Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
OCR
‘6 ‘A
r
i would not “allow” her to re-establis
,.
‘, tria’s demandsi and Austria‘ was fully justified by pastievents
in believing that it was with her a question of life and death.
’ IShould Germany sacrifice her faithful friend under such cir-
cumstances, and for what? For the arrogance of Russia, who
her prestige in a right-
eous cause? The word “righteous" is used advisedly, because
in the early stages of the controversy nobody, not even Rus-
sia nor Servia herself, denied the justice of Austria's de-
mands. The writer is informed that even the liberal English
pressyfound no fault with the course taken by Austria, al-
, though it c- mmented adversely onvthe language used in the I
‘ note.
What would have been the result of peace bought by Ger-
many at such a cost? It would have alienated her only faith-
ful friend without laying the foundations for a lasting friend-
ship with her opponents.’ This at least was Germany’s honest
' belief. v She may have been wrong. History more probably
' will call her right.
V To desert Austria might have postponed
,the war, but when it would have come Germany would have
‘i stood alone, and, worse, she would have lost her self-respect.
-H"Belgium"s Peculiar Case. What is Neutrality?
‘ This claim may sound strange in the ears of those who
‘have just witnessed and will never forget the suffering of
that beautiful little country, Belgium. They hold that since
Germany invaded Belgium, it is Germany who broke a treaty
and who is to blame.
. Mr. Beck considers this to be so self-evident that he deems
5 itunecessary’ to advance any proof. He quotes the Chancel- '
, lor’s speech, and, moving for a quick verdict, declares “his
motion of guilty carried. The matter, however, is not quite
sogsimple for the man who is seeking for the whole truth.
Let us look at the facts.
Belgium was a neutral country, just as any country has the
i ‘right to declare itself neutral, with this difference; that in
1839 she had promised to five powers, Great Britain, France,
Russia, Austria, and Prussia, that she would remain per-
petually neutral. These five powers in their turn had promised
. to guarantee her neutrality. She was, however, a sovereign
State, andas such had the undoubted right to cease being neu-
tral jvhenever she chose by abrogating the ‘treaty of 1839.
I , If the other high contracting parties did not agree with her,
it was their right to try to coerce Belgium to keep to her
A V‘ pledges,,although this would undoubtedly have been an in-
-fringement of her sovereignty.
h The Treaty of 1839 contains the word “perpetual,” but so
i does the treaty between France and Germany, in which Alsace
and Lorraine are ceded by France to be perpetually an integral
part of the German Empire. Does’ this mean that France, if
the Allies should win, could not retake these provinces? No-
, body probablyfwill believe this. ‘ ‘ '
‘The Treaty of 183? was a’ treaty just‘like the Treaty‘ of
' .1871,‘ ,with this difference, that the latter treaty was concluded
between two powers, and the earlier one between five powers
, on one side and Belgium and Holland on the other. This
gave certain rights to all the signatory powers, any one of
‘whomihad the right to feel itself sufficiently aggrieved to go
to war if any other power disregarded the treaty. (See Vital
Issue No. 4). ' ' s - ‘ ' .
There was once another neutral State, the city and district
. of Cracow, also established by a treaty to which Great Britain
was a signatory. Three of the signers considered ‘the conditions
, developing in Crakow to be so threatening that they abolished '
Cracow, as an independent State. Great Britain sent apolite
note of protest, anddropped the matter. ‘
Since that time, however, two Hague conferences have been
held and certain rules agreed upon concerning the rights and
duties of neutrals. The Belgian status of inviolability rests on
i ‘these rules, called conventions, rather than on the Treaty
' of 1839.’ During the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 Mr. Glad-
stone very clearly stated that,he did not consider the Treaty
of 1839 enforcible. Great Britain, therefore, made two new
treaties, one with France and one with Prussia in which she
promised to defend Belgian neutrality, by the side of either
A
'rH‘e,VI'rAL Issue,‘ , .. by ..
' France or Prussia, against that oneof them who should in-
fringe the neutrality. ’ . A 4
These treaties were to terminate one year after peace had
been concluded between the contestants. A treaty, like the one
of 1839, however, which was considered unenforcible in 1870,
can hardly be claimed to have gained new rights in 1914. In
calm moments nobody will claim that a greater sanctity at-
taches to it than to the treaty in which Alsace and Lorraine are
ceded forever to Germany. .
Rules of Hague Conference of 1899 and 1907.
No, it is The Hague conventions to which we must look
The first convention '(1899) contained no rules forbidding bel-
ligerents from entering neutral territory. In the second con-
ference it was thought desirable to formulate such rules, be-
cause it was felt that in war belligerents are at4liberty to do
what is not expressly forbidden. At the request of France,
therefore, a new set of rules was suggested, to which Great
Britain and Belgium offered valuable amendments. The rules
were finally accepted, and are ‘today parts of international
law. They read: “Article ‘I. The territory of.neutral powers
is inviolable. Article II. Belligerents are forbidden to move
troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies
across the territory of a neutral power.” .'
, These articles, together with the whole convention called
“Rights and dutiescf neutral powers and persons in case of
war on land,” have been ratified and therefore accepted as
law by the United States of America, Austria, Belgium, F rance,
Germany, Japan and Russia, and other minor powers. Great
Britain experienced a change of heart, and, although her own .
delegates had moved these articles, she’ refused to ratify them,
when she ratified most of the other convention: on Nov. 27,
1909. . l I
British Hypocrisy.
Since Great Britain did not accept these articles as law,
she was not bound by them, for the principle of The Hague
Conferences is that a nation is bound only by those laws which
it accepts. 'The remarkable fact, therefore, appears that the
only one of the big nations which had refused to accept these
articles, and which, therefore, might have moved her troops
across a neutral country and have claimed that she could do so
with a clear conscience because she broke no law which was
binding on her, was Great Britain. "And the world now see: ‘
the spectacle of Great Britain claiming. to hove gone to am
because another power did what she herself could have done,
.occording to her own interpretation, with impunity. Japan
has broken the international law by infringing the neutrality
of China, but Great Britain can claim that she did not break
a law by‘ doing exactly what Japan.did.
It is not asserted here that the citizens of Great Britain are
.‘ not absolutely sincere in their belief of the causes which have
allied them with the Russians and the Japanese, and the In-
dians and the Zuaves, and the negroes and the French and the
Belgians against Germany. Their Government, however,
shoitld have known that the presumption of insincerity exists
whengone charges against others a crime which one would
have felt at liberty to commit one’s self. Yet, more, the Brit-
ish Government knew better than anybody else that Germany
had not even committed this crime; for according to all laws
of justice no person or nation can claim the inviolability of 3
neutral when he has committed "hostile acts against a belliger-
ent, or acts in favor of a belligerent?’ (Article XVII. of The
Hague Conference of 190 .) W A
The question, therefore, arises, "Did Belgium commit acts '
in favor of one of Germany's opponents, if not actually hostile
acts against Germany?" In order‘ to understand Germany’:
charge that Belgium had committed such acts, attention must
be directed to one of the most unfortunate stipulationsvof the
Treaty of l839, which compelled Belgium to maintain several .
fortresses. This meant that a "neutral" peopleusandwiched
in between two great powers, had to keep itself informed on
military affairs. - Instead of being able to foster a peaceful state
of mind, which is the surest guaranteeof neutrality, the Bel-
gians were forced to think military thoughts. .