Some Problems of the Peace ConferenceHaskins, Charles Homer
History
Some Problems of the Peace Conference
Haskins, Charles Homer
Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920); World War, 1914-1918 -- Territorial questions
The human elements in frontier-making are still more complex than the
geographical. Obviously we have to do not with individuals but with
groups, and with those larger groups which have acquired a full measure
of what the sociologists call ‘consciousness of kind,’ to the point of
constituting some kind of national unity or national organization. We
speak of the self-determination of peoples, but what is a people? Is it
created by race or language or political allegiance, or only by that
more subtle compound which we call nationality? How large must a people
be to have a right to stand alone? Can it stand alone without certain
economic and even military prerequisites? How far can we go in breaking
up states in order to give effect to self-determination?
Such general principles might have a very wide application. Formulated
with special reference to the Central Powers, self-determination was
seized upon by men who had a case to urge in any part of the world--in
Ireland, in Egypt, in the Philippines. A German map of last spring even
represented Hawaii, St. Thomas, Florida, and Texas as trying to escape
from their unwilling subjection to the United States[3]--a curious
evidence that German mentality had not changed since the notorious
Zimmermann note of 1917. More than once it was necessary to point
out that the function of the Paris Conference was not to do abstract
justice in every corner of the earth, but to make peace with Germany,
Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey. Many causes perhaps excellent in
themselves were not the business of the Conference.
Even within the self-imposed limits of the Conference, there were
difficulties. “Self-determination,” President Wilson had said, “is
not a mere phrase, it is an imperative principle of action.” But
President Wilson had also said that self-government cannot be given
but must be earned; that “liberty is the privilege of maturity, of
self-control,” that “some peoples may have it, therefore, and others
may not.”[4] However just and admirable self-determination might be,
it could be fully applied only to peoples who had some experience in
self-government and thus some means of political self-expression.
For this reason it was not applicable to the downtrodden natives of
the German colonies. And even among self-governing peoples there are
practical limitations. Self-determination may be only another name for
secession, and we fought the Civil War to prevent that; we have been
none too successful in securing the subsequent self-determination of
the negroes in the southern states. Sometimes a people may be too small
to stand alone, and sometimes, as in parts of the Balkans and Asia
Minor, the mixture of peoples may defy separation. In western Asia,
notably, national aspirations have outrun the social organization.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account