The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1921-12-11

binds all the high contracting pow
ers to respect the right and sOVer.
eighty OF all others.
A great deal has been talked
and written about the difference
between league of nations and
an association Of nations There is
very general and profound hope
that what has been done here ir
Washington may prove to he q
first step in a general world re.
adjustment.
Now 1t seems to me that tn,
significant thing about the present
treaty Of Washington newly pro.
posed is that il represents a volun.
tary association Of all parties witt
interests in the premises. H. foi
example one could suppose ar
agreement between G Term V
France, Italy and Great Britain
couched in the same language ant
voluntarily recognizing the exist,
ence of some status quo in West.
ern Europe mutually acceptable tC
all four. II is patent how vas
would be the gain for peace
No Question of Force.
II is perfectly clear how differ
N'iN NhiS "Ohlh bt II ul lilt
tee contained in the covenant of
the league of nations, assuring
| France, Italy and Great Britain. as
| members of the league, from attack
by Germany. a non member Ger
many signed the treaty of Yer
sailles under duress as France
signed the treaty of Frankfort
nearly half a century before. But
! no Frenchman ever accepted as q
matter of justice the settlement OF
| 1871, and il yet remains to be seen
whether Germany will accept. save
as matter of force, the settlement
of 1919
In sum. 1t seems clear that while
it is possible to point to a mani
fest difference between the Ian
Euage of Article y of the covenant
of the league of nations and that
of Article II of the proposed treaty
OF Washington, the vital difference
| must be found in the fact that The
earlier document undertook to pre-
serve situation created as re.
suit of a successful war and to pro-
| tect it against challenge by a nom
member of the league. and was
therefore an alliance pure and sim
pie. while that association created
| by the treaty of Washington is a
| friendly agreement between four
nations long accustomed to dwell
in peace, no one of them possessing
anything claimed, or coveted by
another and each relying implicitly
upon the good faith of the other
three
Difference Unmistakable.
Viewed from this angle the diff
ference between the treaty of
Washington and the covenant of
the league of nations and between
the association created in the Pa
cific and the league of nations made
in Paris is unmistakable.
There is a natural American idea
that the method which has been
successfully invoked here to exor-
else Pacific perils may be speedily
applied in Europe. But 1t is essen
tial to recognize that a prerequisite
to success is mutual agreement by
each party in interest to recognize
the conceded rights of all others
This agreement is still lacking iry
Europe, where the status quo rests
upon force. No association of ma
tions could be successful in Europe
until France and Germany. for ex-
ample. each voluntarily recognized
some settlement of existing and
long standing quarrel..
In word, the present associa
tion-so far as 1t has been evolved
represents the cooperation or ma
tons at peace with each other and
nourishing no grievance or injury
to preserve peace. Before 1t car
be applied to Europe a basis OF
peace must be found acceptable to
all nations vitality concerned. This
remains the real barrier to peace IN
Europe protected by any method.
A VIII for Peace.
What seems the bottom fact
about the treaty of Washington Is
that it discloses the only condition
in which any association or league
of nations can exist. namely, wnen
the will fop peace of nations is
such that they are prepared TO join
in placing beyond challenge on
their part the recognized rights of
their neighbors.
The league. of nations was founc-
ID upon the treaty of Versailles,
which in turn, was constructed
upon victory in war and designed