Mr. Pierce to Mr. Hay.
St. Petersburg, November 9, 1898.
Sir: Referring to the embassy’s No. 161, of October 6, I have the honor to say that on the occasion of my last interview with Count Lamsdorff, on his general reception day, he informed me that Great Britain has accepted the invitation to send a representative to the conference to consider the question of national armaments, referred to in the circular of the Imperial Goverment of August 12–24.
Believing that any observations made on this spot upon this great question can not fail to have a certain value, I venture to submit the following statement of what I have been able to gather since my return to my post, hoping that it may in some measure add to the information which will doubtless be desired by our own representative at the conference.
The question presents two broad phases: (1.) The humanitarian aspect, looking toward a future universal peace, which, while it has [Page 547] long been the dream of philanthropists, has never before, I believe, been recognized as an attainable end, even in the distant future, in the materialism which governs state policies and international relations; (2.) The purely economic question of the absorption of men and resources for purely military purposes, to the detriment of national wealth and prosperity.
While both aspects of the question are clearly set forth as actuating the Imperial Government in Count Mouravieff’s circular, I am convinced that the gravity of its economic side is not lost sight of or obscured by any undue enthusiasm over its humanitarian aspect.
It is perhaps, at first blush, a little disappointing that this great proposition of the Emperor’s does not meet with warmer enthusiasm among the Russians themselves. But it should be remembered that the idea that a vast army is anything but a glory and a blessing is not only new, but is contrary to the traditions instilled into the Russian mind, and carefully fostered ever since the time of Peter the Great. To expect them now to at once respond with enthusiasm to a proposition which involves the belief that this great military establishment, hitherto held up as the bulwark and safety of the nation, is, in fact, but a drain upon the resources of the country, and which threatens to paralyze its development, would be to require an elasticity of temperament which the national character does not possess. Nor does the humanitarian aspect especially appeal to the ordinary Russian mind. The semioriental influences and traditions of the people have bred in them a slight regard for the value of human life and an apathetic fatalism which does not admit of the same point of view as exists in Western peoples. But furthermore, as this is essentially a military center, in which the greater part of society has some near individual interest in the army, any proposition looking to a reduction of the army suggests the possibility of affecting personal interests which could not be complacently regarded.
At the same time I do not wish to be understood as implying that there are not large numbers of people, both among the highly educated and among the merchant classes, who enter with enthusiasm into the views promulgated by the Emperor. These there are, and they regard the action with exultant pride in the sovereign, but they do not constitute the majority.
That the Russian press is silent on the subject is due to the fact that the newspapers have been forbidden to discuss the matter. Naturally officials of the Government are unwilling to give free expression to any opinions they may hold on the subject.
But whatever may be the state of public opinion on the question it is safe to say that it will not in any way sway the policy of the Emperor.
The general consensus of opinion among the members of the diplomatic corps now present appears to be that the proposition is visionary and Utopian, if not partaking of quixotism. Little of value is expected to result from the conference, and indeed every diplomatic officer with whom I have talked seems to regard the proposition with that technical skepticism which great measures of reform usually encounter. This is, perhaps, an argument in support of an opinion which has been advanced in certain journals, that diplomatic training and traditions being wholly opposed to the object in view, diplomatic officers would be unsuitable representatives for such a conference.
You are doubtless already well informed as to the attitude of the European press on the subject, and as the Russian journals contribute [Page 548] nothing to its literature I hesitate to attempt any summary, but yet a few observations concerning what has come under my notice may not be deemed amiss. Here, also, in the absence of any other modus vivendi than droit de force, skepticism as to the possibility of arriving at any results characterizes the greater part of the utterances, although nearly all unite in paying high tribute to the philanthropic motives of the Emperor in calling the conference. A few, chiefly of the less serious journals, referring to the recent increase in Russia’s army and naval strength, as well as to her attitude in China, cast insinuations upon the good faith of his alleged benevolent intentions.
Many of the French papers bring up the old bone of contention between France and Germany over Alsace-Loraine as an insurmountable impediment to any halt on the part of France in her military progress, while others suggest that a compromise on this question which would forever end it might be reached by Germany’s surrendering Loraine. Nearly all apply some point or other of international politics to the question, pointing to it as an obstacle to be overcome before anything approaching disarmament can be considered, even when grave results are admitted as an inevitable end to a continuance of the present progress in applied military science and development.
Certain journals, considering more particularly the economic side of the question, point to Italy as a State ruined by the military development of the age. Statistical facts are brought forward to show the enormous sum expended annually by the various states for military purposes, and the vast numbers of men kept out of useful employment, while on the other side is given some idea of what could be accomplished in the way of material wealth by the employment of the same men and money productively, giving rise to the reflection that possibly the increased wealth and resources so gained would be as powerful an agent in holding back aggression as are the present standing armies of Europe. Our own recent war has been an object lesson to all the world in the power of material wealth in time of national need.
Many German newspapers have, while eulogizing the Emperor’s humanitarian benevolence, argued that the expenditure of money and employment of men for military purposes is not impoverishing the state, since the money is expended and redistributed through the country, while the men find employment which they could not otherwise obtain. It is needless to say that these writers are not disciples of John Stuart Mill.
The English newspapers have generally treated the subject more abstractly than the continental press, admitting the truth of the broad principles involved, but while less ready to find specific objections and obstacles, are still not free from skepticism as to the possibilities.
But few suggestions for the accomplishment of the desired result have been made, though there have been some, as, for instance, the proposal that the minor powers should disarm, the peace of Europe to be guaranteed by the great powers, a measure which, while doubtless beneficial to the smaller states, would leave the guaranteeing powers where they are.
Count Lamsdorff informs me that the Imperial Government has as yet formulated no further programme regarding the conference than that given in the embassy’s No. 141 of September 3, nor has it any definite policy in the matter, the purpose of the conference being tentative and to open discussion as to the best means to bring about the desired result, if it be possible of attainment at all. I do not think that it is the expectation of anyone in the Imperial Government that the end in [Page 549] view can be even approximately reached at an early day. The difficulties standing in the way are fully realized, but what is hoped for is that, by opening discussion, ways to meet those difficulties may suggest themselves.
In a conversation which I have recently had on the subject with a very eminent authority on international law, of world-wide reputation, the following views were expressed: Droit de force being, in effect, the modus vivendi under which nations now maintain their respective claims, if the very essence of that modus vivendi is to be swept away, as must be the case if any restriction is laid upon the employment by a nation of any part of its resources at its own discretion in military development, a new modus vivendi must be found, adequate to the new conditions. Every nation, as every individual, is inalterably justified in defending its own rights against all encroachments by such means as, within accepted usage, lie within its grasp, and to repel force by force. In civilized communities the law undertakes to protect the individual in his rights in lieu of his maintenance of them vi et armis. But there is among nations no equivalent to the laws of civilized communities, for, however highly the principles of so-called international law, as enunciated by the various eminent authorities on the subject, may be regarded, they have not the sanctioning force of law, except in so far as certain of them are incorporated into treaties. In our own relations with Russia we have recently had an illustration of the absence of binding force of generally accepted principles of international law. I refer to the case of the James Hamilton Lewis and the reply of the Russian Government, referred to in the embassy’s No. 177 of the 11th instant, in which the Russian Government, finding that the generally accepted principle of a jurisdiction extending 3 miles out to sea is inadequate to the defense of its case, claims that the limit of marine jurisdiction should be considered, in view of modern conditions, as extending to at least 5 miles from shore.
The proposal of the Emperor would seem to make the time auspicious for the consideration of the question of compiling a code of international principles having, by acceptance by treaty among the powers, the sanctioning force of law. While it is not to be pretended that such a code would be the universal panacea for all international difficulties and disputes, any more than the civil law cures all private quarrels, it would at least be a great stride in advance in international relations, and might form the basis of a modus vivendi among the powers which would take the place of droit de force.
It may be argued that, given such a code, there would still be lacking either police or judicial tribunal to make it effective. But the same argument might be applied to treaties, and yet, experience shows, that the agreement of nations by treaty, while it does not prevent warfare, diminishes it and improves international relations.
If it is admitted that the existence of such a code would be a gain in international relations it might perhaps be pertinent to consider a further extension of the same idea in the establishment of a permanent international congress, having legislative powers, subject to the ratification of the respective governments, whose functions should be to so amend, from time to time, the international statutes as to meet new or unforeseen conditions.
Respectfully submitting the foregoing,
I have, etc.,
Chargé d’Affaires ad interim.