The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915: What Americans Say to EuropeVarious
Philosophy
The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915: What Americans Say to Europe
Various
World War, 1914-1918
(e) They object to the extension of national territory by force,
contrary to the wishes of the population concerned. This objection is
the inevitable result of democratic institutions; and the American
people have been faithful to this democratic opinion under circumstances
of considerable difficulty--as, for example, in withdrawing from Cuba,
the rich island which had been occupied by American troops during the
short war with Spain, (1898,) and in the refusing to intervene by force
in Mexico for the protection of American investors, when that contiguous
country was distracted by factional fighting. This objection applies to
long-past acts of the German Government an well as to its proceedings in
the present war--as, for example, to the taking of Schleswig-Holstein
and Alsace-Lorraine, as well as to the projected occupation of Belgium.
(f) Americans object strenuously to the violation of treaties between
nations on the allegation of military necessity or for any other reason
whatever. They believe that the progress of civilization will depend in
future on the general acceptance of the sanctity of contracts or solemn
agreements between nations and on the development by common consent of
international law. The neutralization treaties, the arbitration
treaties, The Hague Conferences, and some of the serious attempts at
mediation, although none of them go far enough, and many of them have
been rudely violated on occasion, illustrate a strong tendency in the
civilized parts of the world to prevent international wars by means of
agreements deliberately made in time of peace. The United States has
proposed and made more of these agreements than any other power, has
adhered to them, and profited by them. Under one such agreement, made
nearly a hundred years ago, Canada and the United States have avoided
forts and armaments against each other, although they have had serious
differences of opinion and clashes of interests, and the frontier is
3,000 miles long and for the most part without natural barriers.
Cherishing the hope that the peace of Europe and the rights of its
peoples may be secured through solemn compacts, (which should include
the establishment of a permanent international judicial tribunal,
supported by an international force,) Americans see, in the treatment by
the German Government of the Belgian neutralization treaty as nothing
but a piece of paper which might be torn up on the ground of military
necessity, evidence of the adoption by Germany of a retrograde policy of
the most alarming sort. That single act on the part of Germany--the
violation of the neutral territory of Belgium--would have determined
American opinion in favor of the Allies, if it had stood alone by
itself--the reason being that American hopes for the peace and order of
the world are based on the sanctity of treaties.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account