of the French Revolutionary Constitution:
La nation française renonce à entreprendre aucune guerre dans la vue de faire des conquêtes, et n'emploiera jamais ses forces contre la liberté d'aucun peuple.
This ideal resolution was soon forgotten. The French revolutionaries embarked upon wars of conquest, the solemn declarations notwithstanding. It is to be expected that the Russian people will before long awake to the realities of the situation.
All the democracies are fighting for the principle of liberty, for the right of nationalities to govern themselves in their own way. All are strongly opposed to the principle of absolutism, of monarchical tyranny, of race subjection and of race exploitation. They are fighting for the freedom of the oppressed nationalities. They are pledged to free the exploited races and to enable them to organise and to govern themselves in their own way. By setting free the subject nationalities, the non-German parts of Germany will be enabled to rule themselves and to choose their allegiance. The territory of Germany will be slightly reduced. By setting free the subject nationalities the Austrian and Turkish Empires, where the governing race is in a small minority, will be dissolved into their component parts. However, their dissolution cannot honestly be described as partition and be compared with the partitions of Poland. No democrat can wish to thrust back the Armenians, Czechs, Poles, &c., under their ancient yoke.
The word 'war-indemnity' has during the last few decades changed its meaning. Originally a war-indemnity signified adequate compensation for the cost of an unjust war which was exacted from the aggressor. It was a bill for damages wantonly done. It was unobjectionable from the highest moral point of view. Since the time when powerful military States have robbed the defeated nations, whom they had wantonly attacked, not only of territory upon which they had no claim on racial grounds, but have in addition exacted from them outrageous sums of money merely in order to make their aggression both territorially and financially profitable to themselves, the word 'indemnity' has become synonymous with spoliation, and spoliation is detestable. The word 'indemnity' has acquired a bad odour. The Allies, Belgium, Serbia, France, Russia, and the rest, are certainly entitled to claim from the Central Powers compensation for their gigantic losses caused by a war which was forced upon them, but they will scarcely make a profit out of such indemnities as they may obtain. The damage done is too large. Germany and her Allies are not rich enough ever to repay their victims. They can pay no more than a tithe of the damage, and they may have to rebuild with their own labour what they have destroyed.
The territorial settlement at the Peace Congress will be effected in accordance with the principle of nationalities. Racial and State limits will be made to coincide wherever possible. However, there may be certain exceptions to the rule. Sometimes various nationalities are inextricably mixed in certain districts, and must be disentangled. Besides, the smaller States created on a racial basis must be secured against an attack from their warlike, powerful, and possibly revengeful neighbours, and they must be able to make a living; they must be economically independent. Lastly, those nations which caused the War, and which may be inclined to renew it, must give guarantees for their good behaviour in the future. They cannot be allowed to dominate their smaller neighbours strategically or economically, and may have to lose certain vantage points. Poland and Serbia must have adequate outlets to the sea. To avoid racial injustice, men of one race who, for pressing strategical or economic reasons may have to be included in another nation, should be given the option of rejoining their brothers across the frontier and be entitled to adequate compensation for disturbance.
There are a number of instances where friction may arise between several nations through conflicting claims to territory based on racial, strategical, or economic grounds. Where there is a conflict of claims, a settlement should as a rule be effected on the principle that the weaker claim must give way to the stronger. This should, of course, not mean that the smaller Power should be sacrificed to the greater, for the settlement should be based not on might, but on justice. Differences may, for instance, arise in arranging the claims of Italy and Serbia to certain portions of the Adriatic, the future of Macedonia may become a matter of contention, &c. Most of these questions are not of first-rate importance, and they should easily be settled, although they may call for unlimited patience on the part of the assembled statesmen.
Among the greatest and most difficult problems of the Peace Congress are the problem of Constantinople, the problem of Asia Minor, the problem of Austria-Hungary, the problem of Poland, and the position of the German Empire and its Emperor. All these have been considered in the present volume.
Shortly after the revolution the representatives of the Russian democracy have waived Russia's historic claim to the possession of Constantinople on the principle of 'No Annexation and No Indemnities.' A young democracy is guided rather by the heart than by the head. It follows easily the generous impulses of the moment. By the time the Peace Congress assembles, the Russian people may have changed their representatives, and may have changed their mind as to Constantinople. It seems doubtful whether the desire of acquiring Constantinople was merely based upon the ambition of Russia's rulers. Russia's most valuable territories lie in the south, for the bleak north produces little. The Black Sea and the mighty rivers leading to it constitute Russia's principal outlet. The most precious part of Russia's foreign trade is the Black Sea trade. It is bound to increase indefinitely in value. Rather for economic than for strategical reasons Russia requires free access from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. Russia's historic desire for the acquisition of Constantinople was principally due to the fact that she found it intolerable that the bulk of her trade should be at the mercy of the Turks. At the beginning of the War an overwhelming majority of the Duma demanded for these reasons the acquisition of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. The Russian people may earlier or later change their mind with regard to Constantinople. That should be remembered by statesmen and publicists before and during the Congress. Besides, it is difficult to find a satisfactory alternative solution of the problem of Constantinople. As the Narrows are of great strategical value, they cannot safely be entrusted to a small Power, for various Great Powers would endeavour to obtain influence over it. The old intrigues for the possession of Constantinople would recommence. There remains the possibility of neutralising that precious site, of entrusting the guardianship to some international body. Neutrals, unless they are powerful, may suddenly be attacked by their warlike neighbours, and international guarantees do not always act as a deterrent. That has been shown in the case of Belgium. International control, on the other hand, is apt to lead to international intrigue, as was seen in the case of Egypt and of Macedonia, and international occupation is apt to lead to war, as is proved by the example of Schleswig-Holstein. As Russia has on strategical and economic grounds the strongest claims to Constantinople, she will probably, on consideration, alter her mind, and the Powers will be wise not to take as permanent Russia's recent declarations, which some day she may regret. It would be a calamity and a danger to the peace of the world if some years hence the Russian people should say that the nations took an unfair advantage of Russia's momentary mood and deprived them of Constantinople, for which they have fought and bled for centuries, at a time when they could have had it for the asking.
The Constantinople position connects the Black Sea and the Mediterranean on the one hand and Europe and Asia on the other. It is strategically very important, but it is far less important than Asia Minor. Asia Minor connects, separates, and dominates the three oldest and most populated Continents. It lies across the most direct route from Central Europe to Calcutta, Bombay, Canton, and Peking. Asia Minor, being surrounded by gigantic mountain ranges, vast deserts, and the sea, is a natural fortress of the greatest strength, whence Egypt, North Africa, the Caucasus, the Russian Black Sea Provinces, the Mediterranean countries, and Persia and India may easily be attacked. Asia Minor is at present sparsely populated, but is able to nourish a vast number of people. Its wealth in minerals of all kinds may be utilised for military purposes. Its central position, its impregnable natural frontiers, and its vast agricultural and mineral potentialities might become dangerous to the peace of the world. A strong military Power occupying the country might convert it into a gigantic fortress and arsenal, and provide it with numerous railways leading towards Egypt, the Caucasus, and Persia. A strong military Power controlling Asia Minor might strive for the domination of the three old continents, and its power for mischief would be enhanced by the fact that it would dominate the two issues of the Red Sea, and that it could threaten from its central position not only the Suez Canal route, but also the trade of the Mediterranean and the sea-route to India by way of the Cape. I have very fully considered the problem of Asia Minor from every point of view and have made proposals for its solution.
Austria-Hungary has about 55,000,000 inhabitants. The Austro-Germans and the Magyars number together only about 20,000,000, and they bitterly hate each other. By freeing the 35,000,000 Slavs, Roumanians, and Italians from Austrian misrule the State of the Habsburgs would be reduced to 20,000,000 people. Germany has controlled the policy of Vienna in the past by making use of the differences between the Austrians and Magyars. She has ruled Austria with the assistance of Budapest. The loss of her Slavs and Latins would increase Austria's dependence upon the goodwill of Berlin and of Budapest. Austria and Hungary might be forced to attach themselves to the German Empire. As a consequence of the War, Germany might be far stronger than she has been hitherto. The Allies have pledged themselves to set free the subject nationalities of the Dual Monarchy. The Habsburgs, who at one time were supreme in Germany, and who gave to the Hohenzollerns the Brandenburg Electorate and raised them to royal rank, have suffered grievously at the hands of their former vassals. Brandenburg-Prussia has grown great at Austria's cost. Silesia was conquered by Prussia in 1740, and the South German States were detached from Austria in 1866. Austria has been Germany's tool in bringing about the Great War. The senile Francis Joseph scarcely knew what he was doing. The Princes of the proud house of Habsburg would no doubt like to recover their independence. They have no love for Prussia and the Hohenzollerns. It seems not inconceivable that as a result of the War, Austria should recover her independence, that the Habsburg Monarchy should obtain a new lease of life. If Austria should conclude a separate peace, she would be entitled to compensation for the inevitable loss of her Slavonic and Latin citizens, and she might be given Silesia and South Germany. By receiving these, Vienna would once more rule over 30,000,000 Germans, and the 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 Magyars would no longer prove unmanageable. A balance of power would be created within Germany. Vienna might once more dominate Berlin, and if Austria should follow a liberal, tolerant, and generous policy she might once more attract to herself the smaller nations of South-Eastern Europe and overshadow Prusso-Germany. A similar situation might arise if the War should be fought to the bitter end, and if the South German States should revolt against Prussia's rule and attach themselves to Austria.
It remains to be seen whether Austria-Hungary and Germany will patiently bear with their rulers if the War which they began should lead to disaster and general ruin. Possibly both the German and the Austrian peoples may revolt, but it seems more likely that the Germans will hold their Sovereign to account, for the young Austrian Emperor was not responsible for the War. Germany has a written Constitution according to which the sovereignty of the Empire lies not in the hands of the Emperor, but in those of all the allied States and their rulers. The Emperor is merely the hereditary president of the federation. According to the Constitution, he is not entitled to declare war unless Germany has actually been attacked. For a war of aggression the consent of the Federal Council, which officially represents all the German States, is required. In embarking upon a war of aggression William the Second has violated the Constitution. He is not only morally but also legally responsible if disaster should overtake his country. A German defeat may lead either to the severe limitation of the Emperor's power or to the conversion of Germany into a republic. We may experience in Germany a revolution accompanied by civil war. A special chapter has been devoted to the Emperor's position.
The problem of Poland is particularly important because of the vast change which the resuscitation of that State would effect on the map of Europe. An independent Polish State of 20,000,000 inhabitants might serve as a buffer-State between Russia and Germany. The lands of the Poles possess vast agricultural, industrial, and mineral possibilities. The Polish territories are more densely populated than is France. Within the Polish zone lie the largest coalfields on the Continent of Europe. Lodz is the Russian Manchester. As Brazil is the land of the Amazon and the United States that of the Mississippi, so Poland is the country of the Vistula. On that mighty river lie the two Polish capitals, Warsaw and Cracow, and innumerable important towns. Poland may become politically and economically the Belgium of Eastern Europe, it may become a most important industrial country, but this is possible only if she has a sufficient outlet for her manufactures and can obtain cheaply the necessary imported raw materials, such as cotton. Poland's natural harbour is Danzig, on the mouth of the Vistula. That town may become the Polish Hamburg. If Danzig should once more become Polish, East Prussia would be separated from Brandenburg by a broad belt of Polish territory, as it was in olden times. However, if the question should arise whether Brandenburg should be separated from the province of East Prussia, or whether Poland should be separated from the sea by Danzig remaining in Prussian hands, it is probable that the weaker claim would have to give way to the stronger. Agricultural Eastern Prussia, though separated from Brandenburg, would have access to the sea. If Danzig remained in Germany's hands Poland would remain cut off from the sea, and the State might languish, decline, and decay.
Many Poles desire that their country should obtain complete independence. It seems doubtful whether their wishes are wise. In the course of time Poland has grown into Russia and Russia into Poland. Her vast coalfields make Poland a natural home of the manufacturing industries. A completely independent Poland might find both the Russian and the German frontiers closed against her productions. Hence it may be best for the Poles to aim at a modified form of independence which would guarantee to them Russia's military protection in case of need and which would leave open to the Polish industries the vast and most valuable Russian markets.
The territorial claims of the various nations cannot be permanently settled at the Peace Congress, for history knows no permanent settlements. The settlement made may come up for revision. Unsatisfactory settlements often lead to war. Therefore the representatives of the Powers should avoid not only injustice, but even the appearance of injustice and of unfairness. The settlement made at the Congress of Vienna should serve them as a warning example. It led to a series of wars in the course of which the Treaty of Vienna was torn to pieces.
The great international questions mentioned will not be definitively solved at the Peace Congress. They will occupy the nations during many ensuing decades. However, during the period immediately following the peace the problems of foreign policy will probably be overshadowed by economic problems and by questions of domestic policy. The gigantic War has created huge national debts and has destroyed incalculable values. The British War debt seems likely to amount to at least £5,000,000,000. It seems questionable whether the British people will receive any compensation from their opponents, for the devastated countries, Belgium, Serbia, Poland, Roumania, France, and Russia, have the first claim upon German indemnities. It may also happen that Britain's allies will not be able to repay the bulk of the sums advanced to them. The experience of the Napoleonic wars, when England financed the Allies, may repeat itself.
British taxation has been trebled in the course of the War, and trebled taxation may continue indefinitely. The vast war expenditures incurred may, however, not ruin Great Britain. I have shown in two lengthy chapters devoted to the economic problems that the War, far from impoverishing the country, may greatly enrich it. The twenty years' war against Republican and Napoleonic France created a gigantic burden of debt. It led to the trebling of taxation. The vast increase in taxation stimulated the latent energies of the nation. I have shown that Great Britain's industrial prosperity arose during and after the Great War, and was caused chiefly by the vastly increased demands of the tax-collector. I have further shown by most interesting and important statistics that the American workers engaged in manufacturing, mining, transport, agriculture, &c., produce per head about three times as much as their English colleagues because they employ better and three times as powerful machinery and possess a better economic organisation, &c. It follows that Great Britain can treble her yearly output, her yearly income, and her national wealth by Americanising her industries. The Americanisation of the British industries has already begun. I have shown in the chapter, 'Britain's Coming Industrial Supremacy,' that in the course of the War production per man has approximately doubled. Production per man can once more be doubled, and more than doubled, to the great benefit of the workers and of the nation as a whole. Increased production must be based upon improved machinery, and the better machinery is, the smaller is the exertion of the worker.
America's vast industrial advance, as that of Great Britain, was caused by a ruinously expensive war. The vastly increased demands of the tax-collector consequent upon the Civil War led not only to the greatest improvement in industrial production, but also to the rapid opening up of the West. The British Dominions have advanced comparatively slowly in wealth and population because life has been too easy for the inhabitants. Men work hard only if compelled. The Dominions would be forced to open up their gigantic domain with the greatest energy should they decide to take over an adequate part of the financial burden imposed by the War. The War has been fought for the benefit of future generations. It is therefore only fair that posterity should help in bearing the burden.
The War Debt should become an imperial obligation. Part of the undeveloped resources of the Empire should be assigned to its service and repayment. Part should be paid by the present generation. The Americans combine with their census of population a census of production and wealth. By taking regularly a similar census of production and of wealth throughout the British Empire, the ability of every part of the Empire to assist in bearing the financial burden caused by the War might most easily and most fairly be ascertained. Every five or ten years the financial burden might be redistributed in accordance with the changes in wealth and income which have taken place in the meantime.
High taxation in countries of boundless latent resources is a vast advantage. It is as necessary to a State which desires to advance quickly as adequate ballast is to a ship. The Empire is four times as large as the United States. Nevertheless the United States are far wealthier than is the gigantic British Empire. The wealth of the United States is greater than that of the British Empire, not because the former has larger natural resources, but because the boundless resources of the British Empire have either been insufficiently developed or have been completely neglected. If the War should bring about the deliberate and energetic development of the Empire, and if the Imperial domain should become as highly developed as the territory of the great Republic, the wealth of the British Empire should no longer be inferior to that of the United States, but should be four times as great.
Among the internal problems of Great Britain which will come up for settlement after the War, the reorganisation of the body politic will probably occupy the foremost place. It has been treated fully in the chapter, 'Democracy and the Iron Broom of War.' Democracy has displayed its failings during the struggle. The great problem consists in combining liberty and popular government, which means control by the many, with efficiency in administration and execution. The jointly responsible Cabinet has proved improvident, dilatory, and extremely inefficient. The reform introduced by Mr. Lloyd George is only a temporary makeshift. The question will have to be settled whether the national executive should be in the hands of a single man or of an inexpert committee. The views of the greatest statesmen of all times favour decidedly a one-man executive. The Americans, when establishing their republic, after mature consideration and deliberation, chose a one-man executive. I believe Great Britain will be wise in following America's example. The reform could most easily be effected by making the Prime Minister solely responsible for governmental action, by making the heads of the great departments the Prime Minister's subordinates. The American Constitution proved its excellence in time of danger at the outbreak of the Civil War. In the chapter, 'How America became a Nation in Arms,' I have shown how a one-man executive saved the United States from disaster. During the Civil War the United States raised a gigantic army and defeated in the course of four years the rebellious South. That war destroyed nearly a million lives and cost two-thirds of America's national wealth. America's Civil War should be to the democracies an inspiration and a warning against unpreparedness. Had the United States possessed an army of 30,000 men, the war would either not have broken out or it would have been ended in a few weeks. Democracy has to pay dearly for its shortsightedness and neglect. It is inspiring that an unmilitary, unruly, unorganised, and peaceful people should have been able to raise a gigantic and most efficient army. Successful improvisation should, however, not blind us to the danger of neglecting military preparation in time of peace. The United States in 1861 and England in 1914 were able to create colossal armies because they were given sufficient time to organise themselves for war. The greatest latent resources and the highest patriotism would prove unavailing if in a future war a strong military Power should succeed in seizing at its outbreak the indispensable centres of resistance, such as the seats of the iron and steel industry.
From the British point of view the most important results of the War are two. The War should lead to the unification of the Empire, and it may possibly lead to the reunion of the British race. I have advocated for many years an Anglo-American reunion, and I have summed up the arguments in favour of such a reunion in the concluding chapter of this book.