NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
FROM AUGUST 10 TO SEPTEMBER 10
Prepared by Allan Westcott, U. S. Naval Academy
POLAND AND RUSSIA
Secretary Colby States American Policy.—In the form of a note to the Italian Ambassador, Secretary of State Colby issued on August 10 an important note outlining the attitude of the United States regarding the Polish-Russian situation. The note stated: (1) that the United States Government believed in a free Polish state and stood unalterably for Poland's political and territorial integrity; (2) that while not intending to put obstacles in the way of peace negotiations between Russia and Poland, it would not participate in a general European conference on the question, for such a conference would involve "two results from both of which this country strongly recoils, viz.: the recognition of the Bolshevist regime and a settlement of the Russian problem almost inevitably upon the basis of a dismemberment of Russia."
The note continuing reiterated the gratitude of the United States to the Russian people and reviewed the historic friendly feeling between the two nations. It pointed out that America had insisted upon recognition of the rights of Russia in settlement of problems in both the Near and the Far East. The latter part of the note consisted of an arraignment of the Soviet Government of Russia, in part as follows:
It is not possible for the Government of the United States to recognize the present rulers of Russia as a government with which the relations common to friendly governments can be maintained. This conviction has nothing to do with any particular political or social structure which the Russian people themselves may see fit to embrace. It rests upon a wholly different set of facts. These facts, which none disputes, have convinced the Government of the United States, against its will, that the existing regime in Russia is based upon the negation of every principle of honor and good faith, and every usage and convention, underlying the whole structure of international law, the negation, in short, of every principle upon which it is possible to base harmonious and trustful relations, whether of nations or of individuals.
The responsible leaders of the regime have frequently and openly boasted that they are willing to sign agreements and undertakings with foreign powers while not having the slightest intention of observing such undertakings of carrying out such agreements. This attitude of disregard of obligations voluntarily entered into, they base upon the theory that 110 compact or agreement made with a non-Bolshevist government can have any moral force for them. They have not only avowed this as a doctrine, but have exemplified it in practice.
Indeed, upon numerous occasions the responsible spokesmen of this power, and its official agencies, have declared that it is their understanding that the very existence of Bolshevism in Russia, the maintenance of their own rule, depends, and must continue to depend, upon the occurrence of revolutions in all other great civilized nations, including the United States, which will overthrow and destroy their governments and set up Bolshevist rule in their stead. They have made it quite plain that they intend to use every means, including, of course, diplomatic agencies, to promote such revolutionary movements in other countries.
It is true that they have in various ways expressed their willingness to give "assurance," and "guarantees" that they will not abuse the privileges and immunities of diplomatic agencies by using them for this purpose. In view of their own declarations, already referred to, such assurances and guarantees cannot be very seriously regarded.
Moreover, it is within the knowledge of the Government of the United States that the Bolshevist Government is itself subject to the control of a political faction with extensive international ramifications through the Third Internationale, and that this body, which is heavily subsidized by the Bolshevist Government from the public revenues of Russia, has for its openly avowed aim the promotion of Bolshevist revolutions throughout the world. The leaders of the Bolsheviki have boasted that their promises of non-interference with other nations would in no wise bind the agents of this body.
There is no room for reasonable doubt that such agents would receive the support and protection of any diplomatic agencies the Bolsheviki might have in other countries. Inevitably, therefore, the diplomatic service of the Bolshevist Government would become a channel for intrigues and the propaganda of revolt against the institutions and laws of countries, with which it was at peace, which would be an abuse of friendship to which enlightened governments cannot subject themselves.
In the view of this Government, there cannot be any common ground upon which it can stand with a power whose conceptions of international relations are so entirely alien to its own, so utterly repugnant to its moral sense. There can be no mutual confidence or trust, no respect even, if pledges are to be given and agreements made with a cynical repudiation of their obligations already in the mind of one of the parties. We cannot recognize, hold official relations with, or give friendly reception to the agents of a government which is determined and bound to conspire against our institutions; whose diplomats will be the agitators of dangerous revolt; whose spokesmen say that they sign agreements with no intention of keeping them.
Summary
To summarize the position of this Government, I would say, therefore, in response to your Excellency's inquiry, that it would regard with satisfaction a declaration by the allied and associated powers that the territorial integrity and true boundaries of Russia shall be respected. These boundaries should properly include the whole of the former Russian Empire, with the exception of Finland proper, ethnic Poland, and such territory as may by agreement form a part of the Armenian State.
The aspirations of these nations for independence are legitimate. Each was forcibly annexed, and their liberation from oppressive alien rule involves no aggressions against Russia's territorial rights, and has received the sanction of the public opinion of all free peoples. Such a declaration presupposes the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the territory embraced by these boundaries, and in the opinion of this government should be accompanied by the announcement that no transgression by Poland. Finland, or any other power, of the line so drawn and proclaimed will be permitted.
Thus only can the Bolshevist regime be deprived of its false but effective appeal to Russian nationalism and compelled to meet the inevitable challenge of reason and self-respect which the Russian people, secure from invasion and territorial violation, are sure to address to a social philosophy that degrades them and a tyranny that oppresses them.
The policy herein outlined will command the support of this government.
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration.
Bainbridge Colby.
France Concurs in American Policy.—Immediately upon the publication of Secretary Colby's note, the French Government sent a message declaring the French and American Policies "entirely in accord." Premier Millerand stated that France also believed in a free Poland and a United Russia, and that it was with these objects in view that France objected to all negotiations with the Bolsheviki and recognized General Wrangel's opposition movement in southern Russia.
Warns Poland Against Aggression.—On August 21 the American Government directed a friendly warning to Poland against aggressive warfare. It was stated at the same time by Washington officials that Great Britain, France and Italy had advised Poland to the same effect. The note follows in part:
The United States applauds the steadfast gallantry of the Polish Army in its defense of Warsaw and is sympathetic with all necessary measures which Poland may take to preserve its political and territorial integrity. This Government, however, urges that every reasonable effort be made to terminate the present bloodshed. It could not approve of the adoption of an offensive war program against Russia by the Polish Government.
The American Government is of the opinion that the Polish advance into Russia tended to create a national sentiment in that country which ignored the tyranny and oppression from which the people suffer and afforded an undeserved support to the Bolshevist regime, which enabled its leaders to embark upon the invasion of Polish territory.
To prevent a recurrence of the present situation the United States Government believes that the Polish Government might well take the opportunity afforded by the favorable turn of events to declare its intention to abstain from any aggressions against Russian territorial integrity; to state that its policy is not directed against the restoration of a strong and united Russia, and that pending a direct agreement as to its Eastern frontier, Poland will remain within the boundary indicated by the Peace Conference.
Poland Objects to Line Set by Allies.—In its reply to Secretary Colby's note, the Polish Government on August 31 expressed certain objections to the so-called "ethnographic frontier" indicated by the Peace Conference, and more definitely laid down by the British Foreign Minister, Lord Curzon, in a note of July 20. The objections were chiefly based on the weakness of the line from a military point of view.
Polish-Russian Negotiations Abortive.—On August 16 Polish and Russian delegates met at Minsk to reopen negotiations for peace. In spite of the collapse of the Russian offensive, the Soviet delegates refused to modify their terms. After futile discussions the conference ended on August 25 with Poland's practically complete rejections of the Russian proposals.
Poland's reply to the peace terms presented by the Russian Soviet delegation amounts to a flat rejection, says The Manchester Guardian Minsk correspondent.
"Out of the fifteen Russian demands, only one, that relative to demobilization, is accepted, and that only on condition that Russia will take a similar course—that is to say, Russia must demobilize at the same time Poland disbands her forces.
"The terms relative to disarmament, the closing of munitions plants and the delivery of munitions to Russia by Poland are indignantly rejected.
"Bolshevist terms relative to a Polish workers' militia and control by the Russians of the railway line from the Bialystok southward are declared beyond discussion. The boundary line between Poland and Russia, as laid down by Earl Curzon, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, is declared unacceptable, as it involves a third partition of Poland."
Further Negotiations at Riga.—In spite of the failure of the Minsk conference, both Russia and Poland agreed that negotiations should continue, and accepted the port of Riga, in Latvia, as the location for further discussions. It was expected that the delegates would meet at Riga about the middle of September, to consider Poland's counter-proposals.
British Efforts to Aid Poland.—On August 10 Premier Lloyd George addressed Parliament at length on the Russian situation, reviewing the policy of the government and seeking to justify its efforts to reestablish trade with Russia, and at the same time secure a peaceful settlement of the Russian Polish problem acceptable to Great Britain and the rest of Europe.
Prior to and throughout the Minsk negotiations, Great Britain brought pressure to bear on Russia with this end in view. Both to Poland and Russia, Great Britain proposed the frontier suggested in the Versailles Treaty and stated in Lord Curzon's note of July 20.
On August 23 the Italian and British governments sent a protest through the Russian agents in London declaring that the terms submitted by the Soviet Government to Poland were not in accordance with those previously agreed upon as acceptable to the Allied Powers, and stating that unless these terms were adhered to Poland would be given all possible assistance in her defense. In particular, objection was made to the Russian requirement that Poland should arm 60,000 workers, as a "civic militia."
To this note M. Tchitcherin, the Soviet Foreign Minister, replied on August 26, agreeing to drop the "civic militia," asserting his willingness to continue negotiations, and' arguing at length on the merits of the Soviet form of government.
British Labor Opposes Russian War.—London, Saturday, Aug. 14.—British organized labor yesterday issued what was virtually an ultimatum to the government.
Practically all of the labor and trades union executives in the country have agreed to hand over their powers to the Council of Action, which was authorized to call for any and every form of withdrawal of labor which circumstances may require in order to secure a guarantee against military or naval operations against Russia, withdrawal of the Russian blockade and recognition of the Soviet Government.
The gravity of the step was then raised by J. H. Thomas, M. P. In moving one of the principal resolutions he said these resolutions "do not mean a mere strike. They mean a challenge to the whole constitution of the country."—N. Y. Times, Aug. 14, 1920.
Germany Stays Neutral.—Berlin, Sept. 1 (Associated Press).—Dr. Walter Simons, the Foreign Minister, addressing the Reichstag Foreign Affairs Committee to-day, declared he had been urged to collaborate with the Russian Bolsheviki against the Western powers as a means of breaking the bonds imposed by the Treaty of Versailles but that after mature reflection he had rejected this course.
"If we had followed these exhortations," said the Foreign Minister, "Germany would immediately have become a theatre of war. Furthermore, the disastrous consequences which Bolshevism might be expected to bring with it would have fallen with double force upon Germany."
Dr. Simons said proposals also have been made that Germany co-operate with the Western powers against Russia, which he considered an equally impossible course.
"No power at war with Soviet Russia," the Foreign Minister added, "need count upon our support."
France Recognizes Wrangel.—Paris, Aug. 11 (Associated Press).—The French Government has decided to recognize General Baron Peter Wrangel as head of the de facto Government of South Russia. In making this announcement the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said this recognition implied rendering General Wrangel all possible military assistance.
France will send a high commissioner to Sebastopol immediately, the Foreign Office stated.
Two reasons were given by the Foreign Office for recognizing General Wrangel. The first was his promise to assume all the obligations of the former Russian Government. The second was his promise to give Russia a democratic government.
Poland’s Quarrel with Latvia.—London, Sept. 7.—The Polish Government has addressed an appeal to the League of Nations requesting its mediation in the Polish-Lithuanian dispute, and the League is considering it.
Unless an improvement occurs in the situation Poland will be compelled to declare war on Lithuania, the appeal states, and it charges that an unprovoked attack had been made on the Polish troops by Lithuanian forces.
The Polish demand is, the note indicates, that the Lithuanian troops evacuate Polish territory within a few days.
Paris, Sept. 7.—The Polish note to the League of Nations asking it to mediate in the Polish-Lithuanian controversy says that while the Polish armies were retreating before the Russian Soviet forces the Lithuanian government concluded an agreement with the Soviet government at Moscow authorizing the Soviet Army to make use of Lithuanian territory for its passage and the establishment of a military base. This, the note points out, was a breach of neutrality. The note continues:
"Later when the Polish armies were forced to withdraw from ethnographic Polish territory as awarded Poland by the Supreme Council on Dec. 8, 1919, Lithuanian troops occupied the evacuated territory and committed excesses toward the populations remaining faithful to Poland.
"When the Bolshevist invasion was repulsed the Polish Army reoccupied Suwalki and the Lithuanian Government sent a note to the Polish Government declaring it did not recognize the frontier as fixed by the Supreme Council and asking the Poles to retire behind the line of Grajevo-Augustowo."
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Plan of League International Court.—News reports of August 27 contained an outline of the plan for a Court of International Justice as made by the Jurist's Advisory Committee, on which Mr. Elihu Root was the American delegate, and which was in session during the summer at The Hague. Interest in this plan has been increased by the fact that, though the court is intended as an adjunct of the League of Nations, it has been suggested that the Republican Party in the United States, if successful in the elections, would favor it as a substitute for the League itself.
The plan outlined by the Jurists' Advisory Committee of the Council of the League of Nations was drafted at The Hague in the period between June 16 and July 24. It proved for a continuance of the present Permanent Court of Arbitral Justice and for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice, directed to be formed by the covenant of the League of Nations.
The Permanent Court of International Justice is to consist of eleven judges and four alternate judges. These are to serve for nine years. The court is to sit permanently at The Hague, the purpose of the permanent sitting being that the tribunal shall always be ready to determine causes arising between governments where questions strictly of a legal nature are concerned.
The Permanent Court of Arbitral Justice is to be continued as a body to arbitrate disputes between nations.
The judges of the Permanent Court of Arbitral Justice are to nominate the judges of the Permanent Court of International Justice, whose sittings shall also be at The Hague.
In the selection of judges for the new court, the jurists of each nation who are members of the Court of Arbitral Justice are to form groups, each group to choose not more than six candidates for recommendation to the League of Nations. Not more than two of the six candidates of each nation may be citizens of that nation.
In selecting its six candidates each national group in the present Permanent Court is expected to consult with the highest legal authorities of its own country, including societies devoted to the application and interpretation of international law.
In the case of the United States the members of the American group in the present Hague tribunal would consult, under the terms of the plan submitted, with the United States Supreme Court and probably with the American International Law Society and the American Bar Association.
The International Court of Justice is always to be open for adjudicating cases.
The court is to have the right to compel nations to accept adjudication within certain limitations defining the character of the cases to be adjudicated.
The decisions of the new court are to be founded solely on law and on fact, and the members of the court must not compromise.
To overcome the sensibilities of the governments that the court might infringe upon their sovereignty in undertaking to adjust disputes, the Committee of Jurists followed the definition of proper cases for adjudication laid down in Article 13 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. This definition goes a considerable distance beyond prior definitions of what are to be considered justiciable international cases. The appropriate paragraph of Article 13 reads as follows:
"Disputes as to the interpretation of a treaty, as to any question of international law, as to the existence of any fact which it established would constitute a breach of any international obligation, or as to the extent and nature of the reparation to be made for any such breach, are declared to be among those which are generally suitable for submission to arbitration."
This provision avoids the danger that nations would reject the assumption by the court of the right to adjudicate compulsorily all or nearly all questions of differences between nations.
Any government will have the privilege of bringing to the court any legal question that bears upon any of the matters defined in Article 13 of the covenant. If the government made defendant fails to appear, the court will hear the cause and render its judgment.
In determining cases, the court will be empowered to be guided by international agreements to which the nations involved are parties or which they have accepted; recognized practices accepted as international law; general legal principles that have been recognized by civilized nations; judicial decisions accepted by eminent jurists of various nations.
If a nation involved in a dispute before the court is represented on the court this will not exclude that judge from participating in the case.
If a nation which is a party to a dispute is not represented on the court it will have the privilege of naming a member of the court to sit in the adjudication of the case as a special judge for the occasion.
If any nation not a member of the League of Nations wishes to have a case adjudicated before the court it could qualify for that purpose by accepting the obligations defined in Article XVII of the League covenant and by paying its proportional portion of the expenses of the adjudication.— iV. Y. Times, Aug. 28, 1920.
The plan does not provide the means of enforcing the decrees of the court. That means is found in the provisions of the League of Nations covenant for concerted action to bring a recalcitrant nation to accept the dictates of the League.
IRELAND
Lloyd George’s Terms to Ireland.—London, Aug. 16.—In reply to a question in the House of Commons to-day, Premier Lloyd George again announced the willingness of the government to discuss with any representatives of Irish opinion any proposals for a settlement.
The Premier said such discussion would be subject to three conditions, as follows:
First, that the six counties of Northern Ulster must be treated separately: second, that there must be no secession directly or indirectly of any part of Ireland from the United Kingdom, and third, "We cannot agree to anything that would involve any detraction from the security of these islands or of their safety in case of war."
The Sinn Feiners would not be ruled out if they were prepared to accept these conditions, Premier Lloyd George said.
Lloyd George Obdurate Against Hunger Strikers.—September 7 was the twenty-eighth day since the eleven hunger strikers in Cork jail refused food. Terence MacSwiney, Mayor of Cork, the chief of the political offenders was at that time at the point of death.
Lucerne, Sept. 5 (Associated Press).—Premier Lloyd George of Great Britain has replied in the negative to the message of Mayor Hylan of New York City, which urged the Premier to release Mayor MacSwiney of Cork from prison. The Premier in his reply, dispatched yesterday, stated politely but firmly that he could not interfere with the course of justice and law.—N. Y. Times, Sept. 6, 1920.
ITALY
Workmen Seize Factories.—Rome, Sept. 7.—The employers in metal working factories which have been seized by workmen in the present contest over conditions in this industry have received five days in which to comply with the workingmen's demands, according to a resolution passed by the Socialist members of the General Federation of Labor. If the employers do not yield, a rapid movement toward general nationalization is threatened. So far the manufacturers are persisting in their decision not to enter into direct negotiations with the workers before the latter evacuate the factories.
It is estimated that 400 of the largest metal works in Italy have been occupied by mechanics and workers, and the movement is still expanding, threatening to extend to the extreme southern end of the peninsula. Elaborate steps have been taken by the government to preserve order during the period when a general offensive against all industries is threatened.—N. Y. Times, Sept. 8, 1920.
NEAR EAST
England Frees Egypt.—London despatches of August 23 carried definite information regarding Great Britain's decision to grant Egypt virtual independence.
The decision according to the London Times, resulted from recent conversations here between the Viscount Milner's mission, which recently visited Egypt, and an Egyptian delegation headed by Said Zagloul Pasha, former Minister of Justice.
Among the fundamental points of the agreement are:
"Egypt will recognize Great Britain's privileged position in the valley of the Nile and agree, in case of war, to afford every facility for access to Egyptian territory. Great Britain will maintain a garrison in Egypt in the Canal zone. Egypt regains control of foreign relations, subject to her not making treaties contrary to British policy, and will have the right to maintain diplomatic representatives abroad. Capitulations will be abolished."
A Balkan Coalition.—To protect themselves primarily against the reactionary government of Hungary, and also against Russia or other powers inimical to the nearly formed Balkan nations, the Czechoslovak, Jugoslav, and Roumanian governments have formed a defensive alliance which has been given the name of the "little entente." Vienna reports state that British and French officials do not view with entire approval this action of the Balkan States in coming to an understanding independently of the chief European powers.
Greek Premier Wounded.—On the night of August 12, Premier Venizelos of Greece was shot at and wounded in the shoulder and thigh while entering the Lyon railway station in Paris. His assailants were two Greek officers, adherents of the former King Constantine. M. Venizelos's recovery was later reported.
At the time of the attack the Premier was returning to Greece after the signing of the Turkish Treaty at Sevres on August 10. This treaty marked a triumph of Venizelos and of Greek policy, its terms more than doubling the 30,000 square miles of Greece and quadrupling its former population of 3,000,000.
Bulgarian Treaty Ratified.—Paris, Aug. 9.—The Peace Treaty with Bulgaria was made formally effective by the exchange of ratifications today among the powers which are parties to it.
The treaty was signed at Neuilly on November 27, 1919, and was ratified by the Bulgarian Sobranje January 12 of this year. France's ratification of the treaty was completed by the favorable action of her Senate on July 31.
MEXICO
Terms for Recognition.—On August 17 the Mexican Government published a message to President de la Huerta from Senor Calderon, the Mexican High Commissioner in Washington, purporting to present the terms upon which the United States would recognize the new Mexican Government. These terms were:
First—That North American lives and property be respected.
Second—That indemnities be paid to foreigners who suffered during the revolution.
Third—That the Carranza decrees which are found to be confiscatory be derogated.
Washington officials later stated that these terms were only "a few of the conditions announced," that the United States wanted performance more than promises, and that it would delay recognition until the new government proved its strength and intentions.
Obregon Elected President.—Early announcements of the elections held in Mexico on September 5 assured the election of General Obregon as President.
Protest Against Oil Policy.—Washington, Sept. 7.—It was officially made known at the State Department to-day that instructions were sent to the American Embassy in Mexico City, about three weeks ago, to notify the Mexican Government that the United States regarded the operation of the "denouncement law" and the Federal zone law in the oil fields as an infringement of the rights of Americans under international law.
It was said at the department to-day that no report on the delivery of these warnings to the Mexican Government had been received from the embassy, and the report that Provisional President de la Huerta had refused to receive the communication because it was couched in "impossible" language is discredited by the officials. It was said that if such a situation arose Charge d'Affaires Summerlin would immediately communicate the facts to the department.—N. Y. Times, Sept. 8, 1920.
JAPAN
Anglo-Japanese Alliance.—It was learned on September 3 that the American, British, and Japanese governments were engaged in informal conversations respecting the terms of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, which was renewed in July for only one year. There is no suggestion that the United States will become a third party to the treaty, but it is evident that a better understanding among the three powers regarding their interlocking interest in the Far East will lessen the tension in that quarter. There is need in particular of a more definite understanding regarding Japan's "special interests" in China, which were recognized in the Lansing-Ishii Agreement, but which the United States refuses to regard as justifying Japan in establishing a "Monroe Doctrine" for the East.
On the same date Secretary Colby and Governor Stephens of California conferred regarding the Japanese situation. California in November will cast a referendum vote on the question of more drastic legislation against Japanese land holding.
?