NEUTRALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM

The article on "Neutralization" in the April number of the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, written by a prominent member of the New England Anti-Imperialist League, seems to furnish additional evidence of the change of mind which has occurred in recent years among the advocates of the policy of antiimperialism. They originally based themselves on a supposed universal principle, according to which all "peoples" were regarded as having a natural right of independence - it not being made clear by them what constitutes a "people," or how great a number of nations would result from the application of the doctrine, or how the great number of nations which would probably result would be able to get on together. The policy, or doctrine, based on this supposed principle has been called "nationalism," and the revolutionary and opposition parties in colonies and, in incorporated regions which are seeking to be disincorporated now generally call themselves "nationalists." For some years after the Spanish war of 1898, the American advocates of anti-imperialism, acting in sympathy with the "nationalists" in the Philippines, demanded the immediate recognition by the United States of the independence of the Philippines and, with less emphasis, of Hawaii and Porto Rico. Confronted with the objection that to declare these islands independent would in all probability result in their falling into anarchy and barbarism, or in their being annexed as colonies by one of the great powers other than the United States, or in a war to prevent such annexation in which the United States would participate, the anti-imperialists, under the leadership of the League, changed their ground. Independence, or "nationality," was no longer regarded by them as a natural right of all "peoples" in the original strict sense; and an arrangement with respect to these islands called "neutralization,” based largely on expediency, has for some time been advocated by them. The article in question may,

therefore, perhaps not improperly be regarded as a statement in detail of the present position of the anti-imperialists.

“Neutralization," as explained by the writer of the article, would require that the United States should initiate and attempt to bring about an alliance between itself and the other great powers, by which the Philippines should be guaranteed against intervention except by mutual consent of all the allies and except as necessary to maintain a stable government, and against all interference of powers external to the alliance. This guaranty would operate whether the allied powers were at peace or were engaged in war.

Several objections at once present themselves to such a plan. It requires this nation to refrain from helping the Filipinos unless it can obtain the consent of other great powers, who at present have no right in the Philippines. It requires this nation to enter into a guaranty-alliance involving joint supervision by the allies over the Philippines, which might, under some circumstances, lead to a necessity for joint intervention. The author of the article suggests that the alliance maintain a "union navy navy" " for this "police duty." This would of course necessitate the conversion of the alliance into a confederation or a federal union, of which the United States would be a part. Such an alliance would certainly come within the class of "entangling alliances " which it is the policy of this nation to avoid.

The author of the article does not confine himself to recommending such a guaranty-alliance with respect to the Philippines alone; he proposes that the plan be extended, on the initiative of this nation, so as to include not only all existing metropolitan nations and all of their existing colonies, but also all the "weaker peoples." Could this great scheme be put in operation, it is evident that the world would be divided into two great parties having opposite interests; in the one would be included the peoples inhabitating the national territory of the great allied guaranteeing powers, and in the other would be the "weaker peoples," who would be "neutralized," and subject to the supervision of a "joint navy" of the allied powers doing "police duty." Such a situation would, it would seem, clearly lead to one of two results: If the guaranteeing

powers intervened among the "weaker peoples" for the keeping of order, there would probably arise a vicious form of attempted world empire; if they did not so intervene, the system would probably degenerate into one of widespread and progressive anarchy.

There seems, therefore, to be little hope for the improvement of present conditions along the path of "neutralization." The policy of nationalism pure and simple has been abandoned by the antiimperialists because found to be indefensible, as tending toward anarchism or absolutism. The policy of opportunism is now unpopular everywhere, and is opposed to the American genius. It appears therefore to be worth while to inquire whether the solution of the problem of the relations which are to permanently exist between the United States and the annexed insular countries may not be found in some form of imperialism.

66

The anti-imperialist idea of imperialism is shown in the article to which reference has been made. The author of that article regards imperialism as a policy based on the principle of ownership," and of rule over "subject-peoples." If imperialism were such a policy, it would be out of the question for this nation, as being opposed to the truth which this nation holds to be "selfevident," that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." The doctrine of the spiritual equality of all men as the basis of some rights which are unalienable is the corner-stone of the American system, and any policy which is opposed to this equality must be rejected. But whatever views of imperialism may be held in some parts of the world which would justify the interpretation placed by the antiimperialists upon the word imperialism, it has another aspect, which is the modern and American aspect, in which it is wholly consistent with American principles and American ideals.

The modern imperialism had its inception in the American Revolution. Great Britain insisted that she had plenary power over the colonies; the latter insisted that she had no power over them without their consent. There were men on both sides of the water who realized that both these doctrines were destructive of true political unity in the British Empire, and who, being desirous to preserve

the then existing political unity of the Empire, were trying to find a via media between these extremes. Their work resulted in the development of a doctrine of imperialism according to which the British Empire was regarded as a federalistic political organism, of which Great Britain was the federal head. This plan was evolved by the efforts of John Dickinson in America and of William Pitt (Lord Chatham) in England. Washington and most of the moderate men in America sympathized with the idea, though they hesitated to commit themselves to it as a practical proposition under the circumstances then existing. Lord Chatham's bill, which was rejected instantly by the British House of Lords upon its introduction, and which was never introduced in the House of Commons, would have declared, if it had been enacted into law, that Great Britain's power in the Empire, exercised through the British Parliament, should only extend to "matters touching the general weal" of Great Britain and the colonies, which were "beyond the competency" of the government of a colony. Had the imperialism proposed by Lord Chatham been accepted, the American colonies would have been in some sense member-states of the British Empire, while Great Britain would have been at the same time a member-state of the Empire, and the federal head of the Empire. The British Government would have been both the state government of Great Britain and the federal government of the Empire.

Such a federalistic empire, it was then assumed, must be based on treaty between the member-states, negotiating on an assumed basis of equality, or on a continued process of arbitration within the empire, for the purpose of determining the extent of the power of Great Britain as the federal head to be exercised for the common purposes, and the extent of the power of the colonies as memberstates to be exercised for local purposes. Burke opposed this policy. He declared that such a conception of empire was impossible, because it would either involve the entering into "a labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations" or would "depend upon the juridical determination of perplexing questions" arising in the process of "the precise marking of the shadowy boundaries of a complex government." He also raised the objection that Great

Britain, as a member-state of a federalistic British Empire, could not justly act as the federal head, because in all or most disputes with the colonies Great Britain would be a judge in her own cause.

Burke, however, agreed with Samuel Adams, Dickinson, Lord Chatham, and many others in differentiating the power exercised by the Parliament of Great Britain in the Empire from the power exercised by it in Great Britain. The power exercised by the Parliament in the Empire they all agreed was a superintending power," different in its nature from the strictly "legislative power" which it exercised in Great Britain.

66

The plan for federalizing the British Empire failed; but the idea of federalism lived. It was applied in one way when the United States were formed into a nation by the Constitution; and the conception of a British Empire federalized in the same way as the American Union, or in some way approximating that Union, never wholly died.

After the American Revolution, and particularly after the federal union of the United States by the Constitution, it was inevitable that in all disagreements between Great Britain and her colonies there should have been a tendency on both sides to find a middle ground in a policy of federalistic imperialism. The dispute with Canada in 1841 was settled in the same way that it would have been had that policy been accepted; though Great Britain then maintained and still maintains her former position that as head of the British Empire she has, and of right ought to have, plenary power throughout the Empire.

The movement towards the atheistic, positivist, and individualist philosophy which swept the world after the French Revolution led to the acceptance in Great Britain of the dogma of universal nationalism and universal free trade. Adam Smith's doctrine, announced in 1776, that the world ought to be reorganized so that it should consist of a great number of independent nations trading freely with each other, was attempted to be put into practice; the policy of nationalism was widely accepted, and doctrinaires began to urge the recognition of all colonies as independent. It was soon realized, however, that colonies, if declared independent, would not necessarily adopt the doctrine of universal free trade, and when