380 DIPLOMACY 



the general aspiration was for liberty, which created in the eighteenth 

 century a struggle for national independence; but in the consti- 

 tutional era that followed, the larger human relations were revealed, 

 and in the nineteenth century was developed the idea that modern 

 nations are essentially interdependent. The special task of the 

 twentieth century will be to reconcile these two great conceptions, 

 and to unite independent states in bonds of peace, amity, and 

 fruitful intercourse. 



This, in the broadest sense, is a task of diplomacy, but it is also 

 a problem of economics; and its most vital energies will be derived 

 from economic considerations. At present, the cost of national 

 armaments has reached an overwhelming height, and raises the 

 practical questions: How long will the wealth-producing population 

 continue in silence to support this burden? and, How long will the 

 wealth-possessing population confide in the ability of governments 

 to meet their financial obligations? 



Diplomacy would be untrue to its high vocation if it did not direct 

 public attention to this costly guardianship of peace. It is true that 

 it is not for aggressive warfare and inconsiderate bloodshed that these 

 millions are expended; and that, so long as great nations continue 

 to arm themselves, others must do likewise in self-defense; but the 

 day is coming when humanity, feeling its kinship of suffering more 

 keenly than its hereditary fears, will cry out in universal protest 

 against a system which does violence to its better instincts. No 

 process of thought or of negotiation will be too costly if it can open 

 the door of exit from the condition of mutual distrust that arrays 

 great nations against one another in constant apprehension of 

 hostile intentions. Next to national honor, which need never be 

 sacrificed, the one great interest of mankind is peace. 



V. The Relation of Diplomacy to Ethics 



But there is a deeper spring of human action than the desire for 

 material welfare, and the costly sacrifices of war are its best witness. 

 We must not, in the name of economic selfishness, nor even of mis- 

 taken moral sentiment, condemn the measures needful for national 

 defense. A morbid idealism has proclaimed the dogma that no 

 war is just, that bloodshed is never right, and that all exercise of 

 force is wrong. Such a doctrine owes its very possibility to the 

 protection of institutions that would not exist for a single day if 

 society had not the force and determination to destroy its enemies. 

 There is no idea of " right " except in opposition to that of " wrong," 

 and because existence itself is an equilibrium of energies, force is 

 the necessary basis of society. It is in the awful heat of battle that 

 the state has triumphed over anarchy and justice established a 



