Arbitration Versus Armaments
By L. A. S.
SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, head of the new “liberal” government in Great Britain, is an advocate of international peace by disarmament. In a recent campaign speech he said:— As the principle of peaceful arbitration extends, it becomes one of the highest tasks of statesmen to adjust these armaments to the new and happier conditions. No nobler role could this great country have than at the fitting moment to put herself at the head of a league of peace through whose instrumentality this great work could be effective. Sir Henry would have the war fleets turned into scrap-iron, and the soldiers and sailors turned to more useful pursuits. Naturally, his speech has caused a sensation in England and on the Continent. The principle of international arbitration seems to be extending, but, on the other hand, the armies and armaments of the nations are also being extended. The one makes for peace, the other, if it does not actually promote war, imposes a war burden which is crushing the people. The increase of armaments is evidence also that the nations do not trust one another. Each has small confidence in the other’s professed love of peace. And it is admitted that whatever progress the principle of arbitration may make in the world, it is useless to think of curtailing the world’s armaments. At all events, the extension of the forces of war must go on. The project of disarmament is spoken of by military writers as utopian and chimerical. Thus the Paris Temps says:— On what basis could armaments be limited? Of course on the basis of the status quo, for a power at present better equipped for war than others could not calmly fold its arms while the others toiled in reaching the same standard. Very good! But what right has any one to take away from the powers all hope of improving their position? England, for example, is to-day incontestably the first maritime power in the world. But why should not other nations be permitted to cherish the ambition of disputing with her the empire of the seas? Prussia has realized German union to the advantage of Germany, and has given to that country a formidable military force. Does any one believe that she would readily be induced to diminish it? . . . The more one reflects on the proposal, the more it bristles with difficulties. It is, in fact, quite utopian. Another Paris journal calls the proposal “a delightful dream,” and adds: “Alas! the amiable idea of the English prime minister is chimerical.” Thus we are again reminded that we are living in a period of the world’s history when a state of real peace among the nations is a chimerical idea, and acknowledged by the nations to be such. At best there is only an armed peace, with a crushing and constantly growing burden of military demands for men and money. The prophecy says that in this time the nations are angry, and even so it is. There are wars and rumors of war. And this period of strife and unrest is to continue to that great event of the nearness of which it is a sign, —the coming of the King of kings.