On This Day, 13 November 1918

Birmingham Daily Post

Wednesday 13 November 1918

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Lord Robert Cecil, who was yesterday installed as Chancellor of the University of Birmingham, took for the subject of his address the future organisation of international relations. No theme more appropriate to current events could he have chosen. Half the world is frantically rejoicing because peace has been secured. It is the powerful reaction from the misery and agitation of more than four years of war which has brought about such an appalling loss of life and ruinous destruction of material wealth. But though peace has yet to be signed, no doubt is there that the terms will be such as to debar Germany and her late associates from venturing again, at least for a very long time, to overthrow the peace of the world. It is not, however, a contingency, whether as relating that group or any other group of Powers, that must be left to chance. With the full realisation of all the terrible consequences of modern war, it becomes the solemn duty of the belligerent nations, with the co-operation of all neutral States, to set up, if possible, some machinery whereby war shall averted. And such machinery Lord Robert believes is attainable only by means of a League of Nations. No one, possibly, is disposed to question that the surest way of safeguarding peace is by some general agreement or association of nations to that end; and, therefore, even in the countries which precipitated the war and will have to pay the penalty, there is a strong profession of attachment to the proposal for a league of the kind.

Yet is to be found among the most sincere well-wishers in Allied countries of that lofty idea much doubt as to whether any league can be established upon a basis that will secure its lofty ideals. In seeking, as Lord Robert says, to substitute something like the reign of law for that of brute force, it is obvious that the former pre-supposes a law-giver to enact laws, and machinery to enforce them. The only possible authority for the making of laws to bind nations is an assembly of the nations themselves or their representatives. To make such an association operative it should be open to every nation that can be trusted by its fellows to accept the principles and basis of such a society. Lord Robert not only regards this as vital, but would even go as far as to say that such a society would be incomplete and proportionately ineffective unless every civilised nation joins it. There, at once, we are up against a difficulty. It cannot denied that a very strong body of opinion exists against the reception into the League of Germany; but that is an opposition which may probably diminish as events develop. On the other hand, the setting up of the machinery by which the laws of that tribunal are to be enforced presents a much wider problem. In these circumstances, it is interesting to note what, in the opinion of the Minister of Blockade, is required. He suggests a treaty binding the signatories never to wage war themselves or permit others to wage war till a formal conference of nations has been held to enquire into and, if possible, decide upon the dispute.

So far so good; but how is this to be made binding? The signatories are to use their whole force, economic as well as military, against any State that forces on war before a conference has been held. Lord Robert is fully convinced that international boycott would be extraordinarily effective—the events of the war have, in his judgment, made that very evident. When attention is directed to the question of disarmament, so intimately associated in the minds of most people with the idea of a League of Nations, the Minister has little to say. Whilst agreeing that there can be no complete security against future war without disarmament, he goes no further than to express a pious wish that some really effective and trustworthy means may be found drastically to limit the armed forces of every State. There is much food for thought in Lord R. Cecil’s outline of a scheme for the organisation of international relations. If it does not appear to carry us far enough, at least it points the direction in which effort to attain a great end must travel.