Yet, on the other hand, if we incorporate into the new League the right of intervention in the affairs of individual states for any purpose whatsoever, we run a serious risk; we play the rôle of the Concert of Europe; we weaken the educative power of responsibility. To frame a formula for the conduet of a League of Nations, which shall be broad enough to crush anarchy anywhere, yet restricted enough to guarantee to each state sovereignty and independence, will require high statesmanship. I have spoken of the educative power of state responsibility. In theory this should be a result of independence. But on our own hemisphere we see too many examples of the failure of the rule. Through the Monroe Doctrine we have shielded our neighbor republics from foreign intervention, doing it for our own sake and often resented by them. We mean well by them. Certain of their qualities we admire. But excepting half a dozen of the better developed, the Latin American states, from their want of order and of educa. tion and of self-control, are a menace to our world. Shall they and their problems, like Bolshevism, come before the League for treatment? Or shall an American league be set up for local treatment, to assume both responsibility and control? Or more probably still, shall this old world and this new one muddle along very much as they have since the beginnings of history, gaining here a little and there a little, the law of their relations changing with the law of their progress, the moral uses of dark things revealed, to those who can see, by Divine Providence. When a criminal breaks the law and at last is caught and punished, we do not say that the law has broken down; we say rather that it has been enforced, that the law works. So is it with the law which governs the relations of states. It has been cruelly violated. There were times when the criminal seemed immune. But his punishment has begun. Every restitution, every penalty, every act of atonement, is proof that the law he scorned is stronger than he. Its grasp is firmer, its future is brighter than before, and its field is greater. Like the last runner in a relay we have reached the line, and the line is justice. THEODORE S. WOOLSEY. THE GERMAN CONCEPTION OF THE FREEDOM OF THE SEAS THE World War has given rise to some of the most remarkable views or expressions of opinion, particularly in Germany, regarding the freedom of the seas that have ever been uttered. Indeed, it may be said to have revived this old controversy in an entirely new form, but with the ideas frequently stated in the most excessive manner. Though, along with many other products of German war psychology, the most extravagant of these views seem for the most part to be doomed to defeat, and perhaps to a deserved oblivion, yet there may be a nucleus of sense or residuum of wisdom in some of them that is worthy of consideration. In any case, it may be claimed that they possess a certain historical or academic interest which appears to justify this discussion and record, filled, as it is, with copious extracts.1 There have been in Germany during recent years two extreme and fundamentally opposed conceptions of the freedom of the seas, or rather, of the means through which this so-called freedom may be attained and preserved. And these conceptions of means or methods have been held as applicable in securing this freedom in times of peace as well as during war. This fact is thus stated by the German authority on naval matters, Captain Persius: "There are two theories in Germany, one advocating the freedom of the sea by virtue of a huge These 1 The documentary basis of this article is a collection made by the writer of several hundred pages of extracts drawn from many and various sources. sources include a number of German pamphlets on the "Freedom of the Seas," notably the one by Meurer (to which repeated reference is made in the text), German periodicals of various sorts, including newspapers as well as magazines, resolutions and petitions adopted by the political parties, chambers of commerce and other public bodies in Germany, speeches of leading German statesmen and politicians, articles and lectures by German authorities on international etc. Deutschland, by S. Grumbach, Lausanne, 1917. Citations might be multiplied ad nauseum to illustrate and demonstrate the wide prevalence of this imperialistic or Tory point of view in Germany. It appears to have resulted primarily from a strong fear and hatred of England-a fear and hatred strongly infected with jealousy and a desire to imitate supposed English methods of gaining and maintaining British sea-power. At the antipodes, or opposite extreme, of the believers in seapower are those who favor neutralization, or, to use a better term, internationalization of the high seas, as well as of international waterways, by negotiation and agreement between the Powers. This class seems to include a majority of the Socialists, the peace advocates and internationalists, like Professor Schücking, as also some of the leaders of the bourgeoisie, or middle classes, such as Dernburg and Erzberger. The views of this school may be illustrated by the following extracts from some of its leading exponents: I, personally, would go so far as to neutralize all the seas and narrows permanently by a common and effective agreement guaranteed by all the Powers, so that any infringement on that score would meet with the most severe punishment that can be meted out to any transgressor. 6 The whole fight, and all the fight, is, on one side, for the absolute dominion of the seven seas; on the other side, for a free sea-the traditional mare liberum. A free sea will mean the cessation of the danger of war and the stopping of world wars. The sea should be free to all. It belongs to no nation in particular-neither to the British nor to the Germans, nor to the Americans. The rights of nations cease with the territorial line of three miles from low tide. Any domination exercised beyond that line is a breach and an infringement of the rights of others. To prevent wars in the future we must establish that the five seas shall be used exclusively by the merchant ships of all nations. Within their territory people have the right to take such measures as they deem necessary for their defense, but the sending of troops and war machines into the territory of others, or into neutralized parts of the world, must be declared a casus belli. The other alternative would be to forbid the high seas to the man-of-war of any nation whatsoever, to relegate them to territorial waters, and to permit only such small • Extract from a letter written by Herr Dernburg, former German Colonial Secretary and propagandist, read at a German meeting at Portland, Me., on April 17, 1915. See N. Y. Times Current History, II, pp. 279-281. cruisers as are necessary to prevent privateering. If that be done, the world as divided now would come to permanent peace." It will be asked, to what extent can real guarantees be given for a lasting realization of this "Open Door" and "Freedom of the Seas" program? They are conceivable. Nevertheless we do not deny that to safeguard the "Open Door" and "Freedom of the Seas" it will be essential that assurances be given backed by treaties. A substantial part of the guarantee of the future peace is precisely to be sought in the further development of international law . . . and in a system of international treaties. . . .8 The draft Constitution of the League of Nations, drawn up and worked out in detail by the leader of the Centre Party, Herr Erzberger, contains some provisions for the internationalization of the high seas, as well as of international waterways: Members of the League are to recognize the principle of the freedom of the seas. Straits and canals and connecting seas, in so far as both banks are not in possession of the same Federal State, will be internationalized. Their fortifications will be retained and guarded by a commando consisting of contingents from all the Federal States, and commanded in turn every three years by a delegate of the neutralized States. The Federal States will proclaim the safety of private property on the high seas. Naval prize law and blockade law are to be abolished. Exercise of the right of blockade is reserved to the League, and only to the League as such, against any Federal State which violates the constitution of the League or which takes up arms against a Fed'eral State. Ships of Federal States and their cargoes shall be given the same treatment by each Federal State as is given to that State's own vessels. Oversea cables are to be controlled by a committee of the League. The members of the League are to renounce the raising of troops in their colonial territories. All States and colonies situated in Africa are to be perpetually neutral States." In an interview, published in the Paris Matin, of February 2, 1919, Herr Erzberger is reported to have said: By freedom of the seas I mean the complete freedom of trade for 7 From a speech delivered on January 9, 1915, at the Republican Club, New York, by Herr Dernburg. 8 Excerpt from the Anti-annexationist petition of the New Fatherland League presented to the Imperial Chancellor and the members of the Reichstag early in June, 1915. * See Daily Review of the Foreign Press, September 24, 1916. Citations might be multiplied ad nauseum to illustrate and demonstrate the wide prevalence of this imperialistic or Tory point of view in Germany. It appears to have resulted primarily from a strong fear and hatred of England-a fear and hatred strongly infected with jealousy and a desire to imitate supposed English methods of gaining and maintaining British sea-power. At the antipodes, or opposite extreme, of the believers in seapower are those who favor neutralization, or, to use a better term, internationalization of the high seas, as well as of international waterways, by negotiation and agreement between the Powers. This class seems to include a majority of the Socialists, the peace advocates and internationalists, like Professor Schücking, as also some of the leaders of the bourgeoisie, or middle classes, such as Dernburg and Erzberger. The views of this school may be illustrated by the following extracts from some of its leading exponents: I, personally, would go so far as to neutralize all the seas and narrows permanently by a common and effective agreement guaranteed by all the Powers, so that any infringement on that score would meet with the most severe punishment that can be meted out to any transgressor. The whole fight, and all the fight, is, on one side, for the absolute dominion of the seven seas; on the other side, for a free sea-the traditional mare liberum. A free sea will mean the cessation of the danger of war and the stopping of world wars. The sea should be free to all. It belongs to no nation in particular-neither to the British nor to the Germans, nor to the Americans. The rights of nations cease with the territorial line of three miles from low tide. Any domination exercised beyond that line is a breach and an infringement of the rights of others. To prevent wars in the future we must establish that the five seas shall be used exclusively by the merchant ships of all nations. Within their territory people have the right to take such measures as they deem necessary for their defense, but the sending of troops and war machines into the territory of others, or into neutralized parts of the world, must be declared a casus belli. The other alternative would be to forbid the high seas to the man-of-war of any nation whatsoever, to relegate them to territorial waters, and to permit only such small 6 Extract from a letter written by Herr Dernburg, former German Colonial Secretary and propagandist, read at a German meeting at Portland, Me., on April 17, 1915. See N. Y. Times Current History, II, pp. 279-281. |