In 1898 the world was startled by the peace and disarmament proclamation of the Russian czar, through which he called for all the nations to join him in a peace conference, the purpose of which should be to bring about some scheme of general disarmament on the part of the nations. Of that appeal this is the leading and most important part:—
“In the course of the last twenty years the longings for a general appeasement have grown especially pronounced in the consciences of civilized nations. The preservation of peace has been put forward as the object of international policy; it is in its name that great states have concluded between themselves powerful alliances; it is the better to guarantee peace that they have developed in proportions hitherto unprecedented their military forces, and still continue to increase them without shrinking from any sacrifice.
“All these efforts, nevertheless, have not yet been able to bring about the beneficent results of the desired pacification. The financial charges following an upward march strike at the public prosperity at its very source.
“The intellectual and physical strength of the nations, labor and capital, are for the major part diverted from their natural application, and unproductively consumed. Hundreds of millions are devoted to acquiring terrible engines of destruction, which, though to-day regarded as the last word of science, are destined to-morrow to lose all value in consequence of some fresh discovery in the same field.
“National culture, economic progress, and the production of wealth are either paralyzed or checked in their development. Moreover, in proportion as the armaments of each power increase, so do they less and less fulfil the object which the governments have set before themselves.
“The economic crisis, due in great part to the system of armaments, à outrance to the point of outrage, or to the bitter end, and the continued danger which lies in this massing of war material, are transforming the armed peace of our days into a crushing burden, which the people have more and more difficulty in bearing. It appears evident, then, that if this state of things were prolonged, it would inevitably lead to the very cataclysm which it is desired to avert, and the horrors of which make every thinking man shudder in advance.”
Whatever may have been the underlying reasons which caused the czar of all the Russias to issue this invitation to his brother potentates, one thing is certain, that whether his object and design was sinister or sincere, men stand aghast when they view the terrible effects which must needs be produced by modern warfare. Within hundreds of thousands of breasts there exists a desire for a change in this state of affairs so horrible to contemplate.
Until the year 1899 the United States has stood before the world as the champion of small standing armies, and squadrons of war-ships sufficient only for the patrol of the coast. While clinging to this doctrine, the United States has become one of the greatest of the world-powers, without possessing a fleet worth speaking of, and without calling upon her few soldiers to step beyond the boundaries of her own continent. Small armies and navies have been made possible for this country on account of that magnificent clause in the political creed of all parties, known as the Monroe Doctrine. This was announced by the president of the country full seventy-five years ago, and the essence of it is: “We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.” And immediately after this there was enunciated the solemn declaration: “With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere.”
The Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed at a time when the “allied powers” of Europe, whose representatives, assembled at Vienna, took to themselves the name of the “Holy Alliance,” were attempting to give renewed prominence to the idea that kings govern by divine right. “It was intended to teach the people that all the liberties they were entitled to possess were such only as the governing monarchs deemed expedient to grant them; that they were entitled to none whatsoever by virtue of the natural law; that the attempt to establish representative and liberal government, like that of the United States, was an unpardonable sin against God; and that the highest duty of citizenship was obedience to monarchical authority.” 1
Such were the principles of the Holy Alliance of the crowned heads of Europe; its specific object was to re-establish the despotism of Spain upon her revolted colonies in South America and in Mexico. On the other hand, the essence of the Monroe Doctrine as then understood by all the world was that “while we forbid the establishment of despotic governments upon the American continent, we recognize the corresponding obligation to refrain from any attempt to force our political system upon any part of the Old World.” 2
Now we have abandoned the Monroe Doctrine, and entered into the arena for foreign possessions, and this, of course, naturally calls for a large increase of the army and the navy. If the American nation persists in this policy, the time is past and gone forever when she can look down with condescending pity upon the nations of Europe groaning beneath the weight of tremendous military establishments. It is now seriously urged that the United States requires an army of at least 100,000 fighting men. This would mean an annual cost of about $150,000,000. It must also be remembered that to-day the nation is carrying a pension roll of most enormous proportions. Last year there was paid to the pensioners of the Civil war the gigantic sum of $145,000,000. This is an amount larger than the cost per annum of the entire peace establishment of Germany, including her pension roll.
However, the item of cost is but a small one compared with the principle involved. Had the czar’s peace and disarmament conference been called a year or so earlier, the United States could have gone to take a part in its deliberations, and joyfully told the monarchies of the Old World the benefits to be derived from having no large standing armies, or huge navies. The representatives of this government could have told those people that peace and disarmament were the two things She had been not only advocating, but of which she had been a living example during all her national history. The United States would have then been entitled to the chief place in the van, and could have led all the other nations to the full fruition of the harvest of peace so ardently desired. But now the one nation which could have rightfully and with power born of a principle lived up to, changed the course of the other powers, has herself apostatized from these principles of peace and disarmament, and has now taken up a position which will necessarily entail walking in the labyrinth from which they are so vainly trying to extricate themselves.
The Peace and Disarmament Conference has met, deliberated, and come to a close. Many are of the opinion that something has been accomplished; but in reality nothing of real worth or merit has been accomplished. That anything of real worth or merit should have been accomplished is impossible in the very nature of things. Many are saying that the time has come when strong nations shall “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against a nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his own vine, and under his fig-tree.” 3
The advent of the United States in the Orient will not tend to amity, but rather to animosity. This was cleverly stated by Lord Salisbury, when at the last lord mayor’s banquet, he said the “appearance of the United States as a factor in Asiatic affairs is likely to conduce to the interests of Great Britain, but might not conduce to the interests of peace.” It can not possibly conduce to the interests of peace, for the very reason that in entering the Orient this nation has deserted her policy of peace, and has adopted in principle, at least, the bellicose spirit; she has now departed from that doctrine of the “father of his country,” which, if it never brought to her military glory, most certainly has been the cause of her material greatness. The words in the “Farewell Address” are a pearl of great price. They may be familiar, but they can not too often be recalled:—
“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government….
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
“Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations or collisions of her friendships or enmities.
“Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a very different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take suck an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interests, guided by justice, shall counsel.
“Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
But all the nations interested in the Chinese and Oriental problem in general are continually making and breaking alliances. This is absolutely necessary in the very nature of things. One nation may on account of its own internal policy and traditions desire to keep aloof from the others; but when combinations are formed against it, there is no other choice but to join forces with some other power. England has been, more than any other nation, perhaps, friendly to the idea of having the United States in the Oriental caldron. Many think that this friendship will conduce to peace, but that it can not possibly do this is clearly set forth by Carl Schurz in his address before the convocation of the Chicago University last January:—
“If we take those new regions, we shall be well entangled in that contest for territorial aggrandizement which distracts other nations and drives them far beyond their original design. So it will be inevitably with us. We shall want new conquests to protect that which we already possess. The greed of speculators working upon our government will push us from one point to another, and we shall have new conflicts on our hands, almost without knowing how we got into them. It has always been so under such circumstances, and always will be. This means more and more soldiers, ships, and guns. PRUS 166.2 – PRUS 171.4
Adventist Angels Watchman Radio 