Shall The German Eagle Return To The South Seas?

THE future of the territories and groups of the Pacific is bound up with the fate of the League of Nations.

If the League survives, it is possible that Germany will resume possession of New Guinea and the Bis marck Archipelago, Bougainville, the Marshall, Caro line and Marianne Islands, Nauru, and Western Samoa.

If the League dies, those “Mandated Territories” will become the possessions respectively of Aus tralia, Japan and New Zealand.

The subject has been revived by recent develop ments in Europe. Germany, in a manner that admits of no doubt or misinterpretation, is again displaying the spirit of monarchism, militarism and imperialism.

The Republic still stands—but the sons of Wilhelm II., who retain their princely titles, are the leaders of the new Nationalism; and already there is talk of Germany “demanding the return of her colonies.”

The League of Nations was born of expediency, and is a puerile, footling thing. It is the comic sequel of mankind’s greatest tragedy, the World War. Fervently acclaimed and passionately sup ported by theorists, it is regarded with cynicism and amusement by all men who know humanity for what it is—who realise that in the ultimate analysis,

despite Christianity and science and altruism, force still rules the world, and the final law is the law of tooth and claw.

In 1917-18 a kind of hysteria possessed America, and President (Professor) Woodrow Wilson was its apostle. America, according to Wilson, fought ‘‘the war to end war,” fought “to make the world safe for democracy.” When the most critical period of the war arrived, and the continued support of America was vital, and there was a hurried can vassing of peace terms, Wilson thrust his famous “Fourteen Points” upon the Allies and the Allies reluctantly accepted them as the basis of settlement.

The Central Powers collapsed, and the weary and exhausted nations gathered at Versailles to fix the guilt and assess the damages.

It was agreed that Germany had precipitated the war, and that the Central Powers must pay. But when the Allies came to the disposal of the beaten enemy’s territories the Princeton professor’s “Four teen Points” had to be observed. The small nations were to have their freedom: a “spoils-to-the-victors policy, with conquered peoples as the spoils, would but lay the foundation of future wars.”

But how was this to be done? Who was to rule those coloured races incapable of ruling themselves?

To hand her colonies back to guilty Germany would be farcical. The difficulty seemed insurmountable.

Finally, amid blood and sweat and tears, the League of Nations was evolved. It was to police the world; guard the rights of the weaker peoples; arbitrate in disputes between powerful nations; forbid war; and generally to encourage humanity to lift its eyes to the stars. It was a wonderful, a marvellous creation, the glorious embodiment of a dream. It became possible only because every nation in the world, having suffered in the war, was utterly sick of war.

“The devil was sick: the devil a monk would be.

The devil was well —the devil a monk was he!”

If ever proof of the truth of that ancient saw is sought, consider the subsequent history of the League of Nations. As the Powers recovered their health, so they recovered their war spirit, and their respec tive membership of the League has become a grow ing embarrassment.

Meanwhile, what of the United States, whose visionary President caught the Allies when they were practically helpless, and shackled upon them his “Fourteen Points”? The United States, we should suppose, became the backbone and bulwark of the League of Nations, which was the logical outcome of the “Fourteen Points.” Not at all!

The U.S.A., for reasons that no one has ever appre ciated, or even understood, has consistently refused membership of the League.

The Covenant of the League of Nations is quite separate and distinct from the Peace Treaty of Versailles; but they were born at the same time, out of the same set of circumstances. Each has been closely linked with the other. The League took over the conquered German colonies, to hold them nomi nally in trust for Germany—although that never has been clearly stated —and then parcelled them out among the nations already in possession of them, granting to each a “mandate to govern.”

Theoretically, those ex-German colonies belong to the League of Nations, and are held at the ultimate disposal of that body. Actually, they are completely and irrevocably in the possession of the Manda tories, and nothing short of shot and shell will alter that position.

But Germany, increasingly noisy and belligerent, already is suggesting the “return” of her colonies.

What are the League of Nations, and the Manda tories, going to reply to that demand when it be comes—as it will—more clear and insistent?

Inevitably, sooner or later, the League of Nations will collapse like a house of cards. The only members of it who are sincere, and really hope for its success, are Great Britain and her Dominions, and the small nations who see in it their only future protection against aggression and aggrandisement.

The others go to Geneva filled with genuine ad miration for the Anglo-American ideal embodied in the League and for Britain’s painstaking efforts to make the League function. But all of the Powers are cynically certain that the League will never use force to prevent wars, and that therefore it must

collapse, and that any nation caught unprepared will pay the usual penalty for unpreparedness.

If any proof of this were needed, consider the recent Disarmament Conference, which was held in the spirit of the League and to which the nations came reluctantly in response to Ramsay MacDonald’s pleadings. We have been told of its “success.’ ’

Actually, it was a complete “washout”—it achieved exactly nothing.

Meanwhile, Europe is swinging once more towards extreme militarism. France and Italy are armed to the teeth. Japan is silent, but aggressive. Ger many is arming, and a fierce, suspicious Poland, rendered bold by her alliance with France, is ready and eager to fly at Germany’s throat. Mysterious, mad Russia, drunk with “freedom,” will sooner or later try out on her neighbours the efficiency of her colossal war machine. Can anyone in his senses believe, in the face of these facts, that the League of Nations is of any more real value than a house of cards in policing the world against war? As a matter of fact, Britain, in clinging so honestly and stubbornly to the League, is placing herself in terrible danger. Already her navy has fallen in strength, until it is now ranked second or third in the world; while her military establishment is negligible. With the co-operation and support of America, the League of Nations might really have controlled the world. Without America, the thing is hopeless.

Sooner or later—and all true British will pray that it is sooner—the logic of cruel facts will compel Great Britain to recognise her true position, and she will resume her proper standard of armaments.

From that moment the League of Nations will become a meaningless cypher.

“How long before this occurs?” ask thousands of people in New Guinea and Samoa. It is a little difficult to hazard a guess.

The difficult and complicating factor again is U.S.A. This colossal, blindly benevolent nation is trying to make a virtue of necessity by forcing dis armament upon Europe as a condition of war-debts reduction or cancellation. The position is really amusing. Europe will not pay any more war debts, and will not disarm, because Europe regards both armaments and the conservation of its future finance as essential to its future existence. But it is not going to say so. While professing the utmost sym pathy with American ideas and ideals, it is not paying war debts, and it is arming furiously. The European mind, by now, has gripped the fact that America is largely responsible for the world’s present economic agony. America seized the world’s trade while the world was at war, and so became the world’s creditor. America was too stupid to adjust her tariff to the new conditions, which would have permitted most of the debts due to her to be paid in goods; she insisted on pay ments in gold, so that a huge proportion of the world’s gold was sent to America to lie there “frozen” and useless, and the world’s system of in ternational exchange, in consequence, was crippled.

This evil condition was accentuated by the madness of over-production and over-export, which dominated America in 1921-29, so that the world was cluttered with American goods—which had to be paid for largely in gold.

Europe argues that America contri buted hugely to the present economic depression, and America, therefore, can whistle in future for her war debts.

Europe is not yet saying these things officially. Publicists are saying them, and newspapers, and the man in the street. But, in the Chancelleries, such crudities are blandly ignored, and the suave diplomats continue to play ping-pong with the idea of disarma ment, while the coo of their mutual good wishes drowns the rattle of the naval yards and the roar of the big gun factories.

The end, however, is certain. It will be most courteously expressed, with deep regrets and splendid flourishes; but a thumb at the nose, and a little finger pointed at America, would con vey the intimation just as effectively.

It will mean many things: and it will mean the end of the League of Nations.

This may come soon —perhaps in 1933. It may not come for five years.

But the end of the present decade will see no League of Nations—that quaint creation of a Princeton Professor’s dream, which the Princeton Professor’s own country repudiated.

It means a period of waiting—to see what foolish, trusting Britain will do; what this aggressive, re-awakening Germany will do; what stupid, altruis tic Uncle Sam will do. But the wise people in N'ew Guinea and Samoa, and the Mandatories, will read the signs and prepare accordingly.—R.W.R.