First World War Centennial

CHAPTER II

NEUTRAL INFLUENCE AND FREEDOM OF THE SEAS

AFTER a neutral nation has safeguarded ■^ its own interests by preparing for any contingency, it finds that as a by-product to the achievement of national security it is possessed of influence that was not its before. This comes automatically with the creation of a military and naval force proportional to its needs.

Fitted in its own eyes for defense, it be­comes from the belligerent's point of view a powerful medium for offense. In this na­tions have all the frailty and weakness of mortals. During the time that the neutral state was of no importance from a military point of view it was ignored. Now that an army and navy are features of its sov­ereign life it is courted and treated with consideration.

It is curious that eminent pacificists whose hopes for the future rest upon the part assigned neutral states in world councils have given this fact so little weight.

Oppenheim, the text writer on international law, is a better observer. To him (vol. ii., page 359) the shaping up of such resources has been a most important factor in bringing about the rapid development in the laws of neutrality during the nineteenth century. If the distinguished professor is right, and ministries involved in war are careful not to offend a powerful neutral for fear of driving it into the opposite camp, the present oppor­tunity for the United States to win lasting advantages, not only for itself as a neutral, but for all neutral states, is one that is his­torically without parallel.

This is especially so because trade and commerce, now the chief factor in community life, have waked a world public not only to a realization of the economic and unprevent­able loss from war, but to the fact that states not involved in conflict are unneces­sarily embarrassed by rules which are as illogical as they are archaic.

All that is now needed is strong and con­sistent leadership among the nations. With this furnished, the close of the present war will find belligerent peoples as anxious as neutrals to put the noncombatant in a posi­tion from which it may even hold the dogs of war themselves in check.

Unfortunately it is one thing to have an opportunity to do things of lasting value and another thing to act. Meantime no discus­sion of neutral rights and duties in this day is sufficient that does not contemplate both progress and reform.

In no department of international law is this more apparent than in that which in­timately affects the United States and which has to do with rules and practices governing that great portion of the globe which is covered with water and is familiarly desig­nated as the High Seas, whether the same is understood to be the "unenclosed ocean without fauces terræ" of Judge Story, or is otherwise designated.

For reasons varying in weight from the ingenuously naïve and worthless to the re­spectable, both publicists and jurists have declared these to be free.

This is puzzling to the student who reads of belligerent aggression in the daily press; it must be irritating to naval officers who, themselves distinguished commentators on the law of nations, are informed regarding the facts.

For the high seas are not free in practice because of the right of search which is at present recognized as belonging to nations at war, and the theory is so obviously fiction that it is hardly worth while to read learned treatises which tell why the ocean is con­sidered to be something else than it is.

No one will deny that here is occasion for reform as far as present practice is concerned, nor that progress is desirable even if it brings the arbiters of international affairs no further than is required to make respectable the words—"Freedom of the Seas."

While serious objection will be urged to any change in prevailing custom by the represen­tatives of nations that have championed the rule of the hour, there is a serious question if all such would not directly benefit by voluntarily curtailing their powers. Think of the trouble that a modification of the right of search would eliminate! Now in danger of being extended, its broad application long since brought peril to promoters who were too anxious to force neutral nations into partial servitude to notice its effect upon their own interests.

In 1812 it led England into conflict with America, and left a hard feeling toward the mother country, causing bad blood for over a century. It almost precipitated a war be­tween Great Britain and the United States because of the Mason and Slidell incident at a time when the cause of the Union might have been wrecked thereby.

It has recently roused discontent in the United States toward all the belligerents; and through Germany's inexplicable inter­pretation, extension, and application of Pre­cedents must, if persisted in, bring it into conflict with a great nation that does not want to fight.

Notwithstanding these facts, we cannot expect belligerent nations of themselves to make any departure from past practices. Their immediate selfish interests will not permit it. The initiative must come from neutral states, which should be prepared to argue somewhat as follows:

"The older publicists, not hidebound by precedent, based the freedom of the seas upon the sentimental ground that they were equally convenient to all peoples as a medium for communication and therefore should be controlled by none; and upon the more satis­factory premises that no nation, however powerful, can exercise consistent dominion thereupon. States will find it for their advantage to bear in mind both points, but especially to recognize actual dominion as the only criterion which justifies meddling with the concerns of a sister nation."

Politely submitted, matter of this sort ought to receive fair consideration, especially if backed by representations which indicate that the neutral nations are wearied of the part assigned them—that of the chestnut-pulling cat in the fable.

Perhaps the time has not come for such a leap forward. If not, then some approxima­tion is to be sought for. Meantime is there not reason to believe that if a concert of the great Powers ever does decide to limit acts of sovereignty to the sphere in which the acting nation is in a position (whether by peaceful or war measure) to maintain con­sistent and constant dominion, then not only will a hundred tangles be avoided, but many of the new problems which arise in con­nection with the adaptation of old rules to new conditions will be automatically adjusted?

New conditions are caused by improve­ments made in artillery, ships of war, fortresses, means of offense and defense. These are bound to bring about continuous and serious complications for neutrals unless positive international law is put on a sane basis.