Page images
PDF
EPUB

taking advantage of the war to supplant German commerce. On the whole, however, the war had injured Japanese trade. The total exports in 1915, although showing an increase of $58,602,768 over 1914, amounted to only $354,153,499 as compared with $366,230,107 in 1913. Imports had dropped from $364,765,822 in 1913 to $266,224,969 in 1915. -Child labor was legally prohibited in 1916; young persons between 12 and 15 years and women were permitted to work no more than 12 hours a day, with two holidays a month; accident compensation was also provided.

PERSIA.-Symptoms of unrest in Persia, the revolt of the gendarmerie, the activity of Turkish propaganda, and the apparent inclination of the young sovereign, Ahmed Shah, to give ear to the German agent, Prince Henry of Reuss, gave Russia and Great Britain cause of alarm. On November 1 Russia intimated to the Shah that any hostility toward the Entente Powers might mean Persia's destruction. Russian troops at Kazvin, 86 miles northwest of Teheran, were ordered to advance on the capital, November 9. The mejliss in secret sitting, November 11, decided on submission. The Shah, who had been meditating removal from the Russian zone of influence, was induced to abandon all idea of flight, November 15. Russophile politicians, Prince Ain-ed-Dowleh and Prince Firman Firma, were given seats in the cabinet, November 15. Prince Firman Firma became premier on December 25 and retained the office for about three months. On March 6 a Nationalist leader, the Sipah Salar Azam, former premier and minister of war, was placed at the head of the government. Meanwhile Russian armies defeated the pro-German Persian gendarmes and other hostile forces near Ave (December 7) and Sultan Bulak (December 9) and occupied Kum (December 15) and Hamadan (about December 20) which had been centers of Turco-Teutonic activity. From Kum one Russian army continued southward to Kashan (occupation announced December 27) and Ispahan (March 19). Another took Sultanabad (January 21), between Kum and Hamadan. A third followed the caravan route from Hamadan to Kermanshah (February 26) and Kerind (March 12) toward Bagdad (see supra, p. 7). Most of western and central Persia remained in Russian occupation until July, when the Turks recaptured Kermanshah. The southeastern corner of Persia was occupied by an Anglo-Egyptian expedition under General Sykes.

OTHER ASIATIC AND AFRICAN STATES.— Uprisings in French Indo-China were severely repressed; martial law was proclaimed in April, and the insurgent boy-king of Annam, Duy-Tan, was deposed by the French governor-general. Prince Dun-Dao was named as Duy-Tan's successor.-Lidj Jeassu, negus of Abyssinia, offered 200,000 soldiers to aid the Entente Allies, according to a statement made by M. Pierre Alype in the French Chamber of Deputies.-A quasi-relig

ious revolt, led by Abdul Melik, was reported by German dispatches to have broken out in Algeria. - German newspapers also asserted that all Tripoli was in revolt; that Senussi tribesmen had routed the Italian garrison at Kasasyrt; and that the Italians had lost 6000 men. -The French forces in Morocco, under General Henrys, inflicted a crushing defeat upon the troublesome Abd el Malek in the Taza region, captured his camp, and drove him to seek refuge in mountain fastnesses in the Rif. In the Spanish zone of Morocco, the resident General Jordana announced on May 17 the complete submission of the Kabyles in the territory of Oued-Ras and the opening of the Fondak route, thanks to the victory of Spain's ally Raisuli over the hostile Abd el Krim. Late in June heavy fighting with insurgent natives was resumed. All extra-territorial privileges hitherto enjoyed under the capitulations were renounced by Italy in March, as regards the French zone of Morocco, and in April, as regards the Spanish zone. The Netherlands and several other nations made similar announcements.

[For colonies and dependencies in Africa and Asia, see The European War, The United States, The British Empire and Continental European States, supra.]

EDWARD M. SAIT,
PARKER THOMAS MOON.

POLITICAL

SCIENCE

QUARTERLY

AMERICAN DIPLOMACY IN THE EUROPEAN WAR

HERE has been no little dissatisfaction in the United
States with the conduct of our diplomacy in the pres-

THE

ent world war. There are those who maintain that we should have espoused the cause of one or of the other group of belligerents. Both among these citizens and in the far larger body supporting the policy of neutrality, there are many who maintain that our government has failed to protect, as effectively as it could and should have protected, the rights of American citizens as neutrals and as non-combatants.

I. Neutrality or discrimination

Those opposing the policy of neutrality, or advocating a more or less unequal or discriminating neutrality, are divided by their sympathies, or by their views of national duty in international relations, into two groups. On the one side it is asserted that we should have protested against the invasion of Belgium, and that we should not have embarrassed the conduct of the war, on the part of Great Britain and its allies, by insisting upon the rights of neutral trade. A smaller number claim that the Entente Allies so clearly represent the cause of liberty and of civilization that we should from the outset have joined our armed forces to theirs. Of those who sympathize with the Central Empires or feel antipathy to British imperialism, none, so far as I know, has claimed that we should have taken up arms on the Teutonic side; but many assert that we should have met British restraint of neutral commerce, not with protests only, but with retaliatory action, by placing an embargo upon all trade with Great Britain and its allies, or at least upon

By many of those demanding

the export of munitions of war. that the export of military supplies be prohibited, it is indeed denied that such action would be unneutral; it is asserted, on the contrary, that under existing circumstances this export is unneutral. This last contention will be examined later.'

In so far as these divergent demands represent racial sympathies, they are, from the American point of view, deplorable and dangerous. In a country like ours, inhabited by people of many diverse origins, it would be fatal to internal peace and progress to permit our foreign policy to be controlled by any such influences. In so far, however, as these demands embody a sense of the solidarity of world interests and a feeling. that a wrong committed against one nation is an injury to all nations; in so far as they are based upon a belief that international morals will never become international law in any proper sense of the word until the sanction of force-force of arms or force of economic discrimination-is employed by nations not directly and selfishly concerned to uphold the international order by punishing its assailants-in so far these demands deserve respectful consideration. They represent the lines of progress on which at some future period a durable world-order may be attained. Under present conditions, however, the maintenance of the peace and order of the world will hardly be secured by accepting the principle that it is the right and duty of every nation to support international right and to penalize international wrongs. So long as it is left to each nation to determine where the right lies in any controversy, divergent sympathies and interests will tend to produce opposing decisions; and anything approaching general action under the proposed principle might widen any war into a world war.

A special reason why the United States should have protested against the violation of Belgian neutrality is found by some of our citizens in the fact that the invasion of Belgium was not only a violation of international law but also a breach of treaties, and that, among the treaties by which the integrity of Belgium was safeguarded, there was one, a Hague convention concerning

1 Cf. infra, pp. 513-517.

« PreviousContinue »