292 PROPOSALS FOR A, LEAGUE OF PEACE. 



one nation, but in the interests of the whole of the League, and 

 virtually, presumably, of the whole world. 



The advantages of such a League would be: first, that 

 ample time would be given for investigation, consideration, and 

 discussion in any dispute that might arise. We should not be 

 rushed into war as Europe was rushed in 19 14. Second, both 

 the larger and the smaller nations of the world would have a 

 greater feeling of security than they have ever enjoyed before. 

 Third, the League would probably develop into a body for the 

 peaceful revision of treaties and the better development of In- 

 ternational Law, thus providing the means for growth, change, 

 and development, without which permanent peace is impossible. 

 Fourth, as the feeling of mutual trust spread, and fear was un- 

 dermined and destroyed, there would be an immense reduction 

 in the expenditure on armaments. Fifth, and perhaps most im- 

 portant of all, such a League would define once and for all 

 the meaning of the term " aggression." At present, in every 

 war, each belligerent always charges the other Avith being the 

 aggressor, and every belligerent government publishes Blue books 

 to prove that it is innocent of the horrid deed. Once get this 

 League of Peace in being, and the aggressor is defined once and 

 for ever— it would be the Power which refuses to put its dis- 

 putes to the judgment of the appointed representatives of the 

 collective reason of the world — i.e., to a World Court speciall}- 

 appointed for the impartial consideration of such disputes. 



These proposals to establish a League of Peace have been 

 criticized and attacked by two sets of extremists — the extreme 

 militarists and the extreme pacifists. The extreme militarists 

 criticize them from the stand}X)int of State power and State 

 morality, and a rather crude and superficial interpretation of the 

 theory of the survival of the fittest applied to nations and peo- 

 ples — an interpretation which Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, and 

 most of the great evolutionists would repudiate. Humanity is at 

 a turning-point. We stand at the crossroads between the old 

 Machiavellian State-craft, with its theory of .State-power, and 

 a new order, with new forms of w^orld-government based on " the 

 paramount of authority of right reason." That is the alterna- 

 tive. It means either a descent into what is w^orse than brute 

 savagery, with all the forces of science and intellect harnessed 

 to that end, or an advance towards those forms of organization 

 which will make for survival towards a higher type of life. 



The extreme pacifists criticize the proposed League of 

 Peace on the religious ground that all war and all preparation 

 for war is wrong. Those who hold this view — Buddha, St. 

 Francis, George Fox, Tolstoi, and many others — -are among the 

 salt of the earth, and their attitude of mind should not only be 

 respected but encouraged, for the more people there are in every 

 nation who have religious objections to war. the less likely are 

 we to have war. No system of ethics can justify the negation 

 of morality, the mass judgments, the brute methods of con- 

 troversy, and the sacrifice of the innocent for the misdeeds of 



