World Unity/Volume 5/Issue 5/Text

←Previous

World Unity Volume 5, Issue 5

Next→

Return to PDF view Proofread once

[Page 289]

WORLD UNITY

A Monthly Magazine for those who seek the world outlook JOHN HERMAN RANDALL, Editor HORACE HOLLEY, Managing Editor

CONTENTS

Mustapha Kemal — Frontispiece American Justice — Editorial India's Contribution to Religion, S. G. Pandit The Emerging Ideal of World Unity, John Herman Randall Geneva and International Cooperation, Bertram Pickard Nationalist Movements 1870 to 1914, Herbert Adams Gibbons The League and Backward Peoples, Dexter Perkins How Militaristic Is France? Armand Charpentier Disarmament, Ernest Judet Obsolete and Unjust Treaties, Ernest Ludwig Language and World Unity, C. F. Gates World Unity Conferences Round Table

Contributing Editors

ANSLET ATWOOD BARTHOLDY I BAUDLAN DE BEAUFORT TA. BENEKER BOVET BURTT CHARLESWORTH DON CREW PH 1. COFFEE ID DODOB DUHAMEL B. ECKSTBIN LOCK ELLIS ITE FOREL GATES GAVERNITZ IN GERLACH GIBBONS 1 GIBRAN OTTE P. GILMAN W. GRAHAM GRUNDMANN-CIENSKA H. HANKINS STACE HAYDON HAYES To ICHICHASHI CAI W. JOHNSON M. JONES STARR JORDAN IL LUCAS JOSHI T JUDET MIR KARAPETOPP Kuo BD Las Lavi Locke ERNEST LUDWIO GROROR DE LUKACS LOUIS L. MANN SIR JAMES MARCHANT VICTOR MAROUERITTE R. H. MARKHAM ALFRED W. MARTIN F. S. MARVIN KIRTLEY F. MATHER LUCIA AMES MEAD FRED MERRIFIELD KARIN MICHABLIS HERBERT A. MILLER DHAN GOPAL MUKERJI IDA MOLLER YONE NOGUCHI H. A. OVERSTREET DEXTER PERKINS J. H. RANDALL, JR. M. D. REDLICH FORREST REID PAUL RICHARD CHARLES RICHET NICHOLAS ROBRICH TH. RUYSSEN NATHANIEL SCHMIDT WILLIAM R. SHEPHERD MARY SIBORIST ABBA HILLEL SILVER ISIDOR SINGER DAVID G. STEAD AUGUSTUS O. THOMAS GILBERT THOMAS ISABELLA VAN METER RUSTUM VAMBERY WALTER WALSH HANS WERBERO M. P. WILLCOCKS FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT

WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE is published by WORLD UNITY PUBLISHING CORPORATION, 4 East 12th Street, New York City: MARY RUMSEY MOVIUS, president; HORACE HOLLEY, vice-president; FLOR- ENCE MORTON, treasurer; JOHN HERMAN RANDALL, Cretary. Published monthly, 35 cents a copy, $3.50 a year in the United States and in all other countries (postage included). Printed in U. S. A. Contents copyrighted 1930 by WORLD UNITY PUBLISHING CORPORATION. [Page 290]

MUSTAPHA KEMAL

Portrait drawing by Orré Nobles in Eminent Asians by Josef Washington Hall (Upton Close). The D. Appleton Company.

"His greatest significance to a watching West is the demonstration in his personality and accomplishment that Asia, sterile as she may seem, carries within herself the seeds of her own salvation, and that these, at times when the world least expects receive unexpected fecundation from the violating West, to b brought to birth in the travail of the East's indignation." [Page 291]

AMERICAN JUSTICE

HUMAN history observed as a whole offers the only mirror—short of a revelation—in which can be seen the real meaning of collective action. By confining ourselves to mere historical segments, like national annals, the development of a religious body or the continuity of a cultural form, we miss utterly the true course of social action and reaction, dealing with devitalized symbols and insubstantial shadows instead of life. Who can discern the destiny of Europe in terms of French, German or English history alone? How appreciate the present relation of the United States to the world if we consider merely the naïve pride of the American or the equally naïve apprehension of other, not less patriotic nationals? What is the fundamental significance of the rise of communism apart from knowledge of the failure of spiritual ideals identified with other social philosophies over large areas and long periods?

If communism is the nemesis of individualistic capitalism and not its competitor, an inevitable reaction to an established order and not an independent movement, we have in this one case a field of social observation which utterly repudiates the segmentary view of history and dooms to futility the political action based on that view. Communism, approached as an incident in world history, appears to be part of an equation containing capitalism as another member; and the same approach to capitalism reveals communism as its concomitant at a certain stage.

The most trenchant interpretations written about America today reflect European and Oriental experience. By these interpretations the forecast of America’s future is made to repeat the experience of previous nations that have grown to empire and [Page 292]eventually been overthrown. How such interpretations and forecasts fail to deal with the larger social setting, the world environment, which for the first time conditions the momentum of self-centered national policy! America might be another Rome, might be the successor of the British Empire, might be the fulfilment of any arbitrary view, provided American character and opportunity acted upon an environment capable of shaping its destiny along one particular line. The truth is, America’s destiny has become a co-destiny with that of every other living people, since aloofness and isolation are vanished factors in this modern world.

A composite image of America as pictured in other countries today etches deeply the qualities embodied in hypocrisy. The power, even when resented, might be envied and admired, but the pretense of a new order of justice in national policy, when accompanied by stark imperialism in the Caribbean area, infuriates and provokes the extreme of contempt. A little steady contemplation of this image, especially when set side by side with that other image Americans themselves have gradually drawn, from Washington and Jefferson to Wilson, will be a wholesome experience for all who voted either for Hoover or Smith.

It is of course a fact that American influence has expanded faster than our realization of its many meanings. It is also true that the past—i.e., what other nations have done under similar circumstances—supplies few precedents and little inspiration for the application of an attitude of unswerving justice in international affairs. This may explain current American policy, but it cannot spare Americans from suffering the consequences of their own injustice later on when its reactions are fully released.

If there is to be an "American justice" in concrete fact as well as in abstract desire, what better beginning could be made than a Pan-American treaty under which every incident arising between the United States and any other American nation would be adjudicated by a representative Pan-American Court? American power can be overthrown, but American justice can be made the political and economic basis of a new world order. [Page 293]

INDIA'S CONTRIBUTION TO RELIGION

ITS EFFECT ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

by S. G. PANDIT Attorney, Los Angeles

THE Outstanding and unique contribution of the Hindus to religion has a very special significance for a real and uncoerced betterment of international relations. I shall, therefore, attempt to summarise, as clearly as I may, the thought and attitude of the Hindus in this matter, as presented in their literature from the earliest times and as manifested in their daily life.

Almost every religion in the world is forced to hang its head in shame at the fact of the butchery and bloodshed that has been perpetrated by its followers, on numerous occasions, in the name of the love of God or in that of the service of man's eternal welfare. I need only mention as examples, the massacres of the Protestants by the "bloody Mary" (queen of England), which were paralleled by the massacres of the Catholics effected by her sister whom the Protestants have called the "good queen Bess"; the Islamic practice of offering the Koran, and if it were rejected; piously severing the infidels' heads; the horrors that devastated the populations of Mexico and Peru under the Spanish Christian conception of zeal for the service of God and for the salvation of man. Probably Hinduism is the only religion that has never, in all its history, spilled one drop of human blood with the fancied object of extending God's kingdom or saving other people's souls. It may, therefore, not be without some possible use for us to look into the genesis of this happy consummation in the sunshine of [Page 294]which at least one religion seems always to have basked. For therein may be found some hint of a method which can be employed to neutralize the sourness that, among nations, curdles effort into the shame and bestiality of war.

We all recognize that different kinds of food are required to supply the needs for growth of human bodies at different ages and in varying conditions of health—and that the forcing of a stereotyped diet on the infant, the child, the youth, the adult, the aged, the sick and the well, would result in some sort of a slaughter of the innocents. Hinduism recognizes that a similar principle applies in feeding the souls of men, in supplying their intellectual and emotional, as well as their spiritual, wants. Hence the universality and all-inclusiveness of Hinduism: for the little ones the worship of God as reflected in toy images—the picture-books of religion; for others the communion with the grandeur and beauty of God in the objects of Nature—the sky, the wind, the mountains, the rivers, the sun, the moon, the stars and the trees; for still others the strenuous effort to sublimate all dross so the human may become a fitter vessel for the Divine to shine through; and numerous other variations. Hinduism, then, includes in its technic for spiritual growth the rationale of idolatry, polytheism, monotheism, pantheism, atheism, agnosticism and numerous variants. And each of them is regarded as a method suited to some particular stage of spiritual stature for its further growth and development.

In other words the Hindu regards the different religions of the world, or the various aspects of his own religion, as different roads all leading to God from different stages or directions, corresponding to the varieties of spiritual growth. He regards each religion as most valuable for the individual adapted to it by birth, environment, education, etc. Hence, he considers any effort towards converting a man to another religion as futile and even mischievous. The only conversion he believes in is of oneself and of no one else, and it has to come from within and is a continuing process. There is no such thing as a "one and only true religion"; and in the very nature of things such a notion is a product of pro- [Page 295]

India's Contribution to Religion

vincialism and exaggerated egoism. The Hindu's view in this matter may be brought out more clearly by a story which was recently told by a Los Angeles teacher who had been giving lessons in biology and psychology for a considerable time to a devout Roman Catholic girl. One day he said to his pupil: "Now, you realise, don't you, that if you had been born to, and brought up by, devout Muhammedan parents in Arabia or Turkey you would most likely have been a devout Muhammedan and would have come to believe in Muhammedanism as the one and only true religion as you now regard the Roman Catholic form of Christianity. And similarly under appropriate other parentage and devotional environment you could have been a devout Confucian in China, Taöist in Japan, Greek Catholic in Russia, or Protestant in Holland." "Yes, yes, I quite admit that," said the pupil. "But, professor, I thank God that He had me born in the one and only true religion, and that He saved me from the terrible misfortune of devoutly accepting, as I might have done, a false faith and being for ever damned."

Dr. John B. Watson has shown pretty conclusively, in his studies in behaviorism, that most religious beliefs are acquired through conditioning and have little to do with the intrinsic truth or falsity of such beliefs. Analytic psychology also points to a similar genesis of all unquestioned and unquestionable beliefs in "infantile fixations" which come to be regarded as self-evident and altogether above and beyond reason.

Hinduism seems to be particularly concerned in maintaining the fluidity of beliefs as opposed to their stagnation and crystallisation, and insists that each belief is capable of proving itself useful to the appropriate individual; but that after all, it is only a crutch which must be later transcended if one is to travel onward and upward to the Truth which is God. For religious beliefs are merely means to an end. They are not, and cannot be, absolutely true. For Truth of God is infinite; while human language and human thought are, in their very nature, limited. The limited obviously cannot encompass the infinite. Therefore everything that can be said, nay! everything that can be thought, is, in the [Page 296]strict sense of the term, untrue. All religions, therefore, are untrue, in so far as they lay claim to being the Truth; their function is merely to supply a technic whereby we may develop the power or faculty to make an ever closer approach to an understanding of the absolute Truth which is God, by using the ladders of religion and finally transcending them.

The search of the man of religion is for the absolute Truth of that Uncontained Unity which he calls God and which the man of science calls Nature. The method used by both is the method of all mundane knowledge, viz. the selecting of certain details and isolating those from the rest. But in so doing—in isolating such and such details—we practically beg the question we are in search of; and moreover in supposing such isolation we suppose what is false, and therefore vitiate our conclusion. This method has been spoken of as the method of ignorance or avidyd, in other words, of ignoring that which is inconvenient or inexpedient, and it may be illustrated even from that most exact science, Mathematics, and in its most perfect branch, Astronomy. Mathematicians have assured us that the moon in its passage round the earth describes an ellipse. But does it in reality? We must remember that while the moon is moving around the earth the latter is circling round the sun at a terrific pace, which makes it impossible for the moon to finish any closed curve around the earth at any time. We may only say that the moon is always starting a new ellipse in its motion round the earth but never gets the chance to complete one. But that is not all. There are perturbations produced in the path of the moon by its greater or less closeness to the earth in different periods of the month, and in the earth's orbit by its greater or less proximity to the sun in different seasons of the year as also by the proximity to or distance from it of other heavenly bodies at different times. Moreover, astronomers tell us that the whole solar system including the sun, earth, moon and other members of the system are moving at a tremendous rate of speed toward a distant point in space. What, then, becomes of the ellipse that the moon's orbit is held to describe around the earth? Why! it has no existence, it is not real. We may speak of it [Page 297]

INDIA'S CONTRIBUTION TO RELIGION

as merely a fiction, arrived at by the method of avidyà, or ignorance, or ignoring. That is, granting the truth of the Newtonian law of gravitation (which Einstein has shaken up rather badly) and ignoring the existence of other bodies in space, and ignoring the rapid motion of the earth round the sun, and ignoring the stupendous motion of the solar system itself, if we merely consider the gravitational force as acting between the moon and the earth—the former would describe an ellipse around the latter. But our assumptions are false; the assumed state of things never has, does not, and probably never will exist. Obviously the elliptical orbit of the moon has never existed, does not exist, and probably will never exist. It has an existence merely in the mind, and is a fiction.

However, it has been said that the elliptical orbit must be real because eclipses of the moon can be calculated on that theory. But eclipses of the moon were almost equally well calculated, before the formulation of the elliptical theory, on the older epicyclical theory of Tycho Brahe. As John Stuart Mill, among others, has shown, the ability to predict does not prove the truth of the thoery on which the prediction is based. It merely indicates that the theory is good enough for the purposes of that prediction.

The views of religion—in common with the views of science—are, therefore, like the views of a mountain; each is only possible as long as you limit yourself to a certain standpoint. Move your position and the view is changed.

It should, therefore, be the proud privilege of religion to seek to encompass the Truth from as many angles as possible, and to harmonise effort—not by coercion, nor even by toleration, but by loving acceptance of the different religions and beliefs as honest gropings of finite minds after the Infinite. A necessary corrective to the danger of stagnation and to the intrusion of fraud is supplied by the admission and encouragement of complete freedom of thought and its expression—no matter how critical of, or in opposition to, the generally accepted or established order of things.

A considerable stress is laid in Hinduism on the technic for the development of the faculty whereby Truth or God may be [Page 298]when develop and being are truly known; and we are told that in the exercise of this faculty, is realised the supernal fact that real knowing

The whole system of Yoga is devoted to the study and exon of this technic. I shall content myself here by stating ’s pointed out by the great saint of modern India, Mahatmá -who literally practises what he preaches even in the turm ctive political life-that for the generation of soul-force there ust exist the actual practice of truthfulness, fearlessness, conscious and willing suffering for others-all inspired by profound love. It is only by serving here and now our fellowman (no matter of what religion or belief), in ways suited to him, that limited as we are, we may attain to a glimpse and a foretaste of the serene majesty and unruffled joy of the Infinite. For if we cannot love our fellowman whom we see, how shall we love God whom yet we cannot see?

Religion, to the Hindu mind, is not essentially a matter of the dead bones of formulated beliefs, but it is preeminently a living and dynamic process of fundamental growth leading to ever greater heights of self-unfoldment and mellowness of spirit. The religious or spiritual status of a man is determinable not by the labels placed on him by himself or by others-such as Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muhammedan, atheist, agnostic etc.-nor by the burden of self-imposed religiosity under which he may be bowed to his misplaced satisfaction. It is to be determined rather by the natural simplicity of his living and by the measure in which there shines out through him, without the least affectation or self-consciousness, the free radiance of the Deity who "maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust." [Page 299]

THE WORLD COMMUNITY

The Supreme Task of the Twentieth Century by JOHN HERMAN RANDALL

The Emerging Ideal of World Unity

ALL the lesser struggles of our time—political, social, economic, moral and religious—can be traced to two sets of forces: the forces making for disunity and strife on the one hand, and those making for unity and cooperation on the other. It is also clear that the disunifying forces belong to an age that is gone. They grew out of conditions that no longer exist; they are anachronisms today. The forces making for unity and cooperation, however, are just as clearly the products of the new age. They are the inevitable outgrowths of the new science, the new civilization, and the new cultural knowledge; they constitute indeed the very genius of the modern age. But the old forces are still largely in the saddle, for old forces always die hard; while the new forces are as yet in the process of birth.

The real struggle today, let it be remembered, is not between opposing forces in one civilization. It is much more profound and thoroughgoing than that. It is the conflict between two totally ifferent civilizations; and the problem is how to preserve all that is good and true in the old while adjusting ourselves frankly and intelligently to the new. Deeper than all schemes of reorganization, all new social programs, all economic readjustments, all Creeds of the modernists, the one fact that stands forth above all the confusion and uncertainty of our times is the fact that this world must achieve a kind of unity that has never yet existed. It must find the way to a cooperation that man has never yet known. [Page 300]It must create a fellowship between races and nations and classes and creeds that has never yet been experienced. This is no longer a matter of choice but of the sternest necessity; the grim logic of events demands it.

The kind of a world into which we have come, the very nature of the life we are now forced to live on this planet, thanks to science and industrialism, demand imperatively this new spirit of unity, this world-wide cooperation, this true and intelligent fellowship. The old barriers of ignorance and prejudice, of separation and division, leading sooner or later to strife and war, are hopelessly doomed; they no more belong to the twentieth century than the petty quarrels of childhood belong in the life of the full-grown man. Not to see this is to be absolutely blind to the significance of what is taking place in the world today. And to have no intelligent part in this supreme struggle of our age is to miss the greatest opportunity that life affords to this generation.

In the strict sense, however, this is not a new ideal; it is as old as the great prophets of the race. For from earliest times, in every age and clime, there have been men of vision who have foreseen the coming day when there should be unity in the divided life of mankind, when a genuine human brotherhood should come to exist on this earth. This has been the teaching of prophets of religion from Lao-Tze down to Bahá’u’lláh. But their followers have rarely grasped the lofty vision, and even those who did, have been powerless to make the dream come true. The conditions necessary for its realization were not yet ripe.

The ideal of the Middle Ages as voiced by Dante, was in reality far removed from the ideal that is emerging in human consciousness today. It implied uniformity both in political and in religious control. It would have tended to minimize and eventually to destroy the unique elements in the cultural life and ideals of other peoples, gradually substituting the standardized systems of Roman government and of the Roman Catholic Church. Any such uniformity, which is a mechanical thing foisted on from outside, had it been possible of achievement, would have proved fatal to all growth and progress in man's life. [Page 301]

THE EMERGING IDEAL OF WORLD UNITY

The last thing that any sane man wants today anywhere is uniformity of any kind. We know today that we are living in a dynamic, not a static world—a world that is constantly growing, and therefore, constantly changing; and anything that even savors of uniformity, whether in outward forms or in man's thinking, is neither desirable or possible. The unity for which the twentieth century is searching has nothing whatever to do with uniformity—whether in government, in social institutions, in economic systems, in morals or in religion. One of our great gains is not only the recognition of the rights of other peoples to think their own thoughts, create their own institutions, and work out their own civilizations in their own way; we have also come to see that only through such diversities of experimentation in forms of government or social institutions or morals, by different peoples, can progress be made by all peoples, through the eventual discovery of better and more adequate methods for meeting new conditions as they arise.

It is a unity in diversity, therefore, that we seek, and that we must find—a unity that exists, not in spite of differences alone but even because of them, a unity that necessarily goes deeper than all differences, that recognizes them all, respects them all, yes and that accepts them all, and yet, that dares to believe that underlying all these differences there is a moral and spiritual unity that can, and should, bind us all together as the integral members of the living body of humanity. It is a unity that ever seeks to create a new synthesis of the best and truest in the life of all peoples, that would not destroy any distinctive contribution which different races and nations have to make to the common life of man, but rather, that seeks to preserve these differences and blend them into one living Whole.

The unity we seek, therefore, is first of all, a spiritual thing—a mental attitude, a temper of soul, a new way of thinking and feeling, that is the direct outgrowth of a clear realization of the new relations into which we have come on this planet, and an intelligent understanding of the new knowledge we have gained [Page 302]of other peoples. Thus it is a growth in the widening of consciousness, not a mechanical something foisted on from the outside. But this new knowledge cannot remain inactive; it must seek ever wider expression in new conceptions, new ideals, new methods, new efforts, looking toward the realization in the life of the world of this new and broader consciousness that has been gained.

It is profoundly significant to note that, without exception, all the books dealing most competently with international problems and world affairs that are coming from both sides of the Atlantic, written by the recognized scholars, publicists, and students of human affairs, are in singular agreement as to the unmistakable trend of events and the imperative necessity of achieving a unity and a cooperation in the life of nations that does not now exist, before it is too late. These authors do not all agree as to means and methods, but they are absolutely at one in their emphasis upon the interdependence of all peoples today, the irreparable loss to, and the unquestionable ultimate downfall of civilization if the old international anarchy, moral irresponsibility and selfish individualism on the part of nations are to continue, and the consequent demand that the nations must set themselves to the supreme task of learning how to live and work together on this planet in the spirit of friendliness, cooperation and peace.

Such writers, whose judgment and conclusions cannot be ignored or taken lightly, are not in the class of the blind idealists; they are not actuated by motives of sentiment; they are not moralizing in the name of religion; they are in no sense apostles of any millennium. On the contrary, they are the grimmest realists of our time; they have dared to face frankly the facts of the new world into which we have been brought, they know the past out of which this new world has come, and they are familiar with the many complex influences which have worked together to produce the Great Society. They see not only the trend of things but they realize clearly the inexorable logic of events; they know, as the multitudes do not, that we have come to a turning point in history, that one epoch is closing and a new chapter must open if humanity is to continue to make progress. [Page 303]

THE EMERGING IDEAL OF WORLD UNITY

These writers are in no sense mere alarmists; they are among the soberest, sanest, keenest observers and students of world affairs. Most of them do not dare to express in detail all the dark forebodings that fill their minds as they contemplate the possibilities that lie before us for the ultimate destruction of civilization; they can only hint at these in general terms. They are in the truest sense the great prophets of this day and generation; they are interpreting for us the meaning of this critical age. They are pointing out in unmistakable terms the ruin that lies beyond if we persist in following the old ways; but they are also outlining for us the possibilities of a new and better day for mankind; and they are helping us to see how many of the events that have taken place since the war are leading in the direction of a truer unity and a closer cooperation in the life of nations. They are thus neither hopeless pessimists nor blind optimists as they confront the future, but clear-eyed, disinterested and thoughtful leaders, speaking the deepest they know and feel to a careless, unthinking, confused and selfish age.

It is hardly just to blame previous generations, or to condemn religion in toto, because of the failure in the past to realize human brotherhood here upon earth. When we stop to reflect, we realize that if anything approximating human brotherhood, or a fellowship among nations and peoples, is to be realized there are certain fundamental conditions that must first come into existence.

First, there must exist physical contacts between peoples, with easy means of communication breaking through all barriers of space and distance, thus making possible the acquaintance that must always precede friendship and the sense of brotherhood. It is only during the last century that such means of communication have come into existence; and hence it is only during that period that races and nations have had the opportunity of really becoming acquainted with one another. So long as peoples were separated by vast stretches of land and water, and rarely if ever: came into contact with each other; so long as they did not know cach other even in the most casual way, the ideals of prophet and seer could have no translation into reality. [Page 304]Second, there must exist the sense of a community of interests, if human brotherhood or a fellowship of nations is ever to be achieved. So long as the various peoples lived their separate lives, in isolation from one another, so long as each nation was practically independent and self-sufficient, and able to supply all the basic needs of its people from within its own borders, so long as each people thus worked out its own destiny in its own way, developing its own forms of government, its social institutions, its economic systems, its morals and religion, with little or no influence from other peoples, there could be of necessity no sense of a community of interests. In the nature of the case, there could be no desire for, nor appreciation of, the need of a fellowship among nations; even the ideal of a human brotherhood could have little or no meaning. But with the rise and spread of the new industrial civilization all such conditions under which the nations had lived for centuries were radically transformed. Just as isolation in space has given place to proximity, so independence and self-sufficiency have given way gradually to the closest and most complex kind of interdependence between nations. It is now all for each and each for all, and each nation must have the help of all other peoples, in some form, or else perish. This sense of the community of interests of all peoples, in which strong and weak alone must share, the dominant characteristic of this new age, by no means in and of itself insures a fellowship of nations or a sense of human brotherhood. On the other hand, this sense of a veritable community of interests, as it develops further, may lead to more friendly relations, securing a larger measure of justice for all peoples, and banishing present fears and suspicions. At any rate, a community of interests must be the precursor of an extension of the spirit of cooperation and mutual working together. It may at length bring about international fellowship; without it, any fellowship or brotherhood between nations is nothing but a dream.

In the third place, before the spirit of cooperation and brotherhood can come to control the relations of nations, there must be gained such a knowledge of other peoples—their types of [Page 305]

THE EMERGING IDEAL OF WORLD UNITY

civilization, institutions, religions, etc.-as shall tend to break down the old barriers of ignorance and prejudice, and in their place, develop a truly intelligent understanding and appreciation of these other peoples, and of the great contributions they have to make to the general cultural life of man. Understanding must always precede fellowship, whether with nations or individuals. And this is the very thing that the scientific investigator in every held has been making increasingly possible for all who read and reflect, all who travel and observe. In the light of all this new knowledge, made available during the last century, there has come to exist, in many quarters and in many minds, such an understanding and growing appreciation of other nations, races and peoples. In itself, this is one of the prerequisite conditions for any realization of the age-old ideal; and as it becomes more widely extended, it should lead the way toward that larger fellowship in the life of peoples.

As previous chapters have pointed out in detail, these three prerequisite conditions to the realization of man's ancient dream have been brought to pass in our day and generation, through the changes wrought by science, by our industrial civilization, and by the new knowledge we have gained. Let it be remembered, these conditions do not necessarily insure the coming of human brotherhood, but at least, they make it possible, as it has never before been possible in all the past. The physical and material foundations for a world community have indeed been laid; there remains the building of the adequate and worthy mental and moral superstructure on this new foundation. Whether it will be built depends upon man himself. But if man has, all unconsciously perhaps, created for the first time, through science and industrialism, the conditions necessary to the coming of a world community, shall we deny to him the mental and moral ability to rear upon these foundations the nobler superstructure they demand?

This new ideal of a world unity that is emerging with the birth of a world-consciousness in hearts and minds everywhere, has not yet been translated into the concrete terms of any hard and fast program. It is not a dogmatic creed, but a living faith [Page 306]and a burning hope. It does not believe in panaceas for all the world's ills; it preaches no short-cut to the millennium. In fact, it firmly believes that any millennium that may be reached in this world is only another milestone toward something still better and nobler that lies beyond. It has caught a vision and attained a glimpse of what may be possible in the new world, and it dares to dedicate its all to that possibility. Facing all the facts, dark and menacing, as well as bright and promising, with a clear and realistic knowledge of the old forces at work in the world, making for disunity, misunderstanding, hatred and strife, it dares to believe that through the educational process, using the term in its broadest sense, nations as well as individuals can be led to readjust first their thinking, and then their lives and practices, so as to bring them into harmony at length with the new ideals dawning on humanity. It is not a task for a decade or a century. and, of course, in the full sense, the task will never be completed But it must be begun, and the hour is now. Not to take advantage of these new conditions, and of all our new knowledge, to say nothing of the widespread sentiment now finding expression in all countries for world peace and understanding, would be to prove ourselves utterly unworthy of the age in which we live.

It is possible only to give a bare suggestion of what this ideal of world unity involves. The time has not come for detailed programs; the next steps will become clear only as the ideal is more generally accepted, and the new spirit spreads. There must come, first of all, the realization of the oneness of all life, the awareness of the new relations resulting from the changes the last century has wrought, the seeing clearly that just as individuals are the various members of the living body of the nation, so nations are the various members of the living body of humanity. that the fate of each today is bound up inextricably with the fate of all. And with the realization of all these facts, there must come the frank and loyal acceptance by nations and individuals of the ideal of world unity as the only working hypothesis, the one great synthesis toward which all the struggles of the past have been slowly leading. [Page 307]

THE EMERGING IDEAL OF WORLD UNITY

This new ideal also involves the working out of principles of group morality, to guide nations and peoples in their relations to one another. We must come to see that there are moral ideals for collective man as well as for the individual, and that nations must give allegiance to such ideals and principles; that no nation has the right to do whatever it has the power to do—the only principle that has governed nations in the past. Each nation must impose on itself laws analogous to those it imposes on the individual. Whatever is a crime for the individual is also a crime for his country. If selfishness, cupidity, robbery, violence and murder are looked upon as vile and degrading for individual men, how can collective man, that is the nation, commit such acts without dishonor? In what does the honor of a nation differ from the honor of an individual? And of what use is it for a nation to assert this honor and defend it with her arms if she herself continually violates it publicly by her practices of plunder and her acts of disloyalty? The honor of a man consists neither in his strength nor riches. It lies rather in the spirit and manner in which strength and riches are acquired and the way in which they are employed. Honor consists not in control of others, but in self-control, in self-respect and respect for our fellows. When will the nations cease to boast of the very thing that degrades them even as it degrades the individual? For why should the citizen be more honest, or just or humane than his country? And how is it that up to the present individuals have accepted condemnation for the very acts in which their country glories? Or, rather, how is it that they have allowed their rulers to commit, in the name of their country, acts which must be infamous in citizens? The mother-country must set the example. If it is shameful for the individual to exploit the weak, to treat the helpless with scorn, to use his superior strength against the defenseless, then the mother-country must not and shall not do these same things. It is this new conscience that must be sought and created in nations as well as in men, that shall lead at length to higher ethical standards for international relations.

The new ideal involves also a frank analysis of the forces at [Page 308]work in the world’s life, and a realistic recognition of the great obstacles that lie in the way of the realization of the ideal of world unity. We shall never approach the goal merely by writing books or preaching sermons on its beauty and desirability. It is only when we come to see and understand fully the political, economic, psychological and moral difficulties that prevent its coming, and are determined to remove the deep-seated causes that breed disunity and strife, that we are in a position even to begin our great task.

Above all, the new ideal demands the open mind, the attitude of inquiry, receptivity to new ideas and methods, infinite patience. and a living faith in the ability of human intelligence to achieve at length a world community. Those who are wedded to the past. who are determined to crystallize things in the status quo, who believe that human nature can never be changed, who have no faith in any different or better world, will of course play no direct part in bringing in a new world order. By temperament and by training such conservative elements in society will hinder and impede the march of progress as they have always done, content to act as a check on new ideas and methods of procedure that proceed from an excess of zeal without knowledge.

The responsibility for preparing the way for the coming of a world community will rest of necessity on the forward-looking minority, who know the facts of our new relations, who realize their significance, and who, in consequence, have visualized the possibility of a new and better world order. They must become, in all possible ways, the centers of influence from which the new knowledge shall radiate in all directions, permeating by degrees school and church and press, and thus gradually creating a body of public opinion and conviction that shall compel rulers and statesmen to abandon old policies and methods and turn their attention to the readjustment of governments to the demands and spirit of the new age.

This will involve the increasing development of the same scientific method and spirit in the social sciences that has already found expression in the physical Sciences, and a frank recognition [Page 309]

THE EMERGING IDEAL OF WORLD UNITY

that it is only through the scientific, rather than the older political methods, that the desirable changes can be brought about. To this end the social engineers and technicians, as rapidly as they are developed, must no longer be regarded as "theorists," or "mere idealists," but must be recognized and accepted for what they are the trained and competent experts in their particular field of social control and social reorganization, to whom rulers and statesmen must look for light on the new problems that old methods and formulas have proved themselves unable to solve. There must come the willingness to enter new paths, and explore new territory, and attempt new methods and policies in the experimental spirit, for only thus can we ever hope to discover the best roads to the new order.

If these suggested prerequisites demanded by the new ideal of a world community seem impossible of attainment, requiring an almost superhuman ability and effort, the only reply is that the very exigencies of the age, the grave dangers threatening civilization on any other course, may arouse the people to the unusual effort, may awaken the needed intelligence, and may call forth the trained leadership necessary to bring about the imperative changes demanded in world relations. If the critical times through which we are now passing cannot succeed in doing this, then there is little hope for a better future.

Before his death, Victor Hugo is reported to have said: "Today we have the United States of America; tomorrow we shall have the United States of Europe; and then, one day, we shall have the United States of the World."

If we could today organize de novo this new world which science and industrialism with all their interdependence of peoples have created, in accordance with reason and commonsense and without regard to any past, there is little doubt but that it would take on the general form of a United States of the World. But history forbids that; we must take nations as well as peoples as they are, and the heavy hand of the traditional past with all its settled habits of thinking and its deep-seated emotional attitudes prevents nations as well as men from acting logically or rationally. [Page 310]Man has a long way yet to go before he becomes a rational creature, especially in those group relationships where the psychology of the crowd dominates all action.

In view of the iron grasp of tradition on peoples, the very idea of a United States of Europe may seem utterly chimerical, and a United States of the World the ravings of an abnormal mind. Nevertheless, there are not a few of the most thoughtful minds in Europe who are visualizing such a goal as the only ultimate solution of both the political and economic problems of that continent. They realize the tremendous difficulties in the way, and they know that it will not come in any immediate future; but they also see that the whole trend of events, as exemplified in the international cartels already cutting across all national boundaries, is in the direction of an ever closer interdependence and unity in the economic life of Europe, regardless of political nationalisms.

Bertrand Russell has recently suggested that the present course of economic life points to the formation first, of some sort of Federation of the States of Europe, then of some kind of Federation of the States of the two Americas, already forecast by the Pan-American Union, and also of some sort of Federation of the peoples of the Orient. When the various states have come together in these three natural geographical groups, he continues, it will be but another step to the merging of these three groups into a United States of the World, provided, of course, the generations then alive have become sufficiently emancipated from the dead hand of the past to organize their life on a sane, rational and sensible basis.

Such a consummation will not come in our lifetime or in that of our children's children, but there is something thrilling in the thought that we who are alive today may have some real part in furthering the movement toward that great end. [Page 311]

THE WORLD WE LIVE IN

Men live less and less in geographical and more and more in spiritual communities. The involuntary elements of existence tend to be limited to the regional area, the voluntary elements find increasing opportunity of self-expression through association of likeminded people selected out of the entire population by identity of interests and ideals. In this department, World Unity Magazine will publish rach month a brief description of some important modern movement, voluntary in character and humanitarian in aim, believing that knowledge of these activities is not only essential to the world outlook, but also offers the true remedy for the sense of isolation and loneliness which has followed the breakdown of the traditional local neighborhood.

Geneva As Center of the Cooperation of Private International Organizations

by BERTRAM PICKARD Secretary, Service International de la Société des Amis (Quakers)

HOSE who have read in "WORLD UNITY" a plea for the Mundaneum at Geneva, will, doubtless, be interested to know something with regard to the actual progress in cooperation among the growing number of private international bodies established there-a progress that has just resulted in the inauguration, on June 25, of the Federation of Private and Semi-Official International Organizations Established at Geneva.

To understand the significance of this step a brief backward glance at the growth of international organization is desirable. Before the war there were, in addition to some 20 public international bodies established by Treaty or Convention, some 400 private international organizations. These last had already begun to work out a tentative collaboration under the inspiration and guidance of the Union des Associations Internationales at Brussels.

The War, inevitably, disintegrated or disorganized the majority of these, but the process of the voluntary formation of spiritual communities went forward faster than ever after the [Page 312]war, so that today, according to League of Nations computation, there are some 600 private international organizations, not counting a further 200 organizations with semi-commercial aims Moreover, 200 of them have sprung into existence since 1926! The headquarters of these bodies are widely spread but the chief centers of concentration are as follows: Paris, 100; Brussels, 54; London, 52; Geneva, 47 (League Computation).

Despite the fact that Geneva appears at the end of the list, its pre-eminence as the pivotal point of international collaboration is uncontested for two reasons. First, the presence here of the League of Nations and the International Labor Organization make Geneva unique for purposes of information and propaganda Second, quite apart from the manifold meetings held under the auspices of League and I. L. O., Geneva has become the mecca of international Congresses and Summer Schools (22 in 1926; 37 in 1927; 25 in 1928). Moreover, the compactness of the town makes Geneva unrivalled for personal contacts.

At least two important international organizations (the International Committee of the Red Cross and the World Committee of the Y. M. C. A.) were established in Geneva before the war; but with the advent of the League and I. L. O. these multiplied apace. By 1926 there were about 25. Today the number has doubled. In addition to those organizations passing the strict "international" criterion for inclusion in the League’s Year Book, there are a number of other institutions that are international in aim and method.

The development of useful cooperation as between these bodies has been marked by four phases.

The first step was taken on November 11, 1925, when the Friends International Center convened representatives of the organizations then established at Geneva to a joint meeting when each in turn spoke of their respective aims and purposes.

The second phase was the institution of monthly lunches (or dinners) held under the auspices of the Society of Friends, the object of which was to foster acquaintaneeship and mutual understanding as between the members of the international community, [Page 313]

GENEVA AS CENTER OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

and to discuss, after expert introduction, matters of common interest.

The third step was the creation, with the generous cooperation of a Genevese Society, of a Permanent Center of International Information, the purpose of which was to achieve an effective material coordination by the centralization of information and the publication and distribution of a Year Book of the Geneva organizations and a single Program with particulars each year of ail the Suminer Schools, Congresses, etc., taking place in Geneva.

This led inevitably to the final step, the formation of a very simple kind of Federation of the bodies concerned, to watch over the common interests of the affiliated societies in respect to their activity at Geneva.

More than 40 organizations have already adhered to the Federation including such important bodies as the Interparliamentary Union, the Post-Graduate Institute of International Studies, the World's Committee of the Y. M. C. A., the World Student Christian Federation, the International Council of Women.

These are simple beginnings and there is no desire on the part of the Committee of the Federation to force the effort at cooperation too far or too fast. But the value of the simple machinery established is undoubted; and the future development of Geneva as the great symbol of human unity is something of universal concern and interest. [Page 314]

NATIONALISM AND INTERNATIONALISM

by HERBERT ADAMS GIBBONS Historian

Nationalist Movements from 1870 to 1914

THE Congress of Berlin established a new principle in the direction of European affairs. At Vienna, in 1815, victors in a war gathered to make peace. The territories whose fate they decided belonged to the countries engaged in the war or affected by it through invasion and actual changes made under the Napoleonic régime. The Congress of Paris, in 1856, assembled after a war in which some of its members had been involved, and it confined its work, in so far as territorial matters were concerned, to the regions and problems on account of which the war had been fought. The Congress of Berlin, in 1878, was a veritable "Concert of the Great Powers." It was called, not to reestablish boundaries upset by war, not as a peace conference between victors and vanquished, but in order to prevent war.

The curious thing about it was that since the Congress of Paris three of the six Great Powers had been created by the triumph of nationalism in wars. Prussia had fought Denmark, Austria, and France. Austria had fought France and Piedmont, then Prussia and the new Kingdom of Italy. She had also participated in the war over the duchies against Denmark. Sardinia (Piedmont), we remember, had intervened in the Crimean War in order to get international standing in the peace conference that would follow. Great Britain and France had fought Russia to save Turkey. Russia had fought Turkey three times within fifty years to emancipate the Christians of the Ottoman Empire. Great [Page 315]

NATIONALIST MOVEMENTS FROM 1870 TO 1914

Britain, as we have seen, was ready to renew the war against Russia.

There had been too many wars! Europe was exhausted. 1854, 1859, 1864, 1866, 1870, 1877. It was too much! Industrialism was making the Powers prosperous, and they were beginning to intensify and greatly enlarge the scope of their politico-economic activities in Africa and Asia. The Suez Canal had been in operation for eight years, and it had made a great change.

International finance wanted no more wars, and said so quite plainly. Most important of all, the big questions that Vienna had not settled seemed to have been solved by these wars. Germany and Italy, having achieved their union, and Austria having found a new modus vivendi, were ready to frown with the others upon any new troubles due to nationalism. Russia, in fact, was much in the same frame of mind as the other Great Powers. She did not have more submerged nations under her rule than Great Britain. But hers were all in contiguous territory, and the Polish problem was one of prime importance that she shared with the new Germany and the new Austria-Hungary.

Utter selfishness, callous indifference to the rights of the weak or to their sufferings, have probably always been the keynote of diplomacy. This was never more strikingly illustrated than at Berlin. Disraeli was the dominant factor in the Congress. But the statesmen of the other powers were imbued with the same determination as he was to preserve peace, even if it meant the sacrifice of everything the Balkan insurgents had gained by the outpouring of their blood.

A sop was thrown to the feelings of British Liberals, of whom Gladstone was the spokesman, in certain clauses—proven later to be meaningless—protecting the rights of Armenians, Cretans, Macedonians, and other subject peoples. The regions in Asia Minor of Ancient Armenia, which Russia had freed from the Turks, were partly put back under Turkish rule, thus eventually condemning their inhabitants to death. Macedonia was restored to Turkey, and we shall see how fatal that was not only to the Christians of the region but to the peace of Europe. Greater [Page 316]Bulgaria, which the treaty of San Stefano had created, was reduced to a small autonomous province, and south of the main Balkan range a semi-autonomous Bulgarian province of Eastern Rumelia was provided for. As in the case of Greece later, on the object of British diplomacy was to make the emancipated country as small and weak as possible. Berlin did not recognize the independence of Montenegro, Serbia, and Rumania. But Rumania, although she had been an ally of Russia in the war, was compelled to cede back Bessarabia to Russia; and Austria-Hungary, instead of Serbia, was given the administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the privilege of maintaining a garrison in the Turkish Sandjak of Novibazr-to separate Serbs and Montenegrins!

There was a "Young Turk" party in the Ottoman Empire as early as 1876. Turks who had studied in Europe were fired with the democratic and nationalistic aspirations, which they had seen marvelously realized, of the Germans and Italians. They felt that Turkey could be saved from destruction only by constitutionalism. They were able to depose two sultans, and to force Abdul Hamid to promulgate a constitution as the price of his accession to the throne. The moment was critical, in 1876, with insurrections in the Balkans, and Russia on the point of declaring war. But British intervention and the Congress of Berlin saved Abdul Hamid, enabled him to suppress the constitution, and rule as a despotic monarch for thirty years.

Those thirty years, between 1878 and 1908, did not arrest the progress of the nationalism of the Balkan peoples, and, in a lesser and more feeble degree, of non-Turkish and Turkish elements within the empire. Had Turkey been left to herself, to experience the normal evolution that nationalist movements in Western and Central Europe had gone through, the Christian peoples of the Balkans might have come to an entente before bad blood arose, and the Muhammedan and non-Muhammedan elements in the Ottoman Empire might have developed a common national spirit. But the Powers, especially Russia and Austria-Hungary, intrigued against one another in the Balkans, and scrambled for economic concessions in Asia Minor and Arabia. Abdul Hamid made capital [Page 317]

NATIONALIST MOVEMENTS FROM 1870 TO 1914

out of conflicting Balkan national aspirations and the rivalries, jealousies, and suspicions of the Great Powers.

In 1885 Prince Alexander of Bulgaria issued the first defiance to the status quo of the Congress of Berlin by proclaiming himself "Prince of North and South Bulgaria," and declared that Eastern Rumelia was united to the principality of Bulgaria. The Bulgarians were following the example of the Rumanians who had similarly upset the status quo of the Congress of Paris. The history of nationalism has shown that nothing is more ridiculous than to keep apart regions of the same race and language by a mere treaty stipulation, when the artificial boundary drawn is between independent or autonomous organisms. The same thing was done at Paris in 1919. The Allied Powers gravely wrote into the Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain that Germany and Austria must forever remain apart. They forgot the consistent history of nationalism!

It took the Powers ten years to recognize the union of Eastern Rumelia with Bulgaria. But the Bulgarians did not care. They were having a remarkable success in unifying their country, combating illiteracy, developing its resources, and building up an army, so that they would be ready for the next step in their national evolution. Only an annual tribute, paid in Constantinople, was the recognition of their vassalage.

The Balkan peoples, with the exception of the Montenegrins, who were content with their mountain and little window on the sea, and the Albanians, who were racially and religiously separated, the Balkan racial groups coupled their effort to develop stable political organisms with a movement for the inclusion of regions peopled by the same ethnic stock beyond the limits they had attained. We have spoken of Greater Greece as the aspiration of Hellenic nationalism. Well, there were also Greater Bulgaria, Greater Rumania, and Greater Serbia. It is important for us to get a clear idea of what these nationalistic movements meant at the beginning of the twentieth century. For in them we find the immediate cause of the World War, and one of the major remoter causes. Please be patient with me, therefore, if I define each one [Page 318]of these, and show its tendency at the moment when Young Turkey burst upon the scene with a program for the regeneration of the Ottoman Empire.

(1). Greater Greece

The center of Hellenic nationalism was Constantinople. There lived the patriarch of the Orthodox Church, and in Constantinople were more Greeks than in Athens. Athens was not to become the center of the Hellenic movement until after the Young Turk Revolution and the departure of Venizelos from Crete to become premier of the Kingdom of Greece.

Second in importance to Constantinople was Smyrna, also a city in which there were more Greeks than in Athens. Greek nationalism flourished along the Anatolian littoral of the Aegean Sea, and in the islands. As a whole, the Greeks under Ottoman rule were better educated than those of independent Greece; they were certainly more thoroughly imbued with the spirit of nationalism.

Hellenism meant to them emancipation in the fullest sense—equality before the law, equality of opportunity in business, security of life and property. Then there were Epirus, the coast cities of Macedonia, Rhodes and the other islands of the Dodecanese, Crete, and Cyprus. Hellenism was helped by foreign colonies of Greeks, at Alexandria, Khartum, Marseilles, Constanza, Odessa, and Rostof. The ideal was the substitution of Greek Christian for Turkish Muhammedan rule in all parts of the former Byzantine Empire, as far as practicable, with Constantinople as capital. It must not be forgotten that ancient Greece gave no lesson of unity. The first ruler of united Hellas was a Macedonian—and long after his time, on the ruins of the Roman Empire, arose the Eastern Empire, which became Greek in culture, religion, and language.

(2). Greater Bulgaria

The Bulgarians dreamed of a country with the frontiers of the Bulgaria of the Treaty of San Stefano. Such a Bulgaria, they asserted, corresponded to ethnic reality in Macedonia and part of Thrace, and to economic necessity. Eastern Rumelia, they claimed, was only the beginning of the process that would have to go on until all the Bulgars were under one rule, as in medieval times before the Turks came. [Page 319]

(3). Greater Rumania

Like the Bulgarians, the Rumanians went back to pre-Ottoman days to establish their nationalistic goal. They aimed to restore Rumanian rule over all the country that their medieval chiefs and those of the beginning of the modern period had brought under their sway. In addition, they claimed everything that had at any time belonged to them, or been suggested as being possibly attributed to them in international conferences. By the historical method they established their claims to Transylvania, the Banat of Temesvar, Bukowina, at the expense of Hungary; to Bessarabia, at the expense of Russia; to an enclave on the south side of the Danube opposite the Iron Gates, at the expense of Serbia, and to the Dobrudja, at the expense of Turkey and Bulgaria. The Dobrudja is the country lying south of the Danube, where that river turns sharply to the north before it reaches the Black Sea. Rumanian aspirations were as complete a mixture of ethnic, historical, economic, geographical, and strategic arguments as one could find in all the history of nationalism. Rumania was not different from any other country in wanting the sword of an argument to cut both ways in her favor. For instance Russia proposed to give the Dobrudja to Rumania in compensation for taking Bessarabia away from her. But the fact that the Dobrudja was offered by Russia was given to substantiate her claim to it, and at the same time she claimed Bessarabia.

(4). Greater Serbia

The Serbs were the first Balkan people to assert their nationhood in response to Napoleon's call. Their revolt preceded that of the Greeks by seventeen years, and its first successes were attained the year that Napoleon became French emperor. The Serbians, like the Rumanians, had obtained the recognition of their independence by the Powers and Turkey at Berlin in 1878. But they, like Greeks and Bulgarians, invoked medieval times, and declared that at the time of the Turkish conquest a large part of Macedonia was part of the kingdom of Stefan Dushan. Although they had never in all history been united closely with Dalmatians, Croatians, and Slovenes, the Serbians spoke of these people as being of their own race and blood, and [Page 320]dreamed of a reunion, which would be as much at the expense of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as the unification of Italy had been in the fact and as it was embodied in the irredentist movement. In addition to these territories, the Serbians claimed on ethnic and historic grounds Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Novibazar, which were held by Austria-Hungary.

From this brief statement of the nationalistic aspirations of the four largest Balkan peoples it will readily be seen that: (a) The nationalism of Greece and Bulgaria was solely at the expense of Turkey; (b) that Rumania and Serbia could not fulfill their nationalism without the virtual destruction of the Dual Monarchy; (c) that the Balkan states, with the exception of Rumania, had overlapping claims in Macedonia.

While Italy and Austria-Hungary were working together and against each other at the same time in Albania, Russia saw a great chance to use Serbian nationalism to destroy the Hapsburg Empire. She had been vaguely aware of the possibility, of course, throughout the nineteenth century. But after her defeat at the hands of Japan in the Far East in 1905, Russia turned her attention to the Balkans, and began there nine years of intrigue, blowing on the fire of nationalism until it flamed into a war that brought the greatest of disasters to Russia herself.

Having lived in the Balkans during those years, I was able to see, before the storm broke, the result on the Serbian mind of Russian advice and pressure at Belgrade. There were enough Serbian-speaking subjects of the Hapsburgs north of the Adriatic and on its east coast and in the mountains behind to ruin the Dual Monarchy if they were ever strong enough to secede. Take the map, and trace out the provinces that Austria-Hungary lost to Serbia as a result of the World War. Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dalmatia, Novibazar, Croatia, Slovenia, the south-east corner of Hungary proper, and part of the Banat of Temesvar! The Serbs were Orthodox-and they were Slavs.

Then came the first of the years of destiny-1908, and with it a new complication in the sudden awakening of Turkish nationalism. [Page 321]

THE QUEST OF WORLD PEACE

by DEXTER PERKINS Department of History and Government, University of Rochester

THE LEAGUE AND THE BACKWARD PEOPLES

IN MY last month's article I sought to indicate the utility of the League of Nations in dealing with the very difficult problem of national minorities. This problem, I desire once more to point out, will exist under any circumstances in contemporary Europe; no redrawing of national frontiers which will actually solve it is possible; and it is a fair question whether the friends of international peace—and international justice—cannot do more good by seeking to strengthen the League machinery for protecting the rights of minority racial groups than can possibly be done by agitation for the revision of the territorial settlements of 1919. It is true that the machinery for safeguarding these rights is by no means perfect; but it is also true that it represents an important step in the right direction, and that the way is open to further progress along the same lines. By the comparative historical standard, the standard by which things must largely be judged in this extremely practical world, the League machinery for dealing with minorities marks another distinct advance toward international administration, and the international point of view.

It is the same with the activities of the League in dealing with backward peoples, as represented in the mandates system. This system is far from perfect, no doubt; but it marks a significant alteration in point of view. With tenacity and honest idealism it may be made an important factor in international progress.

No contemporary problem is more difficult, none more vexing, [Page 322]than that which involves the relations of the simpler peoples to the complex societies of the Western World. There are those who believe with sincere faith that it would be better if these simpler peoples could be left to themselves, if the nations of the West would follow the rule of absolute non-intervention in the affairs of the peoples of Africa or Asia. If such a policy were practicable, it might be defensible. But it seems to be the fact that whatever governments may do, trading interests will seek their advantage in these undeveloped regions, as they have, indeed, for centuries. The course of isolation is therefore an impossible one to follow. No government would be strong enough to pursue it. It is necessary, therefore, to fix the terms of the relations between East and West, rather than to proceed upon the principle that no such relation exists.

No doubt the relationship will vary with circumstances. All that I intend to do here is to point out the relationship which has been created for certain areas under the administration of the League. Whether this relationship is capable of extension is debatable. Whether it would fit every situation is still more so. But it marks, at any rate, an interesting attempt to assert certain international principles in dealing with backward peoples.

The mandatory system is sketched in its broad lines in Article 22 of the Covenant. It was applied to fourteen different territories in Asia and in Africa, divided into three groups. In group A are included those communities which "have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone." In group B are territories in a more backward stage in which the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration. In group C are territories which, "owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centers of civilization, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory." The B and C mandates are subject [Page 323]

THE LEAGUE AND THE BACKWARD PEOPLES

to certain guarantees with regard to the rights of the natives, guarantees which deserve particularly to be noticed. They include the preservation of freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the severest limitations on the liquor traffic, and the traffic in arms, and the prohibition of the slave trade, the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military bases for other than police purposes, and in the case of the B mandates, the maintenance of equality in commercial relations with the outside world.

To watch over the administration of the mandatory system the League has constituted a permanent Mandates Commission to which, in accordance with the prescriptions of the Covenant, the mandatory power must make an annual report. Through the League Secretariat this Commission keeps in contact with what is going on in the various territories involved. Petitions may be addressed to it from the natives, being transmitted through the mandatory government, and directly from other bodies, such, for example, as anti-slavery societies. Suggestions may be and frequently are made by its members to those responsible for the actual administration of the regions under mandate. Pursuing its work with great tact, the Mandates Commission has been able to improve the tone and spirit of the administration of the mandates in many matters of detail. It has also provided a common fund of experience with regard to such questions which is bound to be of value.

From time to time mandatory questions have come before the Council or Assembly of the League. Thus, in 1922, the Mandates Commission, acting on the representations of certain missionaries, drew the attention of the Council to the fact that the boundary between the Belgian and British mandates in East Africa cut in two the tribes of the native kingdom of Ruanda. The boundary was redrawn in accordance with these representations. In the same way, in 1922, a Haitian delegate brought before the Assembly the treatment of the natives in Southwest Africa, where a small rebellion was in progress. The Assembly asked the Mandates Commission to investigate. Though some difficulty was experienced in [Page 324]obtaining the requisite information, the Commission examined the representatives of the local administration, and made a highly critical report. In the same way, after the outbreak of serious disturbances in Syria, the French government, which administered that territory, was obliged to justify its course of action before the Council of the League. In all these questions, the beginnings of the development of a principle of international responsibility may be discerned.

The critics of the mandates system rightly call attention to its many weaknesses. There is no way in which the League authorities can enforce their will upon the mandatory states, except by the appeal to public opinion. They are compelled to rely, to a very large extent at least, for their information upon the reports of the authorities of the territories involved. There is a strong tendency to treat the mandated regions as possessions rather than as regions held in trust. Thus, for example, the French government has insisted, and succeeded in maintaining, the right to raise troops in mandated territory which might be used outside the territory, in the defense of French interests elsewhere.

And so indeed they will be if there is no public attention given to the mandatory system, if the more disinterested powers do not do something to help make it work. In the relations of the simpler peoples with the hard-bitten races of the West, self-interest and the individual hope of gain are always at work. To check and control this interest and this hope is at best a task full of difficulties, one which challenges to the utmost the philanthropic spirit of our time. Those who realize the magnitude of the task will not be ready to carp at any agency, however far from perfection, which may assist in this task. In the mandatory system the opportunity has been given for the application, in certain limited areas, of new standards of administration. The development of this system would be very distinctly in the line of progress. And the stronger the League of Nations becomes, the greater its authority, and the more active the support of it by the great governments of the world, the more hope there will be for the improvement of the machinery outlined in the Covenant. [Page 325]

HOW MILITARISTIC IS FRANCE?

by ARMAND CHARPENTIER General Secretary of "Evolution," Paris

MILITARISTS as well as imperialists of all nations delight in accusing France of being the last citadel of militarism and imperialism. Of course we have in France, just as in every other country, a number of war fanatics; that cannot be denied. But these men who politically belong to our extreme right are only a very small minority. They know this very well; they know it so well indeed that they are extremely careful not to admit their real feelings openly but even go as far as calling themselves pacifists while claiming that we are poor, ignorant blind men who are leading the French people into another war, as an excuse to vote for even the most necessary amounts for our national defense. The truth is that these men all still believe in the old Roman saying: "Si vis pacem para bellum." They do not understand that just this formidable rush of armaments indulged in by all European countries, and especially by France, before 1914, was one of the main causes of the World War.

The fact that these disreputable war fanatics have to hide their militaristic propaganda under the cloak of pacifism so the people should accept it, shows clearly that the people themselves are sincere pacifists.

The French nation taken altogether really desires peace, and one could almost say they wanted peace in 1914, too. The foreign pacifists might ask now why do the French people then not act according to their desires?

Why? There is a simple answer to that. Ten years after the Armistice they do not know anything more about the causes of [Page 326]the World War than they knew in 1914. The exaggerated tales which they were made to swallow in 1914 so they would accept the war, in the meantime have become historical truths for them. And that explains their chauvinistic sentiments.

All nations are assuredly more or less bribed with such patriotic tales; they all incline to attribute all virtues to themselves, to look at themselves as in a beautifying mirror and to consider foreign nations as rivals or as enemies dreaming of wars and conquests only. Unfortunately, this national pride has been more outspoken among the French people through generations, hence it will be absolutely necessary to abolish it before you can introduce a reign of peace. The reason for this is the false glory with which Louis Fourteenth and the Napoleons have intoxicated France, exciting the belligerent sentiments of a race, the history of which has been a long series of battles and conquests. There are very few Frenchmen today who begin to understand that the Great King and the Great Emperor have done much more harm than good to their country.

By perverting the French sense of reasoning these warlike ideals assist our government in suppressing a number of facts about the war and in keeping up the spirit of false glory and indifference to lull their conscience.

I could name several examples to prove the truth of this; I am giving oe only but it is such a significant one that it will show foreigners the state of mind of the French people for the past fifty years.

Impartial study of events leading up to the war of 1870-71 proves without a doubt that Napoleon III wanted this war and that the old king of Prussia, William I, did all he possibly could to avoid it. The famous story of the telegram from Ems does not whitewash Napoleon at all, in fact it makes it worse for him. Right after the defeat the young republic did not make a thorough investigation of this event, which certainly was a great error; but what makes matters much worse is that in all these fifty years our government has kept the nation in absolute ignorance of the truth. In all our school history books the causes are given [Page 327]

HOW MILITARISTIC IS FRANCE?

so entirely one-sided that every child must believe France was perfectly right in her actions.

Education like this is responsible for the war of 1914. It seems reasonable that if those generations following each other since 1870 knew that Prussia had not provoked France they would not have seen the arch-enemy in Germany and might easily have accepted the treaty of Frankfort. Also there would not have been the question of revenge; France under Louis had taken Alsace, and Prussia under William took it back; that would have been the end of it. Nobody would have conceived the idea of an alliance with Russia and there would have been no war of 1914, because, as everybody knows, this alliance caused the World War.

This is the point the foreign pacifists seem to ignore: Our government today is making exactly the same mistake as its predecessor in 1870. In other words the French people today are deceived about the World War just as they were deceived in 1870. But are they the only ones deceived? Are not the people of the other Allied nations in the same boat? Let us all have for once the sincerity and the courage to admit that the governments of all nations today, ten years after the Armistice, continue to deceive their people about the true and real causes of the World War. The whole world exists under the sign of deceit. This admitted, we have to add that this deceit is not of the same terrible consequence to other nations as to my countrymen: partly because the diplomats of the world who conferred for such a long time at Versailles took great pains to put all the responsibility for the disaster on Germany alone, and partly because Germany is our next door neighbor.

Let us put ourselves for the moment in the place of the average Frenchman, the man in the street who never had any ambition or curiosity to study the causes of the two wars of 1870 and 1914. Founded on the legendary tales of his childhood and schooldays, encouraged later on by a nationalistic press, he firmly believes that within half a century Germany has twice attacked France. If he is quite intelligent, he might make a difference between the German people and the German government; but even then he [Page 328]will think of the German as the wolf which attacked the French lamb when it innocently and peacefully wanted to quench its thirst in the waters of the Rhine. Take a man of that kind and try to convince him of the peaceful policy of understanding and of the bringing together of the French and German people, let alone disarmament. Does he not know himself and has he not been told a hundred times that he is the glorious victor and therefore can dictate his conditions? That is what he truthfully believes especially as he has not reached the modern point of internationalism which does not recognize victors and vanquished. Firmly convinced of Germany's sole responsibility for both wars he naturally suspects her and thinks it is quite all right if she is forced to disarm entirely and is blissfully ignorant of the fact that today France possesses the most powerful army which has ever been known to exist and that outside of that the Polish, Rumanian, Czechoslovakian, Jugoslovakian and Belgian armies are at her command. By holding up this German scare-crow and with the assistance of an unscrupulous press, our government is able to keep the masses believing tales invented for war use only.

And what tales! Especially invented for simpletons and therefore harder to destroy. I shall go into a few of them only.

The Ten Kilometers Retreat

Back in 1914 there was not a Frenchman alive who did not call this move a chivalrous "Beau Geste." Formerly at Fontenoy the Knights had said to the Englishmen: "My Lords, you shoot first." Taking up this historical expression our M. Viviani said to the Germans: "After you, please." Only some fanatic patriots thought from a strategic point of view this might be an indiscretion which might easily reduce our armies into a state of inferiority compared to the Germans.

But as a whole we were satisfied with this gesture and well pleased because it showed the whole world we did not want the war. Of course our government after having decided to retreat ten kilometers were very careful not to announce:

1. That this retreat was of no consequence whatsoever from the military point of view. [Page 329]2. That Russia had been the first to mobilize and that we-bound as we were by the French-Russian treaty-followed suit. 3. That this whole gesture was made only to give the English government an argument for their people to join the war.

It was only after the Armistice, when the first disclosures about the war were being published, that the truth about the ten kilometers retreat became known. But in spite of the fact that the press broadcast the ten kilometers retreat all over the world in August, 1914, not a single paper since the Armistice has published these facts, not even the chronological order for mobilization, with the result that with the exception of a few intellectuals who really made a study of the causes of the World War, the French people still firmly believe in the pretty nursery legend.

Babies With Their Hands Cut Off

I would not even mention this legend were it not that M. Klotz, former member of M. Clemenceau's cabinet and, like the latter, a fanatic nationalist, had the honesty to deny it. Nevertheless this tale, invented solely to encourage hate in France for Germany, has spread all over the country and by thus presenting the Germans as followers of Attila, the French people were made to believe this war to be a kind of Crusade, free from all Imperialism, to defend Right, Justice and Civilization; in other words, a war so pure and elevating as humanity had never seen before.

Today this legend has lost ground even among the middle classes who finally begin to realize that all responsibilities for the World War are not on one side alone. But many honest, simple-minded persons still firmly believe in it and will continue to do so until our government denies it officially.

The Violation of Belgian Neutrality

This time we have to do with facts, not with a legend. Nobody would dream of excusing Germany from having violated Belgian neutrality when she ordered her armies to pass through Belgian territory. And likewise it is no excuse to Germany to pretend, as many of her writers do, that France intended to do just the same. That is only hypothetical anyway, and no country, just as no man, can be condemned on hypothetical intentions. [Page 330]On the other hand, it is a fact that France and England violated Greek neutrality in October, 1915, in their effort to come to the rescue of Serbia. That evens matters up. M. Alcide Ebray in his beautiful book, "Scraps of Paper," even goes a step further, declaring from a point of view of international justice the violation of Greek neutrality was even more serious than the Belgian. Be that as it may, justice and ordinary decency should silence the accusation in regard to Belgian neutrality as long as nothing is said about Greece and nobody blamed for it. Personally, I prefer the latter solution, if only to show the people that in time of war one nation is exactly as bad as another. Of course our political leaders and newspapers would not think of admitting such a comparison, but continue to show Germany up for her violation of Belgian neutrality and to impress this fact upon the nation to prevent the people from learning of the landing of Allied troops in Greece where they committed a similar violation.

In the same group with these war tales should be mentioned the illegal actions taken by the Allies since the Armistice. When the peace treaties were discussed in 1919 there was not a newspaper, not a single political leader, who dreamed of insisting that the most elementary justice should be dealt out and that representatives of the vanquished countries should attend these discussions, if only to answer the accusations of crimes of which they were indicted. Never before has such an omission occurred in the annals of diplomacy. There is no doubt that this illegality has been committed with the silent approval of nearly every country belonging to the Allies.

The result is that the World War from 1914 to 1918 began and ended with the two most priceless ironies anybody might invent. The Allies were pleased to call it the War for Right and Justice, and in 1914 took the part of Serbia, the government of which, as has been definitely established, was more or less an accomplice to the two murderers of Serajevo.

In the name of Justice.—The end came with the condemnation of four nations judged in the absence of their defending lawyers. In the name of Right. [Page 331]

HOW MILITARISTIC IS FRANCE?

What makes this irony still more biting is the exalted personality of France’s first representative at Versailles. When the Dreyfus affair broke out in November, 1897, M. Clemenceau, who still believed in the guiltiness of the unfortunate Captain, told those who were surprized to see him favor a new trial: "You say Dreyfus is guilty. Possibly; but how can you know, as long as this man has not been legally tried? Let us put him on trial first, and then, when he is found guilty, let us shoot him."

The same answer can be made to all those who persist in burdening the Central Powers alone with every responsibility for the World War. It is not even necessary to study deeply the causes of the World War as a number of intellectuals have been doing in various countries with the idea of forcing a revision of the peace treaty. It is enough to state and to prove the illegality of the treaty per se.

Ninety-five per cent of all Frenchmen have not the slightest idea of this illegality and as they get their convictions out of the newspapers, they are not very likely ever to discover it.

Even the socialistic press keeps silent; for two reasons. First, they do not want to antagonize the government, in order to be able to continue their social war without being disturbed, which, since the World War, is an entirely platonic one. The other reason is the teaching of the Socialists that every war can be blamed on the capitalists. Of course, that is nonsense. Capitalism is a handy excuse for starting a war, but it is not its cause. And it will be still less in the future, for even a blind man can see the ruin the late war has brought to the capitalists.

If the Socialists would take the trouble to think, they would find that out; but they prefer to bow before a tenet which at various times had the aspect of truth, but which today is nothing but a tradition and should be locked up in the museum of history.

Right there, it seems to me, is the place for the greatest of all ironies in connection with the Dreyfus affair, which was for France something to be really proud of, after all. A league was formed with the noble intention of defending the rights of man and of the citizen. There was hope that this league might [Page 332]consider it a duty and an honor to defend the rights of the nations. Alas, nothing came of it; with the exception of a small minority, ably led by the courageous M. Morhardt, the whole league does not even seem to be aware of the illegality of the peace treaty. When the leaders of the official French conscience are keeping such a deep silence, nobody can blame the people if they stick to their warlike legends and consider them a necessity for the safety of their country. The masses, I repeat, are really sincere pacifists, but make no move to develop or to parade their pacifism. The newspapers keep up their militaristic appetite by telling them again and again that a military organization is the only protection in time of peace and the only guarantee against another World War. Of course those who think differently and venture the opinion it is best to sweep your own door first if you want your neighbor to sweep his, are treated as poor Frenchmen. Because in France, and probably also in other countries, you have to bow to a general mistake or you are not a patriot.

Will it always be like this? I do not think so. The war legends are losing ground daily.

But there is still a long and wearisome road before us. The United States of America might help us out with some marching tunes. Several nations, especially France, are their financial debtors. The principal of this debt of course stands, but there ought to be some way for reduction on maturity. The government of the United States of America should inform Europe that it would consider a revisal of all debts on two conditions:

1. Immediate reduction of three-quarters of all existing military forces and total disarmament scheduled for the next ten years.

2. Revisal of all peace treaties.

The moment this declaration was made public all European governments which still resist the idea of disarmament would be obliged to give in on the strength of public opinion.

In other words the United States, which played such a gallant rêle toward the end of the World War, would then play a still more glorious rôle by giving the world definite peace. [Page 333]

DISARMAMENT

by ERNEST JUDET Author of Le Vatican et La Paix, etc.

The horror which we feel when we stop to consider the ruin and the massacres brought about by the World War is probably the only benefit we are deriving so far from this unbelievable and irreparable catastrophe. But it is useless if it only brings forth lamentations making everything still more depressing and preventing or retarding reconstruction. They are only good to kindle the fire of heroism which our generation thinks it has achieved by proclaiming: "La guerre à la guerre," or all is fair in war.

We are on the way to salvation, but we have no guarantee whatsoever. We are obtaining complete safety, but we must destroy the means for possible later conflicts, because the existing treaties do not give full protection and the smallest accident might bring another catastrophe. The critical situation before 1914 is made worse by a shortsighted diplomacy.

Total disarmament is the only reply to the peoples' demand: a solution which is neither vague nor chimerical.

As long as the different governments watch each other closely trying to outbid each other and do not dare to disarm seriously, mutual confidence is a joke; as long as they cater to hate and rancour, to unlimited technics, we go around in a circle; the world will come back to its vomiting. The old militaristic sophism has come back with a vengeance.

General Gouraud earned the applause of the English public only recently by telling his audience: "If we do not want another war very soon, it is necessary to be prepared for it. You think [Page 334]that is wrong? Why? You have policemen to keep up respect for the law, you need soldiers to keep up the treaties. I do not think that we are going to have another war for this generation but you can never tell.... We must be prepared." This refrain gets on the nerves, especially as nobody says: "Defend peace, but defeat the treaties." What do these already discredited treaties represent? Are they worth the bones of a soldier of any country?

The rivals of General Gouraud in Italy are still much more triumphant. The "Corriere della Sera," an influential paper, compared the Mediterranean fleets and protested strongly against the numeral inferiority, which is fully justified by the French declaration that they "would not make war against their Latin sister." If the fundamental bases of armaments are built on arguments like this one, any nation having a good friend in another one ought to put herself voluntarily in a state of inferiority and thereby be at the mercy of her friend. I should say: "As long as the Utopia of complete disarmament is not universally accepted, the best guarantee for peace is an adequate defense, which we absolutely must have to safeguard our existence."

Here we are! Plain speech! No illusions! Without evasion or hypocrisy the "Corriere della Sera" speaks the language of national diplomacy. If you believe it, you cannot change anything and might as well give up hope; we are in a deadlock. We might get out by a superhuman effort; but how? And how do we avoid falling in again? That is the question.

Good will, virtue and wisdom are needed in a loyal enforcement of the reforms on which the cause of peace depends. Nobody who wants the disbanding of permanent armies would interfere with the recruiting of the police force which is of vital need to maintain order throughout. Who is going to regulate this division and avoid being cheated? Who is going to determine the exact needs, naming the number of always mobilized troops, introducing a highly superior effective force? Who is going to supervise the ever changing reports without offending legitimate touchiness, without attempting sovereignty? There will never be a disarmament without the goodwill of everybody. Where that is missing, [Page 335]

DISARMAMENT

nobody could overcome the objections; it would be silly to deny them; you cannot overcome difficulties and objections by mere words alone.

That is why the delicacy of this transformation, whether perfect or not, delays the victory of common sense. The most optimistic even consider it with fear and those who acclaim it loudly in the open contradict it before their own consciences, wishing for an adjournment to better times. Should we pretend hypocritically that the ultimate goal is still very indefinitive? What a derision and how cowardly! The problem is that of humanity driven back into barbarity, not being able to accept civilization, live up to its ideal and obey its laws.

The most serious blunder of course would be to rush an experiment and to leave a courageous people, whose neighbors have declined to follow suit, abandoned to the fate of external interferences. After such a disaster all our chances would be gone for another century. And yet if we do not take advantage of the present state of hostility against war, which the memory of the hecatomb made an irresistible appeal back in 1919 and 1920, but which is weakening all the time, when are we going to start? A foresighted American, Governor Morris, a witness of the bloody crisis of the royalty under Louis XVI and who understood the French better than they did themselves, wrote an unforgettable phrase: "Man is a reasoning animal, but not reasonable, learns by experience only and needs misfortune to correct himself. The circle must be complete." Have we not experienced enough disasters, which the ignorance of all of us and the Machiavelism of a few have brought about?

Results must follow strictly the laws of historical evolution which has modelled the different nations. Their primitive economic, geographic and religious elements have established themselves through ages not by the whim of a single king but by an invincible force, which regulates and dominates mankind if they do not adopt themselves alone to the laws of nature and life. The same work which has created the frontiers between nations will later on construct the unity of the world. [Page 336]If we make a careful unbiased study of the origins of the great societies which must be united into one we find each has a number of tribes and communities. Formerly hostile or ignoring each other they have come together and dissolved out of sympathy, mutual interests or common sense. When we have really understood the underlying motives for this process, then we have found the great secret of everlasting peace, the goal which humanity has been pursuing incessantly.

From the first duel, war has spread to families, then to clans, later to provinces and nations, describing larger and larger circles. Apparently war wins ground when it succeeds in uniting ten or twenty nations in one army; but the more brutal it is and the more appalling the number of its victims, the nearer it comes to its own finish. Those who took part in the World War and were willing to accept death were right in their belief that this would be the last war, and that their sacrifice would free their descendants from a similar fate. Our job now is to prove that they were right, that they did not sacrifice themselves in vain. War is dying slowly. It reached its limits in the late World War. It was much too bloodthirsty ever to be taken up again. It will die by its own overexpansion as it will be impossible to increase the enormous quota which it drew last time. After the intestine fratricide battle of Europeans against Europeans the future war between continents! That would be about the height of insanity!

The most unwilling minds will readily understand through what different phases war has passed, always growing, to burst finally on its decline, if we understand history, the infallible source of truth. I do not know of a more instructive, as well as absorbing episode of war than that one told by Hippolyte Taine, the famous philosopher, in a marvellous chapter of his "Touring to the Pyrenees." He describes in detail the small circumstances and characters, and pictures a kind of civil war of the middle ages.

There was continuous rivalry, and one time the people of Bayonne decided to demand a special tax for the cider which was brewed in their city. The Basques considered this an unjust assessment and refused to pay; the small disagreement grew rapidly. [Page 337]

DISARMAMENT

The Basques had neglected to give sufficient protection to one of their groups in a castle, which was taken by storm. All were slaughtered except five noblemen, so as to still more terrorize their companions and to present a gala spectacle to the citizens of Bayonne. They were bound two by two to the bridge arches, to await the high water and to make sure that they were in plain view.

Taine tells about what follows in his colorful style until the cruel end:

"By this time everybody was on the bridge or on the river banks and watched the water rise. Gradually it came up to their knees, to their breasts and then to their necks and they threw their heads back to keep their mouths out of the water. The people laughed uproariously, yelling this was the time to drink water, like the monks at the matins and that they would have enough to last them for the rest of their lives. Then the water entered the mouths and noses of the three lower ones. Their throats gargled like bottles which were filled and the people applauded; they laughed and said the drunkards drink too quickly and strangle themselves, because they are too greedy.

"There were only the two men from Uttubie left, father and son, who were attached to the main arch; the son a little lower than the father. When the father saw his son choke he bent his muscles so terrifically he broke one of the ropes; but that was all and the hemp went into his flesh until it could not go any further. When the people saw that the son's eyes nearly came out of his head and he made a sound like death-rattle, they called him baby and asked why his head was so terribly big and why his nurse did not come to put him to bed. When the father heard this he began to roar like an animal and tried to spit at them. This enraged the people and they threw stones at him, aiming so well that his white head became red and his right eye came out, which was [Page 338]only a minor mishap because in a little while the water took the other one.

"When the flood ebbed the Mayor ordered the five corpses to remain hanging, their necks wabbling so the Basques could see that the Bayonne water came to the bridge and that they had to pay toll. Then he returned to the city among the cheers of the people who were overjoyed to have such an efficient Mayor, who saw to it that everybody got what he deserved."

The battles went on for several years after this revenge, which I could not have been surpassed by American Apaches or African savages, without marked success for either side. Finally both parties got tired of cutting each other's throats and of losing their best men in a war of extinction. They found out it was-much wiser to tolerate each other than to suppress each other and they began to look for an arbiter to iron out their differences. Is not that the ideal conclusion at which we always arrive instead of killing each other? The only pity is, we arrive at it too late!

What now is the difference between this small war between Basques and the people of Bayonne which was carried on in bitter cruelty a few hundred years ago in an obscure corner of France engaging a few thousand warriors at the utmost, and the threatened next World War engaging a hundred million soldiers? There is none!

If the people of Bayonne and the Basques can live in perfect harmony now, after having shed floods of blood and committed unspeakable atrocities on each other why should not the European nations follow their example instead of mobilizing guns, cannon and armies? Why do they reject arbitration which closed the era of bloodshed and unlawfulness on the banks of the Gasun Sea? [Page 339]

THE PROBLEM OF OBSOLETE AND UNJUST TREATIES

The Importance of Article XIX by ERNEST LUDWIG Hungarian Delegate at the Versailles Peace Conference

THE spectacular victory of the Labor Party in the British elections has brought many problems to the foreground which are closely connected with world peace and world unity. It is well known that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was an enthusiastic supporter of the Geneva Protocol. It is a matter of historical record that after the resignation of the first Labor Government in England, Mr. Baldwin's cabinet through Sir Austen Chamberlain, its Foreign Secretary, has kept scrupulously aloof from a continued discussion of the Protocol and it is due to the attitude of the late British Government that the Protocol has died a slow and peaceful death.

Sir Austen Chamberlain is one, if not the principal founder of the Locarno treaties. All honor is due him for his warm championship of Locarno and all that it stands for, but that cannot make us forget that he withdrew from supporting the Geneva Protocol which had practically reached port and would have been certain of adoption had the British Government not modified its policy after Labor's withdrawal.

The British Labor Party is a convinced friend and supporter of compulsory arbitration in international disputes. The only rational substitutes for war are peaceful mediation and arbitration. If by the inspired action of the Labor Party in England arbitration could be made compulsory, not only for the strictly juridical, that is legal litigations, but for any problem affecting the [Page 340]interpretation of peace treaties, and international agreements in general, this would be an outstanding victory of international common sense over the reaction of past centuries. The Labor Government of Ramsay MacDonald, we are sure, will ratify the General Pact adopted by the last Assembly of the League of Nations and will thereby make a step in the right direction, that is, in substituting arbitration for war. That would be practical and enlightened diplomacy and peace work.

Peace Societies and Propaganda for Peace

Since the war, so many Peace Societies have been originated both in the United States and in Europe that a layman cannot but say that the age of the millennium of peace must have arrived. And yet, the creation of these organizations does not really serve the cause of real peace! This may sound a foolhardy statement to make, but I believe nevertheless that it is not an exaggerated statement. The program and by-laws of most of these Peace Societies are far too vague. Most of them want to abolish war and establish universal peace. That is their objective and the means to attain this end is usually to enlist thousands and millions in the service of this cause and to use mass hypnotism as a weapon to this end. Now, I have no doubt that a hypnotism of the masses is feasible and perhaps even easy of achievement, but unless the struggle for peace assumes a more definite form of expression it I will remain barren of results.

There are today two schools of thought in Europe intent on making peace. One holds on steadfastly to the peace treaties of Versailles, Trianon, St. Germain, etc., and wishes, nay insists, that these must continue in force. The League of Nations (a wonderful idea, engendered in past centuries, but first proclaimed in 1908, long before the outbreak of the War, in very much its present form by Monsieur Henri Demont of Paris, prime mover and author of the movement: "Pour supprimer ce crime, la guerre") has been organized to perpetuate these peace treaties. Through its Covenant the League became an organic part of these treaties and thereby defeated its own ends. [Page 341]The second school of thought has used much less propaganda than the first, but is gradually more and more imposing itself upon the attention of thinking people who would like to divorce the League of Nations from the peace treaties and would like to readjust conditions created by these treaties through a sane and peaceful peace revision, acceptable to everybody. The Paris peace treaties were accepted by one side of the belligerent parties only, whatever be argued to the contrary. Not one of the defeated belligerents, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria has accepted them as a result of fair bargaining. Turkey has even gone one step farther by throwing the whole peace pact overboard and by creating the present status quo sponsored by Kemal Pasha. I do not, of course, for a moment assert that the four former countries have not actually signed and ratified the treaties. They have, but only an incurable illusionist and optimist would assert that these treaties have brought peace, that they have reconciled the former belligerents.

Why Peace Treaties Are Bad

The atmosphere of 1919-1920 in Paris was so heated that a judicious discussion of important peace problems ab ovo would have been impossible, but that was no excuse for cancelling the discussions entirely. Another great mistake of these treaties was that they were organically connected with secret agreements between certain European nations during the War and constituted therefore more or less a distribution of spoils among the victors. Almost every peace conference has, after a victorious war, been more or less a means to sanction the distribution of spoils among the victors.

The last war was a more decisive catastrophe than former wars and in consequence the spoils were larger, peace terms were more cruel than those of the past.

If we take the last five hundred years of our civilized era, the Trianon Treaty is the most cruel and the most wicked of all peace treaties, not really deserving the term of "peace treaty." This treaty has not created a status of peace, but one of [Page 342]smoldering hatred that must sooner or later break out with elementary force, unless a more sober world comes to the rescue and applies common sense to readjust the chaotic conditions created by it. This Trianon Treaty decreed the dismemberment of Hungary. Now, the fact alone that a peace treaty dismembers a country destroys all hopes of peace. The advocates of this cruel peace argue that the former Hungary oppressed its national minorities and that for this reason it was a just retribution to dismember Hungary. The accusation made is so blatantly false that it does not require a specific refutation although the author has attempted to do so in various American and European magazines. But even if this accusation would stand in the world court of public opinion, which it cannot, is it right for a peace treaty to create injustice, because injustice preceded it?

No doubt more than a hundred years ago when the Holy Alliance was engineered and when Czar Alexander took charge of the Government of Poland, similar arguments were advanced to vindicate this cruel action. One cannot extinguish a people on the parchment of a treaty, or deprive a country of two-thirds of its population and its territory and then say: we have made peace. The reason why this was possible in 1919-1920 is that passions ran very high in those days and to some extent at least, in addition to the mentioned secret agreements, also because a committee of so-called experts was permitted to pass on the slicing up of Hungarian territory and on the transfer of whole sections of populations to foreign sovereignties, without being qualified to do so. The experts of the Trianon Treaty were no doubt very estimable gentlemen who in their respective callings may be individually and collectively first rate, but they have by their very findings shown themselves not qualified to act as experts in the premises. I do not think that this is using too harsh criticism against them. Central Europe, but particularly South Eastern Europe, is inhabited criss-cross by such a variety of races and nationalities who speak so many languages, or dialects, that it is impossible for an outsider who is not thoroughly familiar with these people, their languages and the historical background, to form an authoritative [Page 343]opinion as to how the boundaries should be traced. Norman Angell in World Unity (June, 1929) very appropriately said: "In most instances, in Ireland, in Poland, in China, in India, in Alsace and in twenty other states, the whole dispute is as to which is the people, what constitutes the nation in which the national authority should be vested; and if Irish, or Indians, or Poles or Chinese are themselves in disagreement as to what is, or should be the national unit, how can outsiders, thousands of miles away, answer the question?"

The blue-pencilling of the Trianon boundaries was insane vivisection and not the work of qualified experts. Of course, it will be said (and that is the only valid counter-argument): the mutilation of former Hungarian territory was due to secret agreements among the warring powers and the experts were not permitted any wide latitude in their decisions. This is—we repeat it—the only valid argument in their favor, but a real peace treaty should have been in a position to overcome the difficulty created by this argument.

Is Peace Revision a Real Remedy for Peace?

Granted, however, that the Paris atmosphere was not appropriate for an independent decision, today, after ten or more weary years since this peace treaty was concluded, this atmosphere must have changed and the world must be more sober today than it was ten years ago. So much, I think, everybody should concede.

The next step should be then, if constructive peace work is to be accomplished, to answer these questions: What can be done? How can readjustment be effected that will satisfy both sides?

You will observe that there are two questions to answer: What can be done? What should be the substance of such a proposed readjustment which we may call peace revision? and the second: How can this readjustment be effected?

Now, there are two ways to proceed, if a satisfactory and logical conclusion is desired. We must either proceed as the Paris peace makers did, that is, first create a method acceptable to both sides which then should be utilized for the purpose of analyzing [Page 344]the situation, or we must define the substance and extent of the proposed readjustment first and then find a method to accomplish this readjustment.

In 1919 the League of Nations was created and every critic of the peace treaties received the stereotyped answer: Wait and see. Wait till the League is in working shape and strong enough to remedy errors committed by the peace makers. Those who argued thus at that time and who do so now refer to Article XIX of the Covenant of the League, asserting that this Article will fully take care of all the existing difficulties. Now, that is unfortunately not the case and I will try to demonstrate why this Article which is called the Peace Article of the Covenant, cannot as yet be made serviceable for treaty revision and real peace.

Article XIX of the Covenant of the League of Nations

The Article in question states: "The Assembly of the League of Nations may from time to time, call the attention of the members of the League to the renewed survey of treaties having become obsolete (inapplicable) and of international conditions which, if allowed to continue, would threaten the peace of the world."

Now, there exists no Committee, or Sub-Committee, which could permanently analyze these conditions and treaties and report to the League. In fact, it is not stated either in this Article, or anywhere else in the Covenant, in what manner the attention of the League members might be called to these conditions, but experience has taught us that in everything connected with the Covenant of the League of Nations a certain procedure must be observed. It would be a reasonable demand to make that the League itself should carry on this investigation from time to time, but no such practice has been as yet enforced by the League and during the last ten years no such investigation was ever instituted.

All that one can reasonably deduct from the practice in analogous situations, from the practice which has, for instance, grown out of the examination of complaints submitted by national, racial or religious minorities in those countries which had [Page 345]

THE IMPORTANCE OF ARTICLE XIX

to sign so-called "minority treaties," that is Czecho-Slovakia, Roumania, Yugoslavia, Poland, etc., etc., is that, upon the report, or express complaint of a member of the Council of the League of Nations, a Committee of three be appointed to survey the conditions alleged to threaten the peace and report on its findings. This is the first preliminary step.

If then, a report be made by such a Committee to the Council, or General Assembly of the League, either of the latter two would have to adopt a unanimous resolution authorizing, for instance, the Secretary-General of the League to call upon the Governments of the countries affected by an amendment of these threatening conditions, to show cause why they should not be so amended.

Now, let it for the sake of argument be assumed that Hungary file an application to the Council of the League of Nations complaining about the dangerous and unhealthy conditions caused by the Treaty of Trianon which threatens the peace of South Eastern Europe, referring to Article XIX of the Covenant as grounds for an international investigation. What would happen?

The Council, or the General Assembly of the League, might appoint a Committee of three, if it be so desired, to investigate the substance of such a complaint. It is doubtful whether such a Committee could be appointed without a unanimous approving vote of all the members. At any rate, the majority of the members of the Assembly of the League would have to vote for it. If the Committee so appointed would confirm the gist of the complaint—and this is assuming that there would be no hitch in the whole procedure and that the wheels of League justice would be well oiled and run very smoothly—the Council, or General Assembly of the League would, after listening to the findings of the Committee, again have unanimously to pass a resolution authorizing the League to call upon Hungary and any or all of the other succession states of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy that they themselves proceed to a change, or readjustment of the conditions, or of the provisions of the Trianon Treaty threatening peace. (See Article V of the Covenant.) [Page 346]Should no other but these directly interested countries be called upon and if the negotiations started by them lead to no agreement, or satisfaction, then this would under the existing practice of the League end all further procedure. In other words, there are no penalties, no sanctions provided in the event of a failure of these inquiries, or negotiations.

Should on the other hand all signatory States of the Treaty of Trianon be appealed to, the opposition, veto, or exception of only one State would be sufficient to bar any amendment of treaty provisions, or of the conditions threatening peace, Article XXVI of the Covenant notwithstanding. All further procedure would have to be stopped, as the available machinery of the Covenant of the League is entirely inadequate to allow an effective prosecution of this case to the satisfactory redress of a complaint. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that the provisions of Article X, which is really the Wilson Article of the Covenant, directly conflict with Article XIX.

My learned friend, Professor Dr. Alexander Krisztics of the University of Pécs, Hungary, has very elaborately lectured on this question before the Academy of Science of Budapest. He arrived at the conclusion that Article XIX, in spite of the obscurity of its text, represents the "Clause rebus sic stantibus" of the peace treaties. Everything that will be done to enlarge, or elucidate the scope of this Article will be done for the strengthening and perfecting of international law. To the extent that right will defeat might in the life of civilized people and nations, to that extent the procedure surrounding the "clause rebus sic stantibus" will become simplified, smoothing the course of international justice.

Of course, it might be found possible and perhaps even advisable to avoid the somewhat lengthy and complicated mechanism of the Council, or Assembly of the League, outlined above and to submit complaints based on Article XIX to arbitration. The General Pact discussed by the last Assembly of the League of Nations provides an optional clause, the adoption of which would obligate each signatory member to refer each international litigation of a legal, or judicial character to arbitration. The [Page 347]British Labor Party was among the first to adhere both to the General Pact and to the signing of the optional clause. If in the course of events this General Pact and the optional clause would be approved by all League members, or if at least all such members as are interested in a practical test of Article XIX and are directly, or indirectly, affected by an application for peace revision, would sign and sanction them, then a judicial mechanism might be found to put peace revision on its way.

This would be a tremendous asset for the strengthening of international law and would certainly go far towards enthronement of right over sheer might.

Mr. Arnold Forster in a scholarly article published in the May number of the London "Foreign Affairs" suggests that the Labor Party's aim is to extend the scope of Article XIX of the Covenant as far as possible. It is, moreover, well known that the British Labor Party is in hearty accord with the program of the Union of Democratic Control, first propounded by E. D. Morel, Sir Charles Trevelyan, Norman Angell and others in favor of Treaty revision.

What Makes for a Sane and Healthy Peace Revision?

In the above merely an attempt has been made to outline a possible method by means of which a readjustment of bad treaty provisions could be enforced. The second question is now to be answered: What shall be done to prepare and to enforce treaty revision? What makes for a sane and healthy peace revision? It would seem that it is entirely irrelevant and improper even to attempt to give an answer to this question. It is plain that the answer can be given only by all interested former belligerent parties themselves, that is to say in the case of the Treaty of Trianon by all interested succession States of the former Dual Monarchy.

What can, however, be stated right now, is that a territorial readjustment of the boundary lines, in order to become feasible must go hand in hand with economic sanctions and readjustments. In the event of a retrocession of former Hungarian territory [Page 348]to Hungary, this latter would have to make satisfactory agreements with her neighbors compensating them economically for territorial losses and which would constitute an economic readjustment of all outstanding customs, and railway, freight and other tariffs.

Hungary would be in principle prepared for such an economic readjustment, if her just demand for an adequate peace revision were considered. This would be of great benefit to all adjoining neighbors and the general welfare and prosperity derived from such a readjustment would be well worth the territorial sacrifices which these neighbors would be called upon to make, if the name "sacrifice" can be used at all in this connection. For after all these latter could not be rightfully qualified as sacrifices proper, as in the first place the territorial dismemberment of Hungary was contrary to all human and divine rights, and in the second place the territories accrued to them have not and never can be a real benefit to them, because of intense dissatisfaction existing among the populations, or at least of the large percentage who have been wrested from Hungary and transferred to alien sovereignties without their will, desire, or sanction.

The British Labor Party alone can, of course, no more decide this question than the British Conservatives alone could have done it, but the present Labor Government has an excellent opportunity to carry its program into practice and while one swallow does not make a summer, England's example would, so we believe, exercise a great stimulus on the decision of all Anglo-Saxon people, probably also of France and Italy.

Peace revision as can be seen becomes a practical test of the peace ideal. Peace prayers are good and should not be discouraged, but in this hard-boiled world it is not to be expected that they will outlaw wars. This is only possible if the causes of new wars are eliminated. That can only be done by a reasonable peace treaty revision satisfactory to both sides. [Page 349]

LANGUAGE AND WORLD UNITY

by C. F. GATES President, Robert College, Constantinople

THERE can be no question that the possession of a common language is a very strong bond of unity among men. The called the "mother tongue," is the natural medium for the expression of one's thoughts and feelings. The deepest thoughts and the most tender feelings, the most intimate associations are all connected with the mother tongue. When a foreigner can speak that language it goes far towards admitting him into the inner circles of that people. Faces light up and manners unbend when men are addressed by a foreigner in their own mother tongue. There is much truth in the saying:-One language one man, two languages two men, etc., for the power to speak the language of a people goes far towards making the speaker one with that people. He gains an insight into their opinions, prejudices, and feelings, which cannot be gained by one ignorant of their language.

If it were possible to make one language prevail in all lands, over all peoples, it would undoubtedly go far towards producing World Unity, but such unity of language is a Utopian dream. No language that has been or can be devised has any prospect of supplanting the different languages which now constitute the mother speech of different peoples, to give them one universal language.

What then should be the policy of all who are striving for World Unity with regard to the question of language? I think the term World Unity is something of a misnomer. What we really mean is World Cooperation in a spirit of unity among the nations. It is much to be regretted that various nations are now trying [Page 350]to encourage a nationalistic spirit by suppressing the language of some of their citizens. As a result of the World War, these nations have included within their boundaries peoples of a different language from their own. In many cases that language has in the past been associated with hostility to the nation whose citizenship they have now acquired not by any choice on their own part, but as the result of the fortunes of war. They are as truly captives taken in war as were the peoples carried off by the Babylonians or Romans in days of old. Naturally, they are not animated by friendly feelings towards their new masters, and the great problem for these master-nations is: How to reconcile these minorities to their new situation and change their hostility into loyalty. The presence of disloyal minorities is always a menace to the peace of the nation.

The policy which is actually being pursued by the nations which have acquired such minorities is one of forcible suppression of their language. Their national schools and churches are closed, their language is placed under a ban, and they are required to learn the language of the nation into whose territory they have now been projected. This policy is the prevailing one now used in dealing with minorities. The purpose of it is very manifest, it is to destroy their old nationality and to create in them a new nationality that of their new masters. This is conceived as a State Policy, it is not viewed from a humanitarian standpoint, but from that of the interests of the victorious nations. Often other restrictions than those of language are imposed on recalcitrant minorities: loss of property, restrictions of the right to travel and to trade, for example. It is a policy of forcible suppression of language and of nationality.

The purpose of this policy is plain to every one. There is no secret about it. The question is whether the policy is successful; does it really produce the best results in the interests of the ruling nation?

As I have pointed out above, the mother speech is dear to the hearts of men, and any attempt to suppress that speech by force is fiercely resented. It deepens the antagonism already existing and [Page 351]

LANGUAGE AND WORLD UNITY

arouses new antagonisms which only await opportunity for making trouble; therefore, it does not accomplish the purpose of making the minorities loyal to their new government.

So far as I can see, this policy of forcibly suppressing languages is working mischief, and it is therefore not good statesmanship.

The policy which common sense would dictate would be for the ruling nation to do everything in its power to make the minorities feel that it is for their interest to be incorporated in this nation. They should have complete freedom in regard to schools and churches and the use of their own language, and they should have such opportunities for travel, trade, and labor as would make them contented. Prosperity breeds content, oppression breeds revolution. The requirement that the minorities should learn the language of the nation is just and right, but as to supplanting their mother tongue by the language of the nation, that can only be successfully accomplished where it is to the economic and cultural interest of the minorities to use the language of the nation. Men quickly learn a language when they feel that they need it, and the possession of a common language opens the way for mutual understanding and tends to bring people together. Natural laws work better than artificial laws in dealing with peoples.

The United States has many foreign minorities but the government has never attempted to suppress their languages, and this policy, it must be conceded, has produced far better results than the policy followed since the war by many nations in Europe. [Page 352]

WORLD UNITY CONFERENCES

Under the Auspices of World Unity Foundation The World Unity Conferences are a medium by which responsible leaders of opinion can convey their message to the public without restriction of race, class, nationality or creed. Upholding the ideals of brotherhood found in all religious and ethical teachings, the Conferences strive to quicken the spiritual resources of the community by bringing upon one platform gifted speakers representing the universal outlook and capable of interpreting the meanings of the new age. World Unity Con- ferences are held at frequent intervals in cities of the United States and Canada, and this educational activity will be extended as soon as possible to Europe. A distinctive feature of the Conferences consists in the local World Unity Councils, composed of leading liberals, established in the various cities to further the world unity ideal.

Program of Meetings-October, 1929-May, 1930

Cleveland, Ohio-October 20 to 24 Chicago, Ill.-November 10 to 24 Buffalo, N. Y.-December: to 5 Detroit, Mich.-January 19 to 23 Washington, D. C.-February 16 to 19 Baltimore, Md.-March 9 to 13' Pittsburgh, Pa.-April 6 to 10 Philadelphia, Pa.-May 4 to 8 Boston, Mass.-May 18 to 22

WORLD UNITY COUNCILS

Buffalo Rev. R. Carl Stoll, Chairman Dr. Allen Knight Chalmers Mrs. Joseph Devine Mrs. Harold M. Esty Mr. William Evans Rabbi Joseph L. Fink Mrs. Chauncy J. Hamlin Rev. Palfrey Perkins Dr. Augustus H. Sherrer Rev. Donald Tullis Miss Olive Williams

Chicago Prof. Fred Merrifield, Chairman Dr. George W. Allison Prof. Edward Scribner Ames Dr. William H. Boddy Dr. Preston Bradley Mrs. Charles S. Clark Mrs. Henry Clay Doffeen Mrs. Ed. E. Dixon S. John Duncan-Clark Mr. F. C. Eiselen Dr. G. George Fox Dr. Charles W. S. Gilkey Professor A. Eustace Haydon Mrs. Edward S. Lowenthall Miss Mary McDowell Rabbi Louis L. Mann Dr. Rowena Morse Mann Dr. Curtis W. Reese Mrs. P. A. Spaulding Lorado Taft" Dr. Ernest F. Tittle

Cleveland Dr. Charles F. Thwing, Hon. Chairman Mr. Thomas J. Holmes, Chairman Rabbi S. Goldman Rev. Joel B. Hayden Prof. W. G. Leutner Dr. Dilworth Lupton Parker Wright Meade Miss Ethel Parmenter Mr. Joseph Remenyi Rabbi Hillel Silver Mrs. Judson Stewart Judge George S. Addams Dr. Henry Turner Bailey Dr. Dan Bradley Mrs. Frances F. Bushea Mr. Dale S. Cole Miss Linda A. Eastman Dr. A. Caswell Ellis Mrs. Royce D. Fry [Page 353]

Detroit

Dr. Frank D. Adams, Chairman Mrs. Philamine Altman Mrs. Wm. Alrord Mrs. Carl B. Chamberlin Dr. Frank Cody Dean W. L. Coffee Mr. John Dancy Mrs. Robert L. Davis Mrs. H. W. Dunklee Dr. Chester B. Emerson Rabbi Leo M. Franklin Mrs. Eric Leyton Gates Mr T. Hendrie Mr. Ralph C. McAfee Mrs. Charles M. Novac Rt. Rev. Herman Page Dr. Morton Pearson Dr. Augustus P. Reccord Mr. Jarvis Schermerhorn Mr. Adam Strohm Mr. Lee M. Terrill Mr. W. W. Wing Mrs. R. P. Nason

Hartford

Rabbi Abraham J. Feldman, Chairman Miss Mary Bulkley Rev. Willis H. Buuler Mr. C. C. Heminway Mr. George C. Hubert Dr. John C. Jackson Rev. Richard H. McLaughlin Dr. A. B. Meredith Miss Ella E. Muir Dr. Rockwell Harmon Potter Mrs. Milton Simon Professor Edward L. Troxell Mr. Fred D. Wish

Springfield

Dr. Lawrence L. Doggett, Chairman Rev. Fred Winslow Adams Mr. William B. Belli Mrs. W. J. Campbell Miss Mary Vida Clark Miss Maude B. Corbett Rev. W. N. de Berry Rev. Owen Whitman Eames Mr. Carlos B. Ellis Dr. James Gordon Gilkey Rev. Frank B. Fagerburg Mrs. Archer F. Leonard Mrs. Asel A. Packard Rabbi Samuel Price Mrs. Joseph Pynchon Mrs. Robert E. Stebbins Mrs. Hilley C. Wellman

Toledo

Dr. George Lawrence Parker, Chairman Judge Jason B. Barber Dr. Robert Blyth Miss Matilda Campbell Miss Olive Colton" Mr. John D. Dun Mrs. F. L. Geddes Dr. John L. Keedey Rabbi Kornfield Dr. R. Lincoln Long Mrs. George Lawrence Parker Mr. Grove Patterson Mr. Harold C. Place Miss Florence Sprague Mrs. Robert J. West

Toronto

Mr. Maurice Hutton, Chairman Mrs. John S. Bennett Dr. Murray G. Brooks Mr. Maurice Bucovetsky Mr. J. W. Bundy Rev. W. A. Cameron Dr. Trevor H. Davies Professor de Lury Mrs. Dunnington-Grubb Dr. E. A. Bardy Mr. J. W. Hopkins Dr. James L. Hughes Rabbi Ferdinand M. Isserman Dr. D. D. MacDonald Mrs. J. Pat McGregor Mr. Fred C. Meyer Miss J. M. Norton Dr. George C. Pidgeon Rev. C. V. Pulcher Mrs. H. W. Price Dr. J. R. P. Sclater Mrs. Robert B. Thompson Mrs. F. C. Ward

Washington

Miss Hettie P. Anderson Dr. George F. Bowerman Senator Carper Mr. Wm. K. wles Cooper Dr. Henry Grattan Doyle Dr. Mordecai Johnson Rev. Moses R. Lovell Mr. Allan B. McDaniel Judge Mary O'Toole Dr. Jason Noble Pierce Rabbi Abram Simon Mrs. Wm. Adams Slade

Providence

Dr. W. H. P. Faunce, Hon. Chairman Mrs. John H. Wells, Chairman Dr. John L. Alger Mrs. James E. Cheeseman Rev. Arthur W. Cleaves Mrs. George H. Crooker Professor L. M. Goodrich Rabbi Samuel M. Gup Rev. Richard McLaughlin Miss M. S. Morriss Mrs. Frank E. Peckham Rt. Rev. James de Wolf Perry Rev. O. S. P. Thompson

Rochester

Rev. David Rhys Williams, Chairman Mrs. Helen Probst Abbott Rabbi Philip Bernstein Mr. Thomas A. Bolling Miss Elizabeth Brooks Mrs. Mary Thorn Lewis Gannett Mr. Frank E. Gugelman Dr. Raymon Kistler Mr. Clement G. Lanni Dr. Dexter Perkins Dr. Justin Wroe Nixon Miss Helen W. Pomeroy Dr. Orlo J. Price Mr. Harold W. Sanford Mr. LeRoy E. Snyder Mr. William F. Yust [Page 354]

ROUND TABLE

The World Unity Library, announced some months ago, is now definitely inaugurated with the two books listed in the advertisement published in the present issue. By this extension of our publishing activities, the World Unity movement is considerably reinforced. The editors request the cooperation of readers in bringing the Library-to the attention of interested friends. Although both these volumes are appearing serially in the magazine, the serial text has been cut one-third to one half less than the book text.

Another special announcement to be made at this time concerns the Institute of World Unity. Arrangements are under way for a series of lectures, under the joint auspices of World Unity Foundation and Roerich Museum, on the subject: "Paths to World Unity and International Cooperation" to be held weekly in the Roerich Museum, New York City, from February 26 to March 26. The five lectures, each by a different scholar, will deal with the five major social interests—Economics, Science, Religion, Philosophy and Education. As the final program has not been made up at the date the February magazine goes to press, copies of the program will be mailed from either the World Unity or Roerich Museum office on request. Those who attend these lectures will have an unusual opportunity to learn the views of recognized specialists on current subjects which lie at the very heart of the problem of world civilization.

The annual meeting of Trustees of World Unity Foundation, held during January, brought out the significant fact that in addition to the public Conferences held in different cities at monthly intervals between October and May, the Director accepted invitations from three hundred and thirty organizations to speak on the principles and ideals of international cooperation during the past year. Interest in world-wide cooperation has steadily intensified since the first public Conference on World Unity was held some three years ago. As one international crisis after another develops, new sections of the public, previously indifferent, are aroused to a new sense of the common responsibility. The activities of the Foundation are limited only by its available funds. Supported by voluntary contributions, the Foundation will undertake a program of activities extending its meetings and literature to all large cities of the United States and Canada as soon as the value of its educational work is more widely recognized. The purposes of the Foundation are set forth in a printed prospectus which should be in the hands of every American conscious of our stake in the maintenance of peaceful relations with other peoples of America, Europe and the East. [Page 355]

WORLD UNITY LIBRARY

A SERIES OF BOOKS BY LEADING SCHOLARS AND EDUCATORS ON INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENTS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE—DEALING WITH WORLD AFFAIRS FROM THE BROAD OUTLOOK WHICH REALIZES THE INTER-RELATIONS OF RELIGION, SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, INDUSTRY AND POLITICS. A NOTABLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONTEMPORARY THOUGHT BY WHICH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE BEING PREPARED TO EXERCISE DECISIVE INFLUENCE IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER...

Published by Frederick A. Stokes Company with the cooperation of WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

General Introduction

The rising tide of interest in international affairs has made inevitable some effort to coordinate for general readers the considerable volume of literature which represents the reaction of scholars and educators to the new world scene. From summaries of modern history to studies in special fields such as race relations or international finance, the man or woman beginning to feel a sense of responsibility toward the larger issues of war and peace is confronted with a choice of titles and treatments which the American tradition of isolation makes peculiarly difficult. The very concept of "internationalism," in fact, still carries in certain quarters an unfortunate and distinctly unjustifiable connection with radical economic movements.

To overcome this difficulty, the World Unity Library has been planned with the cooperation of authors of recognized authority and unquestionable scholarship. The books published in this series are, for two reasons, a noteworthy contribution to the new knowledge of human relationships rapidly developing since the war. The series as a whole [Page 356]deals with the more significant aspects of world affairs in the briefest possible detail, thus providing a carefully organized approach for general readers as well as students. Each volume, moreover, while conforming to no artificial standard of uniformity, and arguing for no particular doctrine or thesis, falls into general harmony with every other volume from the fact that the participating authors share at least one common ideal—the possibility of peace and cooperation among the nations, races, religions and classes of mankind. The essential value of the series perhaps derives from the fact that it has enabled a number of authors to deal with world affairs without those benumbing restrictions so frequently imposed in the name of social or political authority. The World Unity Library is nothing else than a free discussion of those facts, conditions and principles which afford a sound basis of hope for the triumph of the spirit of cooperation as the organic truth of human life. Nothing less could be acceptable to intelligent readers grown conscious of the inadequacy of pre-war education in the face of the revolutionary changes of our time.

Too few people yet realize to what an extent contemporary scholarship confirms, in terms of history, science, philosophy, psychology and religion, to say nothing of politics and economics in their development as branches of social science, the new, yet world-old, spirit of cooperation and peace. Few of us appreciate, either, how far the modern scholar has left behind the cultural cloister of tradition to take his stand as interpreter of the most vital human problems. Just as chemist and physicist for several decades have made definite impact through industrial research and invention, so now the historian and the sociologist are powerfully affecting the trend of events through their contributions of that more important knowledge, knowledge of man and men.

The World Unity Library, then, aims to extend to adults in all walks of life an opportunity for acquiring the broader outlook demanded by the many transformations taking place in human life. From whatever source the new knowledge is derived by the reader, its possession seems to be the greatest intellectual and spiritual privilege in the world today.

HORACE HOLLEY Editor, World Unity Library [Page 357]

ANNOUNCING VOLUMES ONE AND TWO

1. A World Community: The Supreme Task of the Twentieth Century, by John Herman Randall, author of "A New Philosophy of Life," "Humanity at the Cross-Roads," etc.; pioneer in the movement for adult education; Editor, World Unity Magazine; Director, World Unity Foundation.

A thoroughly balanced, introductory work outlining the problems and opportunities which confront humanity at the present time. "A World Community" explains the fundamental factors in the new science of human relationships and presents the only rational social ideal for the age.

Summary of Contents

The New Means of Communication The New Economic Organization The New Knowledge The Emerging Ideal of World Unity Nationalism Economic Imperialism War and Competitive Armaments Ignorance and Old Habits of Thinking The Movement Toward Internationalism The Movement Toward World Economic Cooperation A Religion for a World Community

2. Nationalism and Internationalism, by Herbert Adams Gibbons, author of "Introduction to World Politics," "New Map of South America," etc.; Fellow, Royal Historical Society.

The story of the development of modern nationalism, with its concomitant, internationalism, written by one of the leading American historians. Dr. Gibbons' book supplies the historical background essential to the proper understanding of current events in Asia, Europe and South America.

Summary of Contents

Nationalism Before 1789 Nationalism Versus Internationalism from 1789 to 1815 Nationalism and Internationalism from 1815 to 1870 Nationalist Movements from 1870 to 1914 Nationalism During the World War and the Peace Conference International Cooperation Since the World War

Either or both these books will be sent by World Unity Magazine postpaid on receipt of price. For special combination offers, see next page. [Page 358]

WORLD UNITY MAGAZINE

Interpreting the Spirit of the Age

In World Unity (published monthly since October, 1927), a large number of scholars representing the most advanced thought of America, Europe and the Orient, are creating a body of current international literature invaluable to all who desire to see the problem of world civilization as a whole.

Its important serial articles and special contributions go beneath the surface of the daily news to reveal the larger forces remolding human life and thought in all countries.

The particular province covered by World Unity and by no other periodical published in the English language is non-partisan discussion of every international movement showing the trend toward unity and cooperation between religions, races, nations and classes.

SPECIAL ORDER FORM

A year's subscription to World Unity Magazine with or without books in the World Unity Library. (Special World Unity Magazine edition)

WORLD UNITY 4 EAST 12TH STREET, NEW YORK CITY

☐ I enclose $3.50* for one annual subscription to World Unity Magazine.

☐ I enclose $5.00* for subscription to World Unity and one copy of "A World Community" by John Herman Randall. (Price of book alone, $2.00.)

I enclose $4.75* for subscription to World Unity and one copy of "Nationalism and Internationalism" by Herbert Adams Gibbons. (Price of book alone, $1.50.)

I enclose $6.25* for subscription to World Unity and one copy of each book listed above.

Name... Address

One dollar less for Public Libraries and Educational or Religious Institutions. [Page 359]Now a Monthly Magazine PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION For educators and parents who live in a modern world and who believe that education should keep pace with all progress.

Contents for February

GEORGE BOAS (Johns Hopkins)-An Ideal College Curriculum BROWN AND JOSEPHS (Avon Old Farms)-An experiment in Teaching Mathematics as a Phase of Science HOWARD SMITH (Milton Academy)-The Work of the Secondary School Board JOHN A. LESTER (Hill School)-Progressive Elements in the Middle States Meetings KATHARINE TAYLOR (Shady Hill School)-Recent Developments in Primary Education WILFORD AIKIN (John Burroughs School)-Trends in the Secondary School STEPHEN P. DUGGAN-The Work of the Institute of International Education BOOK REVIEWS Work of the P. E. A. Editorials News and Notes

Some Forthcoming Contributors

Knight Dunlap (Johns Hopkins), Harold Rugg (Lincoln School), Donald Slesinger (Yale), W. A. Neilson (Smith), Henry Seidel Canby (The Saturday Review of Literature), Honorable Albert C. Ritchie (Governor of Maryland), Henry W. Holmes (Harvard), Charles Swain Thomas (Harvard), Percy T. Walden (Yale), Henry S. Pritchett (President, Carnegie Corporation), Robert Morse Lovett, David E. Weiglein (Superintendent of Schools, Baltimore), Randall Condon (formerly Superintendent of Schools, Cincinnati).

Department C. Progressive Education Association, 10 Jackson Place, Washington, D. C.

Date.

Enclosed find my check for $3.00 for which enter my subscription to PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION for one year. This entitles me to membership in the Progressive Education Association, with the benefit of its service.

Name Address [Page 360]

The R.E.A. "A Meeting of Minds"

UR time shows an unmistakable growth of friendly understanding of one another by diverse religious and other cultural groups. The Religious Education Association has an interesting place in this movement. Though the originators of the Association were mostly Protestants of liberal types, every sort of religious test has been abjured. Membership always has been open upon equal terms to persons of all religions and of none. The administrative boards have had a remarkably heterogeneous membership.

The declared purpose is simply to promote religious and moral education; there is no specification as to kinds of religion or of morals, nor as to educational methods, instruments or institutions.

How, then, does the Association "promote" anything? By inducing people to talk and to listen to one another. Furnishing thus a "clearing house of opinion," it helps us find out what we really want, how we can or cannot get what we want, and how the wants of different elements in the population can be related to one another. Individuals speak as individuals, not as delegates. Hence, sharply divergent views are aired without rancor and without suspicion of the ulterior motives. Moreover, because facts and ideas are thus disentangled from vested interests, the effect has been not merely to render administrative movement in churches more easy, but also to prevent precipitate changes.—George A. Coe.

An Introductory Membership Offer

This membership must begin with January 1930, and will continue for one year only. The application and payment must be made before the Cleveland Convention — April 23-25, 1930.

MEMBERSHIP in the R. E. A. and RELIGIOUS EDUCATION for 1930, Volume XXV for $3.50

"For new acquaintance sake"

This offer is made to individuals only who are not at present members of the Association. It is made with the hope that a year's acquaintanceship with the Journal will result in permanent membership.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 308 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, III.