New-York tribune., 1922-02-20
Alliances

Alliances
Roland s. Morris, recent Ambas-
sador TO Japan, criticizes the Pacific
treaties because they are limited IN
membership. He sees no adequate
reason why all the nations having
an interest in the pacinc should not
be invited TO participate IN the con-
fcrences provided for by the four
power treaty. Moreover, he holds
the pact is in the nature of alliance.
Though concedng that an alliance
may be for good and legitimate ends,
and thus diverging from the views
of half f-baked. would-he pubhcists
who present an alliance as bogey
he nevertheless is of tic opinion that
mere invitation TO some nations to
join while others are not invited
makes the arrangement q bad alli-
ance, which will necessarily lead the
excluded to form hostile counter
alliance.
1t would be interesting to know
from what history Mr.. Morris de
rived this knowledge There's Bel
GUM, for example. whose neutrality
was guaranteed by five powers The
United States WAS not of the sign
ers. Does it follow that there was
an alliance directed against others
On the contrary. Americans agree
with Gladstone, who said that the
Belgian treaty was the symbol of
public law-for the benefit of all and
not against any.
There's Switzerland A series of
treaties signed by few powers ncu-
tralize her Are the excluded fear
full? There's the 1856 Declaration
of Paris which ended privatcering.
We refused to sign Was the ac-
ton against us? AS to the slave
trade, the opium traffic and many
other things, there are agreements
for the worlds good that not all
have been invited to sign and help
enforce as equals. The assumption
of Mr.. Morris lamentably breaks
down when brought to TIE test OF
fact
Many practical reasons exist for
not sunlmoning all to an intcrna-
tional town meeting to consider Pa
ciic observation-disclosures that in nc
wise imply desire to discriminate
against the excluded The four
power treaty is not aimed at the
rights of Guatemala or Siam, al
though both have Pacific shores; nol
at the rights of Salvador, Costs
Rica, Panama, Colombia. Ecuador
Peru, Chile or Patagonia.
The fiction that nations are cqua
when they assemble controls in in
3 ternational etiquette 1t is neces
, sary to outfank this convention. !
, is not conceivable that the countries
: on whom the possibilities Of ac
ton rest would accept the counsel o
nations not able TO send man
Even delegates to supreme council
! must allow weight to common sense
The claim that the four-powor Pa
clhc agreement, even though prop
eriy rated as an alliance. is agains
the small Pacific nations is a re
4 vival of the delusion behind Presi
dent Wilson'S Manchester specc
5 This assumed that an alliance of tn
nations that principally won the wa
! and on whom world power had bee
> devolved could not be trusted an
could not trust itself to be ius
{ All Of us, 1t was said. should be We
coined to the council table on oqus
terms.
OF course, this could not be. Som
, possessed no power to put behind dc
! cisions and others could not b
trusted TO act righteousiy. Yet
world concert which was in whole
some existence was wrecked by PEI
sistence in the idea Harmony wa
destroyed, and the evils of the pos
armistice period have been almost \
bad as those Of the war. Contrt
over the Pacific is with specific M
, tons and they intend to be ia.
trustees.
: We are not arguing that migl
E makes rlght-merely that all thos
possessed of power and who hal
proved by acts that they arc ef
titled to confidence constitute IL
hest earthly tribunal both to dciir
, and to uphold right.