{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_69444/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_69444","id":"gutenberg_69444","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69444","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Peace movements"],"text":"PRESENT STATUS AND PROSPECTS OF THE PEACE MOVEMENT.\n\n\n                    BY BARONESS BERTHA VON S\u00dcTTNER.\n\n\nLetters of condolence and of cynicism come to my desk in these latter\ndays in increasing number. There is a note of triumph and of mockery in\none group: \u201cWhat has become of the famous Peace idea? The South African\nwar, following immediately upon the close of the Peace Conference at The\nHague, has not yet reached its end, and already the horizon in Eastern\nAsia is lurid with the glare of a world-war. Are you convinced now of\nthe absurdity of your claims, ye dreamers of peace?\u201d Through the second\ngroup runs an undertone of commiseration: \u201cWhat suffering must have come\nto you, honored madame, and to your friends, in seeing your beautiful\nillusion shattered. Sad, sad; but thus it is. War is an historic law,\nand your ideals are simply\u2014ideals. You will have to reef your sails in\nthe face of such a storm of facts.\u201d\n\nIt is true that a feebly manned boat cannot battle against storm and\nsurf. But the simile ill fits the effort to establish peace. That is no\nboat; it is a rock. The waves may top it with their wrathful spume, but\nnaught can affect its granite permanence.\n\nLet me set aside metaphor and reply to my correspondents. Let me\nendeavor to show them the point of view from which the advocates of\npeace regard the present condition of the world, and the nature of the\nduties and prospects, the hopes and self-denials to be descried\ntherefrom.\n\nIn the first place, we admit candidly that we have been mistaken; not,\nhowever, in the principles we have enunciated, but in our estimate of\npresent culture. We had regarded public conscience as being permeated by\na longing for international right and by an abhorrence of despotism to a\ngreater degree than the facts of the case warrant.\n\nThe warlike events that surge about us and threaten us furnish no proof\nagainst the principles of the peace movement. They merely prove that\nthese principles have not yet entered fully into the conscience of\nnations and of their leaders; that the movement is not yet sufficiently\nadvanced in its spread, its organization, its methods of action, to\nverify the hopes fostered by the conference at The Hague for an early\neradication of old, deeply-rooted institutions of brute force. In other\nwords, we have been mistaken, not in the fundamental statements we have\nmade, but in the conception that they were more widely accepted than\nthey have proved to be.\n\nThese truths remain: (1.) Culture is synonymous with the repression of\nbrute force; (2.) Nations are oppressed by their brazen breast-plate,\nand, if its weight increases, they will be crushed by it; (3.) Right\nrelations are as possible between nations as they have gradually been\nproven to be between individuals, tribes, boroughs, cities and\nprovinces; (4.) The abolition of war as a legal institution of human\nsociety, when such abolition is made a matter of principle, will result\nin undreamed-of increase of material wealth and moral elevation. All\nthese truths, and many theories begotten of them, have not lost an iota\nof their logical content and of their blessed potentiality from the fact\nthat foolish humanity, through its most powerful agents, government,\nchurch and press, still emphasizes dogmas opposed to them.\n\nThe advocates of peace maintain their principles. Not only so; they do\nnot rest from their labors; they will not allow the results thus far\nobtained to slip from their grasp. The institutions created at The\nHague, despite the resistance of bellicose Powers, are faithfully\nguarded by those who helped to create them. The Interparliamentary\nUnion, now in session at Paris, has assumed the task of popularizing,\ndeveloping and executing the Articles of The Hague. Their co-operators\nin England continue to protest against the South African war and the\nsubjugation of the Boers, in spite of the supercilious jingoism of\ngovernment and of the hypnosis of the masses. The Social Democrats, the\nEthicists\u2014men of independent tendencies, all of them\u2014lift up warning\nvoices against the fever of Imperialism in general, and specifically\nagainst the reckless love of adventure which first scents loot and then\nseeks revenge in expeditions against a country with four hundred million\npeace-loving inhabitants.\n\nTo save, to save, to avert universal war\u2014that is the purpose for which\nthe enemies of war will strive untiringly until the very last moment. If\ntheir strength be insufficient, where shall we place the blame? The\nfault is not theirs. It rests with the millions of their contemporaries,\nwho, though at heart they desire the same result, yet turn away in\ncontempt or apathy from those who are laboring for it, instead of aiding\nthese labors by the weight that lies in the consensus of the masses.\nWith those who ignore, suspect and belittle the work of peace\u2014even in\ncases where that work has brought about positive results, where it has\nmatured practical propositions\u2014instead of co-operating with sincere\nworkers in their elaborations of these propositions and enforcing them\nwith opponents\u2014with those must the fault lie.\n\nGreat changes come to pass slowly, but in times like the present, when\nupheavals are fierce and dangers lie near, it might be hoped that\nswifter advances should be made in the conflict between the new and the\nold. Just as, immediately before the vote was taken on the Heinze law, a\ngroup of devoted men was formed to oppose that measure, which succeeded\nin defeating it, so, in the face of the present conspicuous and\noverwhelming manifestation of the principle of brute force, the friends\nof right might resolutely band themselves together, and, with shields\nupraised, declare a crusade for the liberation of politics from the\nthraldom of that immoral tradition.\n\nPossibly the hope that such a step could be taken might again involve an\nover-estimate of our contemporaries. What matters it? Kant said: \u201cMan\ncannot think too highly of man,\u201d and it is better to have erred in this\ndirection than, by lukewarm doubt, to have condoned the fault of those\nhere criticised.\n\nWhat we see happening to-day furnishes proof, furnishes wonderfully\nobjective illustrations and experimental demonstrations, not against,\nbut in favor of our doctrines.\n\nIn the first place, let us consider the war in the Transvaal. True, it\nbroke out immediately after the conference at The Hague, and in despite\nof the principles of arbitration and of mediation there announced, and\nsubscribed to even by England herself. Yet it was no triumph for the\ndogma of the necessity of war; it was rather a triumph for the\n_advocates_ of war. For our opponents, in giving voice to the slogan,\n\u201cThe South African war and the Chinese horrors were the direct result of\nthe conference,\u201d commit\u2014purposely, without a doubt\u2014the blunder of\nconfusing sequence in time with sequence of cause and effect. It is the\nfamiliar, senseless, exploded, \u201c_Post hoc, ergo propter hoc_.\u201d\n\nSeeds which lay slumbering in the world\u2019s soil long before the\nconference at The Hague sprouted in these two instances. For all that\nthe conference itself could achieve was not in the nature of a harvest,\nbut merely a sowing of seed.\n\nThe newly created institutions are not yet in operation, their spirit\nhas not yet become incarnate in the flesh and blood of the nations, of\npotentates, of the press. And Mr. Chamberlain was able to accomplish his\npurpose, in spite of the pleading of Kr\u00fcger for arbitration, even unto\nthe last minute. Every intermediation was refused, and none was honestly\nand earnestly considered.\n\nSeveral European rulers, who, as their panegyrists maintain, are\nsoldiers, body and soul, had no desire to restrain the arm of England;\nthey wished Queen Victoria success and noted the progress of the war\nwith semi-joyous interest. But with the people of non-English countries\nthere was pronounced opposition to this war; there was a manifestation\nof the very thing whereof we dream as a foundation of an alliance of\nEuropean States, namely, a European conscience. This conscience rose in\nrebellion against the fact that a war of conquest should be waged in\nthis our day; that a great country should seek to subjugate small, free\nrepublics. From every side came protests, petitions, actions of various\nsorts, to move the English to call a halt in this war. In England itself\nthe peace party untiringly made remonstrances in this direction. The\ndeeply rooted sentiment, \u201cMy country, right or wrong,\u201d had to give way\nto a sense of justice deeper still, and, as boldly as Zola and Picquart\nentered the lists against the General Staff, even so boldly did noted\nEnglishmen battle against the imperialistic ministry of their native\nland. Ten years ago these things would not have happened. Neither Europe\nnor America would have opposed this war so determinedly; still less\npossibility would there have been of so powerful a counter-current as\narose in England itself. All these things are symptoms of the new\nspirit.\n\nBut, in spite of the sentiment of the nations, the various governments\nhave refrained from any peace-making intervention; and in London this\nattitude has been regarded as the correct one. But it was correct\naccording to ancient standards only; it was in direct contravention to\nthe new lines officially marked out at The Hague.\n\nThe progress of the war in the Transvaal has shown, forcibly and\nterribly, what a false relation the possible advantages of war bear to\nits positive disadvantages. Fifty thousand of her youth, healthy and\nvigorous youth, has England lost in the past ten months; sixty-one\nmillion pounds sterling of her national wealth have been wasted; the\nrespect and sympathy of the world have been recklessly sacrificed; the\ncharacter of the nation has been brutalized by the passions aroused, and\nfreedom, the pride of the British people, freedom of speech, as well as\nfreedom of the individual, has been imperilled, for even now the spectre\nof conscription is raising its head. The fruits of half a century of\nnational education have been destroyed in this one attack of war-fever.\nAnd in place of the great, submarine Channel-tunnel already planned, the\nfortification of Dover has been begun. India is devastated by a famine,\nand the money wasted in South Africa for the destruction of human life\nmight have saved the famished ones.\n\nAnd the end, the \u201cbitter end,\u201d of this campaign is not yet. There are no\nmore decisive battles fought nowadays, even where one side has\noverwhelming force. There is nothing now save mutual extermination of\nthe troops in the field, devastation of the land in which the combat\ntakes place, cessation of commerce, danger of further complications and\nthe carrying of infectious diseases into other lands.\n\nThe reports of Mr. Burdett-Coutts in the House of Commons in reference\nto the horrible condition of the sick and wounded in South Africa are a\nconfirmation of what the advocates of peace have constantly voiced,\nnamely, that, with our present means of destruction and our present\nmethods of warfare, sanitation is an illusion.\n\nAnd then came the news of the insurrection of the Boxers and the\nmassacres of the missionaries in China. This, too, is the harvest of\nseed sown in Europe in these latter years. Apart from the fact that\nhatred of strangers is a barbarism, concerning which we lack the right\nto grow indignant so long as the story of anti-Semitic riots and\nexpulsion of foreigners has a place upon European annals, everything was\ndone by Europeans in China to arouse a righteous hatred of foreigners\nthere. Dogmas and wares have been thrust upon the Chinese; there has\nbeen contemptuous treatment, appropriation of territory, open\ndeclarations as to the partition of China, backed by plans for the\nbuilding of fleets. And running side by side with these things, in\nconstant confirmation of mercenary greed and of militarism, with an\ninherent, blind tendency to expansion, the peaceable, non-military\nEmpire was supplied with guns and cannons from our own factories and\nwith instructors from our barracks.\n\nWell, what matters it? No one cares to bother with the intricately\ninterwoven network of origins and causes back of it all. Here were we\nfaced by facts\u2014a country in wild uproar, the government overthrown or in\nleague with the rebels against foreigners, the legations bombarded,\nKetteler murdered\u2014such facts require action.\n\nHere the opponents of the peace movement seem to be in the right.\nSurely, it is impossible to quietly look on while such things are\nhappening; there is no opportunity for arbitration. What is there left\nbut war? Is not that in some cases the only resource, the \u201c_ultima\nratio_?\u201d Now, are ye convinced, ye dreamers, that conditions may at any\ntime arise which will force upon men a resort to arms? Therefore there\nmust be no cessation of armaments, no relaxation in the cultivation of a\nwarlike spirit. Confess that you are beaten, that you have no answer.\n\nNay, but we do answer. As a well-ordered State maintains a police force\nto execute the decrees of its judges, to secure robbers and maniacs, to\noverpower mobs that throw stones and apply torches, to protect those who\nare persecuted by violence, so would an alliance of Culture-States, such\nas we contemplate, require an armed force to serve international right\nas an executive power. Power in the service of the right differs\nessentially from the power which pronounces all its decisions and\npurposes to be right. The individuals of a community are not as yet so\nvirtuous, so rational, and so reliable as to render unnecessary every\nkind of protection and punishment. It is the same with nations. The\nnations of the earth are not as yet so cultured and so peaceable that a\nunion of nations could exist without a tribunal or an armed force.\n\nWhat has come to pass before our eyes? Spontaneously, without previous\nagreement, all nations decided to hurry their ships and troops to the\nrelief of those whose lives were in danger; to punish the criminals, to\nrestore order in the convulsed Empire of China; to re-establish\norganized government there. And since such an enterprise can succeed\nonly when it is undertaken unanimously, there was suddenly formed a\n\u201cworld army,\u201d a confraternity of previously antagonistic nations, to\nbattle side by side in the name of civilization against an outburst of\nbarbarism. Thus has the impulse of events begun the realization of that\nfundamental requirement urged by the advocates of the peace movement\nfrom the very first\u2014unanimity among the Culture-States, a comradeship of\nco-operation, a setting aside of conflicting individual rights in the\nservice of a higher solidarity of interest.\n\nThis solidarity of interest has now been recognized in the face of the\nChinese danger. We recognized it long ago in the face of the danger of\nmilitarism. The threatened world-war, the ruin that impended, seemed to\nus such an abomination of barbarism, and the prevention of that calamity\nso imperative a duty of civilization, that conflicts of interest and all\nlittle bickerings and minor contentions might well be set aside.\n\nA campaign carried on with a common mind and for a common purpose, such\nas that undertaken in China, would not have been prevented if it had\nbeen preceded by a cessation of further armaments, as suggested by\nRussia at The Hague, or even by a decided reduction of the standing\narmies. For\u2014let my readers note carefully this fact\u2014the \u201cCulture-Army,\u201d\nthe police of international civilization, needs but be composed of a\nsmall but representative section of the various nations. The entire\navailable force of Europe, America and Japan could not be sent to China\nat present, at any rate. When arms are used in the service of right\nonly, the power of such police, or, instead of police\u2014for the word has\nan unpleasant sound\u2014let us say of such a knighthood of culture, would be\noverwhelming. For crime\u2014within the limits of a civilized community this\nholds true as well\u2014is usually committed by single individuals or small\nbands. It is the same among nations. If questions of common morals\narose, whose validity is recognized as of interest to all, every single\ndisturber of the peace, every single tyrant, every single land-grabber\nwould be resisted in the execution of his purpose and would be punished\nby all. Had all civilized nations hastened to the aid of the\nArmenians,[1] had they all advised Spain to relinquish Cuba, or hindered\nAmerica in its desire to subjugate the Philippines; had they all\ninsisted that England must listen to Kr\u00fcger\u2019s proposals for arbitration,\nthe cruelties and conflicts of the latest slaughters of multitudes could\nhave been avoided. Different nations can advance with united purpose\nagainst a common danger, and they can do so by means of the very\nelements that otherwise support and foster antagonism, namely, by means\nof their armies. Twice has this been demonstrated; once not long ago in\nCrete, and now in China. The German Kaiser could command the troops he\nsent to Eastern Asia to fight shoulder to shoulder with Frenchmen,\nRussians and Japanese. And it has been possible to appoint one general\nfor this international army.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  Let it not be objected that a \u201cman\u2019s house is his castle,\u201d and that\n  interference with internal affairs is excluded with nations as it is\n  with individuals. Massacres are not internal affairs. If one man\n  throws down another in my neighbor\u2019s house and is preparing to kill\n  him, and the victim\u2019s cries reach my ears, it is not a breach of the\n  peace if I hasten to help him or call the police.\n\nThe possibility that all Culture-States can enter into an alliance,\nthough contested by our opponents, has been proven in fact. Humanity is\nforced into solidarity by normal evolution along the lines of natural\nlaw. What the force of circumstances has brought about could have been\naccomplished by free will and design, and, so accomplished, it would\nhave been more systematically done, and would have rested upon more\nsecure foundations.\n\nAnd now, no one has faith in the present casual and transient coalition,\nand many prophesy that the Powers will quarrel over China, and that the\nlong-dreaded world-conflict will arise in consequence. This, too, is\nused as an argument against us. \u201cA concert? Unanimity? The slightest\ndisturbance unhinges it all. Rivalry is aroused. No one Power is willing\nto grant the other a privilege or an advantage. When the coalition\ncampaign has reached its end, or even before that, conflicting interests\nwill assert themselves and the European war will be upon us.\u201d\n\nTrue, that war will break out, if there be no forum for the settlement\nof chance contentions, a forum which, by common agreement, would adjust\nall differences. Everything goes to prove how necessary such a forum is.\nThe sad fact that it is not as yet in operation surely does not\nmilitate, in the least, against the possibility or the utility of the\nestablishment of such a tribunal. The foundation of it was laid at The\nHague. That it is generally ignored demonstrates the fact that\nmilitarism struggles against an institution which would undermine war.\n\nThe question, \u201cHow in the world do you propose to prevent war in the\nface of the present upheaval in China?\u201d has been thus answered by Dr.\nBenjamin F. Trueblood, Corresponding Secretary of the American Peace\nSociety:\n\n  \u201cWe have been asked how we would have settled the present trouble in\n  China without war. That is as if one were to ask how we would prevent\n  a fire when the flames were already bursting from all the windows. The\n  settlement of the trouble by us without war would have required, first\n  of all, that it be turned over to us for settlement, or that the\n  powers involved in it would agree conscientiously to follow, in their\n  efforts at adjustment, the principles and methods which we might\n  suggest. The utter impossibility of either of these contingencies in\n  the case of the trouble with China shows the thoughtlessness of the\n  question.\n\n  \u201cThe time to have begun the pacific settlement of the difficulty was\n  many years ago. Given certain conditions, practices and beliefs, such\n  as have for a long time existed in the relations of the other\n  countries to China, and war or something like it was inevitable. No\n  advocate of peace has ever been simple enough to imagine that war can\n  be avoided when every condition leading to good understanding and\n  peace has been neglected or trampled under foot.\u201d\n\nAnother point steadily maintained by the advocates of peace and denied\nby their adversaries has come clearly to light in these latter days,\nnamely, that wars are instigated and brought to their culmination by\ncertain influential men without the slightest reference to the people,\nto parliaments or to the choicest spirits of the nations. What has been\ndecided upon by the powers that be, what has been mapped out by\n\u201cCabinets,\u201d is promulgated as an accomplished fact, approved by the\nchorus of a servile press, and, if it can be made sensational, cheered\nby an enthusiastic mob. How necessary that every land should have a\nministry of peace, an official organism representing the interests of\npeace, under whose protection that portion of public opinion which is\naverse to war might make itself heard. How essential an independent,\nethically elevated press, conscious of the duty growing out of its\npower, the duty to guide the people in the way of unity, of\nconciliation, of a just consideration of both sides of a quarrel\u2014in\nshort, in the way of peace, the only way worthy of civilization and\nculture. The opposite is true. The political press, in a ponderous\nmajority, is to-day a forge for the heating of the irons of war.\n\nCurrent events reveal the fact that our system is not being put in\npractice, but they reveal no flaws or contradictions in the system\nitself, for it has none. Without a flaw or contradiction it harmonizes\nwith the law of evolution. The new age\u2014with its advance in technical\ninventions (with especial reference to the possibility of the slaughter\nof masses), with its ties of international solidarity, its reciprocal\neconomic interdependencies, its sublimated ethical requirements\u2014has\noutgrown the system of war, and outgrows it more and more daily. This\ntruth is set forth, as it were, in an object-lesson in the rush of\naction upon the stage of the world\u2019s theatre. On the other hand, take\nthe war in the Transvaal. What economic losses (to say nothing of the\nmoral loss) to England and to the rest of the world has it involved; and\nthe end of the war is not yet in sight, in spite of the fact that\nEngland outnumbers her adversaries ten to one. That war and the Chinese\nproblem both show that the nations are being mechanically driven to the\nposition which the advocates of peace have suggested as the only one\nthat can be taken as a result of the exercise of free will and\nrationality, namely, coalition, surrender of secondary specific\ninterests and contentions for the sake of a higher common interest, of\nculture and humanity, and the creation of a \u201cworld army.\u201d\n\nThe position into which the Powers are mechanically forced, which in its\nexternal form seems to adjust itself to the demands of the peace idea,\nis not yet permeated by the _spirit_ of the idea; not yet based upon the\nfirm groundwork of institutions of peace. It is filled with militarism,\nconfused with military projects and national antagonisms.\n\nThe contrast between war and culture is more definitely set forth than\ncould be done in volumes of essays and of peace literature in the\naddresses and newspaper articles which accompany the sending forth of\nthe \u201cArmy of Humanity.\u201d The emphasis placed upon the help of God, upon\nthe religion of love and of tenderness, and the synchronous emphasis\nplaced upon revenge and threats of horrors, have never been in so\nglaring a contrast. A clinging to old ideals of force, reference to the\nthought that, a thousand years _hence_, one member of the human family\nshall tremble before another, as men did a thousand years _ago_ under\nthe lash of Attila; the recommendation on the part of various journals\nof methods of retaliation savoring of the wildest of savagery, the\nslaughter of masses of men, desecration of sanctuaries and graves, etc.,\nand all these proposed as a means of spreading civilization; all this\nmust needs be recognized by the world at large as strident dissonance.\n\nAnd what has brought the world to this recognition? The principles of\nthe peace movement. Denied as they are, they have sunk deep into the\nconscience of the age. The community of interests in the world has also\nhad its share in effecting this result. This has reached such a degree\nthat a change from conditions of might to conditions of right has become\na positive necessity, an essential of life. What stands revealed in the\npeace movement is not the dream of supramundane fancy, but a\nmanifestation of the instinct of self-preservation in civilization.\n\n                                                     BERTHA VON S\u00dcTTNER.\n\n\n\n\n                           \u201c_IN TERRA PAX._\u201d\n\n                          BY G. LEVESON GOWER.\n\n\n        War in men\u2019s mouths, peace through the spring-clad land;\n        Hate in men\u2019s hearts, and love in God\u2019s high heaven;\n        Yet in the mass already works the leaven,\n        And in the nations some cry, \u201cHold your hand,\n        Ye Peoples! Turn not Earth into a hell!\u201d\n        Already breaks the light when some can see\n        The change to come, the order new to be,\n        And, seeing evil, will not say, \u201c\u2019Tis well!\u201d\n        O! for some high tribunal of the world\n        Where arms are stilled and equal law bears sway,\n        The strong aggressor from his vantage hurled,\n        The wronged upheld in the full light of day!\n        Then shall the Earth at rest yield glad increase,\n        And through all seas and every land be Peace!\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                          TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES\n\n\n 1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in\n      spelling.\n 2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.\n 3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.","title":"Present status and prospects of the Peace Movement","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":4328}