Arnoldson Klas Pontus
Pax mundi
If minor breaches of the peace possibly may not thereby be for ever prevented, yet certainly the irresponsible system of violence will become powerless against the force of civilization which is spreading over the whole Western hemisphere.
THE PROSPECTS
The events which I have here described will perhaps one day be regarded as the transition into a new era. But specially here, in the Old World, with its many unsettled accounts, we cannot rely upon bright pictures of the future. We are convinced of nothing beyond the range of our own knowledge and experience.
I have thought so myself, and therefore I have endeavoured to keep to facts which no one can deny.
It is a fact that wars continually diminish in proportion as peoples are brought nearer to one another by trade and commerce. The old warlike condition has ceased. Formerly not a year passed without war in Europe – in the Middle Ages hardly a week. After 1815 an international peace reigned over most of the European States for forty years. In the Scandinavian peninsula that peace is continuing still. Before that time, at least until 1721, Sweden was almost continually involved in war. We reckon two hundred and sixty years of war to the Kalmar Union, and the proneness to invade and defend the countries on the other side the Baltic.
The old causes of war are being removed. Certainly new ones arise as a result of selfish patriotism, breaking out in new acts of violence. But these outbreaks of barbarism become continually more rare. Unhappily, they are so much the more horrible when they do occur, but yet much More transitory. This is applicable to all the great wars in the last half of the present century. No thirty years' war is known now.
In consequence of the shorter flow of blood the wounds get time to heal, and the divided interests are allowed to grow together again. The levers of civilization are again in motion; commerce spreads over land and sea by steam, electricity, and other motive powers. The victories of Alexander and Napoleon are cast into the shade by the triumphal procession of the tiny postage stamp around the world. Trade and industry, art and science, efforts in the direction of universal morality and enlightenment, all branch out and weave around the nations a boundless web of common interests, which, though at certain intervals violently torn asunder by brute force, grows together again with increased strength and in broader compass; until one day, under the majesty of law, it will form an irresistible civilizing power.
This is what in reality is taking place. Men do not in general see it; and this, because they busy themselves so much with warlike notions, and trouble themselves so little about events of the character that I have dwelt upon in the foregoing pages.
The friends of peace ought to stimulate one another, especially when there is gloom over the great world, and no one knows whence the approaching calamity may spring. Once it was warded off from our land by a wise measure of one of our kings. I refer to Oscar I., when he saved us from being embroiled in the chances of war, by drawing up a declaration of neutrality in 1854, which was approved by the united powers, and earned for him the homage and gratitude of the Swedish Riksdag, in an address which lauded him as one of the wisest and noblest of kings.37
But there is little security that the same expedient will always lead to a like successful result, if people wait till war is at the door before setting to work.
In time of peace, and during the specially good relations which obtain between the two English-speaking nations, as well as between France and America, our fellow-workers on both sides the Atlantic are making use of the favourable opportunity for trying to get this good relation established by law.
It may well be asked why we, who are friendly with the whole world, should not be able to do the same, not only with respect to Siam, but also first and foremost with our near neighbours.
It was this thought which led to the Arbitration resolution in 1890, in the Storting and in the Riksdag.
At the first meeting of the Left (Liberals) of the Storting, Feb. 4th, the subject was discussed and gained unanimous adhesion. Whereupon followed the resolution in the Storting on the 21st, which was adopted by a large majority, March 5th, after the Minister of State (Stang) had delivered a long speech against the resolution in vain.
After this successful result, a similar resolution for Sweden was brought into the First Chamber by F.T. Borg, and in the Second by J. Andersson. The reports of the committees upon it ran diversely. The committee of the First Chamber opposed, and that of the Second Chamber approved, the resolution. On May 12th the question was thrown out in both Chambers.38
Mr. Borg spoke with dignity for his resolution in a long speech. This was answered by the chairman of the committee, with a reminder of the perverse condition of the world and of the human race. The resolution contained a "meaningless expression of opinion." It was a real danger for small nations to go to sleep, hoping and believing in a lasting peace. It was now just as in the olden times: those who loved peace and would preserve it "must prepare for war." The speaker had, as chairman of the committee, expressed sympathy with the resolution, but he added, "one does not get far with paper and words; and, according to my opinion, the honourable mover of the resolution will certainly show more love for peace if he, next year, on coming back with this peace business, will set about it with a proposition for some ironclads and artillery regiments or such like things, of more effectual service than the platonic love which he has expressed; and I venture to predict that both the committee and the Chamber will support him more powerfully than to-day."
After another distinguished genius had expressed himself in the same well-known fashion, wherein proofs were conspicuous by their absence, and the narrow circle of thought was filled with scorn and slighting talk about "pious notions," etc., the High Chamber threw out the bill by fifty-six votes against four.
In the Second Chamber the debate was opened by the Foreign Minister with a speech which clearly enough justifies the "Memorial diplomatique" where it points to the necessity of the study of the arbitration-system having a high place amongst the requirements made of those who enter the path of diplomacy; – a thing that they have actually begun seriously to set before themselves in England.
In full accord with the evidence brought forward above, the judicial professor of the Chamber declared in short that the Chamber would disgrace itself by adopting the resolution before it.
After the mover of the resolution and some who shared his views had expressed their hope that the Chamber would not fall back from the position it took in 1874 upon this question, a speaker rose who requires to be met, Herr A. Hedin.
He began with the assertion that if a refusal of the report of the committee would show that the Chamber had now changed its opinion, they had before them sufficient reason for this. He wondered that a resolution of such a nature as this had been brought forward, so soon after the unpleasant experience which the country and people of Sweden lately had in a so-called decision by arbitration. "The Chamber will please to remember," continued the speaker, "that the king, with no authority from the Riksdag, agreed with Spain to appeal to arbitration upon the difficulties that had arisen on the right understanding of the prolonged commercial treaty with Spain. Also the Chamber will please to remember that this arbitration tribunal neither acted upon the plan settled in the agreement, nor did it act in harmony with the instructions of the treaty; and what was worse, the so-called, or supposed, sentence which this one-man arbitration tribunal passed did not concern the matter, which according to the agreement was to have been settled by arbitration, but quite another, which could not reasonably be subjected to arbitration – though the matter was, so far as we were legally concerned, made to appear as though Sweden had received an injustice in the principal matter which should have been tried by arbitration, but which was not – a circumstance which, with the Spanish authorities, has greatly weakened the position in law due to Swedish citizens, whose rights have been violated in so unprecedented a manner by the mode of procedure in consequence of which arbitration was appealed to."
All this had truth in it. But does that prove anything against the usefulness of arbitration clauses in treaties of commerce?
The agreement referred to between the united kingdoms and Spain, January 8th, 1887, establishes: —
"A question which affects customs or the carrying out of commercial treaties, or relates to results of some special violation of the same, shall, when all attempts to come to an amicable agreement and all friendly discussions have proved fruitless, be referred to an arbitration tribunal, whose decision shall be binding on both parties."
According to this it may be plainly seen, that the well-known Swedo-Spanish Spirit-dispute, to which Mr. Hedin alluded, ought to have been solved in its entirety by arbitration. The Spanish Government, however, maintained that this affected Spanish internal concerns, since in fact the forced sale of Karlstamms-Volagets brandy stores in Spain took place as a result of a new spirit law, to which the arbitration clause in this case could not be applied.
This starting-point for the judgment of the whole dispute was accepted by the Swedish Government; which also agreed to let an arbitrator settle whether the question of the spirit tax was independent of the treaty or not. Both Governments agreed to choose the Portuguese ex-Foreign Minister, Count de Casal Riberio, as arbitrator, and he expressed himself in favour of the Spanish construction. And with this the whole matter was settled.
No one can seriously think that the method of procedure on the Swedish side, which led to so distressing a violation of justice as that referred to by Herr Hedin, could prove anything against the principle of arbitration. On the other hand, it appears to betray the character of the statesmanship of our then Foreign Minister; which indeed earned for him a diamond-set snuffbox from the Emperor William II., but otherwise, the blame only of sensible people.
Herr Hedin, who has a weakness for strong expressions, had the opportunity of using some such in their right place. Unhappily, this cannot be said with truth of the closing words of his speech, where he remarks that the expressions of the Foreign Minister are so decisive against the bill that they deal the report of the committee of the Second Chamber a right deadly blow.
The committee had proposed that the king, with the authority which § 11 in the form of government accords him, should seek to bring about such agreements with foreign powers, that future possible differences between the powers named and Sweden should be settled by arbitration.
The deadly blow must be the remark of the Foreign Minister that questions affecting the existence and independence of nations must be excepted from decisions by arbitration.
This principle is known to be universally accepted, and in no way stands in antagonism to the report of the committee, which of course left the hands of the king as free as possible to promote the idea of arbitration according to circumstances.
However, the report of the committee was thrown out by eighty-eight votes against eighty-three.
Herr Hedin got his way. He has always been the consistent opposer of the active friends of peace; and this time he has besides won the gratitude even of our Government organ, Nya Dagligt Allehanda, which calls his speech glittering; meaning that upon this resolution "there was no need to waste many words," and continues thus: —
"The resolution is worthy of notice, because it shows the return of the Chamber to a sounder perception of this question. It seems at last to recognise the extravagance of the expectation certain fanatics entertain of bringing about a lasting peace by so apparently simple a means as a tribunal of arbitration. We have indeed, as Herr Hedin reminded us, now had experience ourselves of how unsatisfactory this can be; and it certainly appears that they must be lacking in common sense who would question the justice of the Foreign Minister's reminder, that arbitration cannot be appealed to when a nation's political freedom or independence is touched by the issue."
I may here beg leave to calm the ruffled feelings of the honourable Government organ by bringing to remembrance the lesson, otherwise applicable also, which our dismembered sister-land on the other side of the Sound offers us.
At the London Conference in 1864, the representative of England, Lord Russell, referred to the decision arrived at by the Paris Congress in 1856, that States which had any serious dispute should appeal to the mediation of a friendly power before taking to arms. In harmony with this the British plenipotentiary proposed that the question, whether the boundary line should be drawn between the lines of Aabenraa-Tœnder, on the one side, or Dannewerke-Sli on the other, should be decided by arbitration. Prussia and Austria consented to accept the mediation of a neutral power; but Denmark replied to the proposition with a distinct refusal. In the same way Denmark refused the proposal made first by Prussia, and later by France, that a means of deciding the boundary should be sought in a plebiscite of the people in Sleswick.
Denmark trusted too much upon might and too little upon right. Otherwise Sleswick had still been Danish.
If the axiom be correct, that disputes which affect the existence and independence of nations ought not to be submitted for solution to arbitration, it is of so much the greater moment to try to get international complications settled in this way, because they may swell up into questions of the kind first named; since in any case this means could be adopted as a last resource in time of need. History knows of no example of the destruction of a free nation by the impartial judgment of arbitration.
Now it may well appear honourable on the part of the free nations of the Scandinavian peninsula that they should openly show to the whole world that they are prepared (in full harmony with King Oscar II.'s pacific expressions in the speech from the throne to the Riksdag and the Storting in 1890), for their own part, in all international circumstances to substitute justice for brute force, and this without compromising and meaningless limitations. In the Swedish arbitration resolution, as well as in the Norse, lies the road certainly to efficiently carrying out the neutral policy so strongly emphasized in the speech from the throne. Besides the public gain, which a favourable result in both Chambers would have been, a unanimous co-operation in this cause would in a great degree have facilitated the solving of the important Question of the Union (Unionelle Tvistemaal).
The last named consideration will indeed claim more attention as the consequences of the divergent decisions of the Storting and the Riksdag develop themselves. That these consequences will be scattering, rather than uniting, the friends of peace in both lands must keep in view; and must look out, in time, for means to soothe them, as long as they continue.
That which lies nearest my heart has been to help, with cheering words, to strengthen the faith of my fellow-workers. If these words have succeeded also, here and there, in scattering doubts, so much the better. Little-faith is faint-hearted. Without confidence in a cause, there is no action. Ignorance may be enlightened, superstition wiped out; intolerance may become tolerant, and hate be changed into love; ideas may be quickened, intelligence widened, and men's hearts may be ennobled; but from pessimism which can see nothing but gloomy visions nothing is to be expected. This offspring of materialism is one of the most powerful opponents which the cause of international law and justice has to encounter. It is only self-deception to conceal the fact that it still reigns in our Christian community.
These gloomy-sighted people refer us to history, which on every page tells of crime and blood, sorrow and tears. We answer by pointing to the development of civilization, and show how all things slowly grow and ripen, whether in human life or in the world of nature.
Human perfection does not provide for an individual being a law-abiding member of a human community, and exclude a community from being a law-abiding member of an alliance of States. The abolition of war therefore in no way pre-supposes universal righteousness, but only a certain degree of moral cultivation.
But that this perfection is not attained to cannot be any rational objection against striving after the perfect. Discontent with imperfection ought much rather to goad us on to work for what is better.
Now, war is not something imperfect only: it is a summing up of all human depravity – a condition which we might expect all enlightened men and women would turn against with combined energies. That this does not take place is an evidence that the enlightenment is not so great among so-called cultivated people.
The dazzling external show of war conceals from many its inner reality. This applies not only to the horrors of the battle-field and their ghastly accompaniments. Fancy's wildest pictures of the infernal abyss are nothing to the descriptions eye-witnesses give of this veritable hell. Tolstoï's pen and Veretschagin's pencil give us an idea of it.39 From this misery spring untold sufferings for thousands upon thousands of innocent victims; and, besides, it remains to be a flowing source of fresh calamities.
The Armed Peace is a similar calamity, which threatens European civilization with complete overthrow. We have got so far in the general race in the science of armaments that the yearly outlay in Europe for military purposes, including the interest of national debts, is reckoned as about twelve milliards of kroner,40 650 millions sterling, which of course must imply a corresponding limitation of productive labour.
In time of peace the European armies are reckoned at four millions of men. In time of war this can grow to nineteen millions; and in a few years when, as intended, the new conscription law comes into full effect, to something like thirty millions.41
War, the personification of all human depravity, desolates the progressive work of culture, and the armed peace which ruins the nations prepares new wars and augments the misery. Ignorance, war, and poverty follow one another in an unvarying circle.
By the side of this wild race for armaments goes on a terrible struggle for existence, and discontent reigns in all lands. This condition of things, which fills the world with unrest and fear, must in the near future have an end. It will either come in the form of a social revolution, which will embrace the whole of our continent, or it may come by the introduction of an established condition of international law.
It is the last named outcome that active friends of peace labour for. They strive to enlighten the nations as to the means of removing and preventing these calamities; and they hope that the so-called educated classes will cease to be inactive spectators of these efforts. While they do not feel called upon to oppose the nonsense of folly, they listen respectfully to objections dictated by a sincere patriotism. In that feeling we ought all to be able to join. It depends upon the way in which this is expressed whether we can work together or must go on separate lines.
Commonly, we commend an action as virtuous when it does not oppose our interests, but brand it as blameworthy when it in some way threatens our position.
Thus we read, with glad appreciation, the deeds of our own warriors; but our admiration is changed into resentment when the exploits are achieved against ourselves by the heroes of other nations. When one says in Sweden, "I am not a Russian, indeed"; they say in Russia, "You behave yourself like a Swede." It needs an independent third party to give an impartial judgment. Right must be right.
If our so-called enemy is really in the right, he does not become wrong because he is called our enemy; and if we conquer and kill him, we only thereby increase a hundredfold our terrible guilt. It is in the long run a loss to both sides. Here, at any rate at least, a compromise is needed, for it is seldom the fault of one when two quarrel.
But the endeavour to get a permanent arbitration tribunal established cannot, in any way, be reasonably opposed to efforts for the welfare of one's own country. The very consciousness of the existence of such a tribunal would little by little, as a matter of course, bring about the reign of law. It would indeed be a marvellous perversion of ideas which esteemed it dishonourable to feel bound, in case of disputes with other countries, to appeal to law and justice; inasmuch as this very unwillingness to seek the path of justice must excite a serious suspicion as to the cause you maintain.
To lay hold on the sword under the influence of passion is like taking a knife when intoxicated; and it is a crying absurdity to expect people, who soberly know what they are doing, to go to homicide with a light heart. That is to say, that a good man in severe conflict as to his duty, may possibly be forced to do a bad action to escape participation in a still worse. If he forbears to kill his brother, this last will murder his father. When warriors are led out to battle, the brilliant uniform ought to be laid aside, and the troops clad in sombre mourning, which would better accord with the naked reality. When they have slain many and come back in triumph, decorated with honourable Cain-badges, they are wont in their homes to point with pride to their brothers who lie silent in their blood. They earn a character for having done something great; they are received with exultation and honourable distinctions, and praised as gods in popular story. But the whole spirit and conception is false IF Christ's teaching of love is true; and we should long since have grown out of this heathenish religion if there had not been incorporated with it so much patriotism, both true and false – the false wrapped in those high sounding words and phrases of self-love and vanity which still exercise so great a power over the easily excited spirit of the nations.
But if we set our thoughts free, confined as they are by warm devotion to our hereditary soil, and now and then venture to look out over the wide world, we shall see points of contact in the progressive effort of humanity; and it is our highest honour to be able to take an active part in this. Barriers are crumbling away one after the other. They do not go down with violence; they vanish as new ideas smooth the way for a higher conception of human dignity. Inquiry dissipates prejudice, and continually shows us new phases of the inner cohesion of the life of nations.
The inhabitants of Europe, says Draper, show a constantly increasing disposition towards the complete levelling of their mutual dissimilarities. Climatic and meteorological differences are more and more dissolved by artificial means and new inventions; and thence arises a similarity, not only in habits of life, but in physical conformation. Such inventions soften the influences to which men are subjected, and bring them nearer to an average type. With this greater affinity one to the other in bodily form, follows also a greater similarity in feeling, habit and thought.
Day by day, too, the economic fellowship of Europe increases. Communications by ship, railroad, post and telegraph are developed; by means of State loans, share and exchange connections, interests are knit together. Therefore we see the Bourse, the barometer of economic life, fluctuate when serious rumours of war are afloat; an evidence that common economic interests and war are at variance one with the other.
I shall not venture further, but simply indicate in closing that even the differences in language will certainly go on being gradually adjusted.
It is a remarkable fact, says the above-named investigator, that in nearly all Indo-Germanic races, family appellatives, father, mother, sister, brother, daughter, are the same. A similar agreement may be observed in the names of a great number of everyday things, such as house, door, way; but one finds that whilst these observations hold good in respect to the designation of objects of a peaceful character, many of the words which have a military signification are different in the different languages.
Here lies, perhaps, the germ of a future progressive growth which will rise higher heavenward than the tower of Babel.
I believe, for my part, that the English language, both on the ground of its cosmopolitan character and of its great expansion, is already on the path of transition into a universal common language. According to Mulhall, it has spread since 1801, 310 per cent., whilst German has increased 70, and French 36 per cent. A hundred years ago, Gladstone says, the English tongue was spoken by fifteen millions; it is now spoken by 150 millions; and according to the computation of Barham Zincke, in another hundred it will be spoken by at least 1,000 millions.
The computation is probably correct; and then not only in America, but in every part of our globe, the remembrance will be treasured of the little flock of Puritans who, ere they landed from their frail Mayflower upon the desolate rocks of a strange coast, drew up in that undeveloped language the great social law for their future, which begins with the words, "In the name of God be it enacted."
Mankind will hold them in remembrance for their faith in a high ideal, these persecuted, weary, sick, and hungry men. For it was that faith which upheld them under continued trials and sufferings, and brought them a victory guiltless of blood, but fraught with blessing to coming generations.
Even if many of us do not believe in the way those Christian heroes believed, yet we may in this materialistic age have strong confidence in the power of good, and so pronounced, that we shall gain something for our cause.
In the life of Society, however, as in external nature with all its teeming variety, we observe a subserviency to law, which may be taken as the surest pledge of the final triumph of the cause of peace.
For my part, I see herein the Divine government of the world.
And therefore my love for this idea can never be extinguished.