LX
THE FIRST PEACE CONFERENCE AT THE HAGUE (concluded)
Turning point in the arbitration question · Professor Zorn · Madame Ratazzi · Professor Martens · Mirza Rhiza Khan · Letter from Frau Büchner · Trip to Amsterdam · At the photographer’s · Limitation of armaments · Two important sessions · Colonel von Schwarzhoff · Limitation rejected · Baron Bildt and Bourgeois · Ball at Staal’s · The Grotius celebration · Letter from Andrew D. White · Article 27 · Departure · International Inquiry Commission · Beldimann in opposition · Again the Inquiry Commission · Beldimann’s ultimatum · Acte final
June 15. In the afternoon a reception given by Monsieur and Madame d’Estournelles. The whole Congress comes and goes. Dr. White is buried in a conversation with Count Münster. Then he comes to me.
“If you can bring any pressure to bear on influential persons, Baroness, do it now. Every possible measure must be employed to clear away the difficulties that are springing up.... The most important question before our Congress—that of a court of arbitration—has reached a turning point; that is what I was talking with Count Münster about.”
I promised to go to one of my friends staying at The Hague, and in high favor with the German Emperor’s uncle, the Grand Duke of Baden, and urge him to apply to the prince in these critical circumstances.
Our host introduced me to Professor Zorn. First of all I thank him for his denial in regard to “Zorn’s speech,” of which he still knows absolutely nothing.
“In fact, no such speech was ever made,” replied the professor. “I took part in the discussion, but I made no speech and made no such remarks as many newspapers attributed to me.”
The conversation turns on the Bloch lectures.
“Pure fallacies,” said the professor. “Military men think that a war of the future will be less bloody than those of the past.”
“Less bloody! with these weapons, with this tenfold faster firing per minute—”
“All the fewer missiles will hit—”
“Oh, no, the war of the future cannot be palliated; what the future needs is peace.”
“That is found only in heaven!”
In the evening a great party at the Okoliczanys’. A new person makes her appearance,—Madame Ratazzi, Türr’s sister-in-law, born Bonaparte Wyse. I saw this woman thirty years ago at Homburg, the greatest beauty I ever met. And now? Alas! how miserable to look on des ans l’irréparable outrage (the irreparable ravages of the years).
Long conversation with our host. He holds the opinion that, sooner or later, even without any conference, Europe must arrive at the formation of a union; the ceaseless expense for armaments, necessitated by lack of unity, the constant rivalries of commerce, the policy of protection,—all this, unless a change ensues, exposes Europe to the danger of being ruined by America. A peace alliance uniting our part of the world is a necessity. This is the same thesis as our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Count Goluchowski, advanced in a noteworthy exposé before the Congress was called together.
General den Beer Poortugael joins me. I express my admiration of his latest speech. He assures me that the limitation of armaments must be striven for, not only because the nations expect this result from the Conference, but also because it is the only way to escape the threatened catastrophe. Remarkable words from the lips of a general!
June 16. In the evening a reception at Beaufort’s. I make the acquaintance of Professor Martens. He arrived to-day from Paris, where he is acting as president in the Venezuela arbitration tribunal. He will attend only one session and then return immediately to Paris. Speaking of the condition of things here, he tells me that, even though many of the powers should hesitate or delay to sign the convention, this would do no harm, because the protocols will be left open, even for the powers that are not represented here.
Another exotic acquaintance, Mirza Rhiza Khan, the delegate from Persia.[38] He is forty-five years old, has Oriental features, a thick black mustache, and sparkling eyes; his white uniform is decorated with numberless orders; on his cap is the Persian lion. In 1889 he accompanied the former shah, Nasr-ed-Din, as his adjutant general on his tour through Europe. Now he is ambassador to St. Petersburg. He was educated in Constantinople and Tiflis, and tells us of the Princess Tamara of Georgia, whom he knows very well; she is now at the Caucasian baths of Botjom.
June 17. An artistic festival arranged by the government in honor of the Conference, comprising living pictures, musical productions, and national dances. Make the acquaintance of Baron von Stengel. He is very stiff and repelling. We exchange only a few words—something about “loyal opposition” and “there must needs be different views”; a few indifferent observations about the performances of the evening and we soon separate.
A Dutch army physician introduces himself to me. He had read my novel while in Borneo. The sufferings that he had witnessed there in the practice of his calling exceed all belief. He had been mortally unhappy, and so the book had made a double impression on him, and had awakened in him a longing for the accomplishment of everything which the Conference at The Hague has in view.
June 18. I receive from the daughter-in-law of Professor Lüdwig Buchner, who had died not long ago, the following letter in reply to a letter of condolence:
My dear Baroness,
A year of the loftiest triumph! May all that are to follow be as rich in success! This is what all your most faithful admirers desire with glowing enthusiasm.
Your kind sympathy called forth by the departure of our beloved father has been a great comfort to us. Many mourn for him with us. He, the faithful champion of the truth, will be survived by his works. Happy as his life was, his death was no less enviable. Even in the midst of his fullest creative powers he glided without a sound, without a sigh, from gentle slumber into the Unknown. Many times, when tormented by his trying cough, weary from sleepless nights, he spoke of his approaching end; and so it found him with the calm of a true philosopher. Everything had been put in readiness with the greatest care for this event. He was enabled to pass away calmly; a rich life lay behind him. He had employed his great intellectual gifts wholly for the good of his fellow-men. The kindness and fidelity of his heart were rewarded by the purest joys of a sweet family life. He knew that his loving, self-sacrificing wife was surrounded by a grateful band of children, in whose happiness the deeply bereaved woman will find her best consolation. We all console one another, in our deep sorrow for the irremediable gap in our family circle, by thoughts of the beautiful, happy life which he was permitted to enjoy so long.
For the ninth of June I wish you with my whole heart happiness and health, and I hope that you may retain all your joyous powers of creation, which have allowed you in the past to overcome so many difficulties. In such a victorious career your inspiration will never be paralyzed, and you will march forward on the road to that victory which is to secure the happiness of mankind!
With the deepest respect
Your wholly devoted
Marie Büchner
The debates on the arbitration tribunal have come to a pause; they will not be resumed until fresh instructions have been received. Dr. Holls and Professor Zorn have gone to Hannover, where the German Emperor is at present sojourning. Mr. White intrusted to Dr. Holls a long letter to Bülow.
In the course of the afternoon we receive many callers, including Frau von Okoliczany and her daughter, Mevrouw Smeth, and Mirza Rhiza Khan. The Persian delegate tells me that he has been endeavoring to introduce the Latin alphabet into Persia, but that it has met with great opposition, especially among the priests, who declare that it is a sin to make use of any other letters than those in which the Koran is written.
Baron and Baroness d’Estournelles also call on me to-day. We talk about Professor Zorn. D’Estournelles assures me that this German delegate is striving with all his might to bring the matter of the arbitration tribunal to a favorable conclusion: Il pense comme vous et moi.
Now I doubt that. I will go as far as to believe, as Stead states also in the Dagblad, that Professor Zorn is determined that the matter of the arbitration tribunal shall not be shipwrecked; but that he is as radical in his views as D’Estournelles or as I—he himself would repudiate the idea!
June 19. Trip to Amsterdam with a large party. We drove three times around the whole city and hurried through the museums, allowing the pictures by Van Dyck and Franz Hals and Rubens to flash before our eyes. Only before Rembrandt’s great painting, “The Night Watch,” which we had recently seen presented as a living picture, we remained for half an hour in contemplation. At your very first entrance into the suite of galleries it shines upon you from the farthest background. You would think that the sun was shining on it; but its brilliancy comes from its colors.
In the museum is a splendid case filled with Indian treasures, consisting of rings and chains and all sorts of jewels taken as loot from conquered rajahs; therefore simply freebooters’ booty. Mankind does not look upon it as such.
We visit also the diamond-polishing works. A whole house filled with workmen. On every floor a different phase of the transformation which this precious form of carbon goes through before it becomes an ornament. On the top floor, reached by a very narrow wooden staircase, sit the most skillful of the laborers, who give the last finish to the stones. They allow the foreign visitors to look; they explain the processes. The trouble seems too great! What effort and what patience to make this dull, hard substance glitter with a hundred facets!
The manager shows us on a velvet ground the models in crystal of all the largest and most famous diamonds that are in the possession of the various crowned heads,—the Kohinoor and others. I did not heed the names attached to these little globules of glass representing millions in value.
“Since so many diamonds have been mined in the Transvaal,” said one of the polishers, “we can scarcely keep up with our work; and yet there are thousands of us diamond cutters in Amsterdam.”
“Just see!” remarked Herr von Bloch to us, “just see how the world hangs together! Suppose war should break out in the Transvaal, the consequences would be that here in Amsterdam thousands of workingmen’s families would suffer from want!”
We had dinner—all excursions culminate in eating—at a restaurant from which there was a view of a canal full of life and movement. It was a beautiful, lively picture from the open window near which I sat. On the other side of the canal are old houses, truly Dutch in appearance, and a church with a very lofty belfry. Boats and scows were moving up and down heavily laden with flowers,—mainly tulips, roses, and lilies. Suddenly the bells in the tower began to ring; the tones kept interweaving, and for ten minutes a melodious, silver-clear chime of bells continued to play.
Not until late at night did we return to The Hague. At the waiting room of the railway station we meet Dr. Holls. He has just come back from Germany, whither he had gone accompanied by Professor Zorn, with a mission to smooth out at the main source the difficulties that had arisen in the matter of the arbitration tribunal.
“Any news? Any news?” we ask in the greatest excitement.
“I cannot tell you anything yet,” replied Dr. Holls. “Only I will mention the title of one of Shakespeare’s plays, ‘All’s well that ends well.’”[39]
June 21. Léon Bourgeois, who had only just come from Paris, is recalled again by Loubet and commissioned to form a cabinet. Will he be able, will he be willing, to renounce the task of being prime minister? I have it from his own lips that this is his purpose; he is going to do his very utmost to return to The Hague in order to see the business of the arbitration tribunal through to the end.
To-day I went with the painter Ten Kate to the photographer. A sculptor, a friend of his, wants to chisel my bust, and for this purpose I must be taken en face and en profil, in three-quarters profile and from behind, wrapped statuesquely in some soft, flowing white material, with my hair arranged in Grecian style and with a palm branch as an ornament for the breast. The process lasted several hours.
I was posed and pulled into shape. Then the photographer, whose name is Wollrabe, goes to his camera, looks in, shakes his head, and hobbles back to me—he has a wooden leg—to pull my left shoulder a little toward the right, to lift my chin, and to twitch my draperies down; and in this he has the critical and practical aid of Master Ten Kate. “There, now it’s all right” (So, jetzt ist es jutt). Hop, hop, hop to the camera. Again a shaking of the head and hop, hop, hop back to me again. After a little tugging,—“There, now it’s all right.” And so half a dozen times for each exposure. And all the while I must preserve the earnest physiognomy of a statue, in spite of the great temptation to laugh at the forest-goblinlike, to-and-fro stumping of the so-hard-to-be-satisfied Wollrabe, who, by the way, has wonderfully beautiful pictures in his studio, among them the best extant portrait of the young queen.
One ought to be, indeed, especially young and beautiful to be painted and chiseled. And not only the hop, hop, hop of my photographer with his funny bird name—“Wool-raven”—strikes me as comical, but also his white-draped model, adorned with the vegetable of peace—but I must not laugh!
June 23. The article proposed in the programme for “an agreement concerning the use of certain weapons and forbidding new purchases and inventions” has been decided in the negative. Stead, speaking with me regarding this matter, says:
“Do not for a moment imagine that this is a bad thing. Rudyard Kipling wrote me at the beginning of the peace crusade, ‘War will last until some inventive genius furnishes a machine which will annihilate fifty per cent of the combatants as soon as they face one another.’ Therefore I think that the Conference, while it has decisively rejected a whole series of proposals—even those that came from the Tsar—in the line of prohibiting the improvement of cannon and other weapons, has been acting in behalf of peace and not of war.”
“I think so too,” I reply; “only that is not their reason for doing as they have. The military men who have voted the measure down have done so for the special purpose of promoting militarism.”
To-day the Congress is considering a weighty point, Section 1 of Muravieff’s second circular:
An understanding not to increase for a fixed period the present effective of the armed military and naval forces, and, at the same time, not to increase the budgets pertaining thereto.
This is the question that is of greatest importance for the champions of peace, for it touches the evil of armed peace.
This condition—according to Türr, la peur armée—has this basis: the presupposition on which the relations of nations are established is that the neighbor has the morals of a bandit and the conscience of a pirate!
Bad news from London,—the House of Commons has granted four million pounds for purposes of war.
Under date of June 27 I confided to my diary the text of the whole “armament” debate, which took place on the twenty-third and twenty-sixth of the month. Here I will introduce only the most notable passages. This is sufficient to bring out the attitude of the various governments toward this question.
FIRST SESSION, JUNE 23. HERR BEERNAERT, CHAIRMAN
We have now reached the serious problem which the Russian government placed first of all, so worded that it instantly aroused the attention of the world.
This time it is not the nations, but a mighty monarch, who believes that the enormous burdens that are the result of the armed peace in which Europe has been existing since 1871 are calculated “to paralyze public welfare at its sources, and that their constant increase involves an oppressive load which the nations will have ever greater and greater difficulty in enduring.”
Count Muravieff’s circular has stated the problem in a little more condensed form as follows: “What are the means by which a limit might be set to the increase of armaments? Could the nations pledge themselves against an increase or even in favor of a reduction?”
I hope that our honored president, his Excellency von Staal, who has asked for the floor, will give us an explicit explanation of these points.
Herr von Staal said:
... “The question before us—limitation of the military budget and of the military establishment—deserves a thorough investigation, all the more from the fact (let me repeat it) that this constitutes the chief purpose of our assemblage, namely, to lighten as far as possible the terrible burden which oppresses the nations and checks their material as well as their moral development.
“Do I need to say that there is no question here of Utopian and chimerical measures? It does not mean that we shall proceed to disarmament. What we desire is a limitation, a period of quiescence, in the constantly accelerating race of armaments and expenditures.
“We make this proposition in the conviction that if an agreement is reached, a gradual reduction will take place. Immovability does not belong to the domain of history, and if we succeed in preserving a certain stability for a few years, it may be taken for granted that the advantageous tendency toward diminution of military expenditures will be confirmed and developed. The movement would perfectly correspond to the ideas which inspire the Russian rescript.
“But we have not yet got that far. At the present moment the question before us is only for a cessation, for a fixed period of years, in the increase of the military budgets and of the contingents.”
General den Beer Poortugael:
“Gentlemen: Here we find ourselves facing the chief object of Muravieff’s circular. It is truly worth while for us to concentrate our powers to the highest endeavor. We must regard the great interests of the nations, so intimately bound up with his recommendation, and I believe that I am not going too far when I say that the question must be treated with a certain reverence.
“The armies and military budgets that have been steadily growing larger and larger for the last quarter of a century have now attained gigantic, terrifying, dangerous dimensions. Four millions of men under arms and army budgets of five billions of francs a year! Is that not terrible?
“Truly, this increase of armies, of fleets, of budgets, of debts, seems to have been brought out of a Pandora’s box, the gift of a wicked fairy who desires the misfortune of Europe. War is sure to arise from this method of foresight, which is meant to safeguard peace. The increase of contingents and of expenses will be the real cause of war.
... “To the states which, through our military organizations, are bound together like mountain climbers in the Alps by a rope, the Tsar has said, ‘Let us make a common endeavor, let us pause on this path which leads to the abyss, else we are lost.’
“A halt, then! Fellow-delegates, it is our duty to use our utmost endeavors. It will be worth while. Let us call a halt!”
This speech, spoken in an impassioned voice, aroused amazement. Many could not refrain from applause; others could hardly help shaking their heads. Some one is said to have remarked, “Bebel, out and out!”
Now the Russian motion was submitted.
THE PROGRAMME
Colonel von Schilinsky’s remarks:
... “It may be asked, gentlemen, whether the nations represented at the Conference will be perfectly satisfied if we bring them the arbitration tribunal and laws for seasons of war, but nothing for seasons of peace,—this armed peace, which bears so heavily upon them that often the statement is heard that an open war would be better than this concealed war of armaments, this perpetual rivalry where every nation exhibits greater armies in time of peace than it ever did before during the greatest wars.
... “Moreover, this continued increase of military power fails to attain its object, for the relative strength of the various countries remains the same. If any government increases its troops, forms new battalions, its neighbor follows its example without delay, so as to preserve the proportions; the neighbor’s neighbor does the same, and so it goes on without end. The effective increases, but the proportions remain about the same.
... “Moreover, we are proposing nothing new. The limitation of contingents and of the budget has long been customary in many countries. For example, there is the Septennat in Germany. This means that the total number of the troops in time of peace is fixed for seven—now five—years. In Russia also the war budget is established on a five years’ basis. So it is a question of well-known measures which have been used for a long time, which alarm no one, and which bring about good results; it is a question of applying these regulations for even a shorter time, if you please. The only novelty about it is the resolution, the courage to state that it is time to call a halt.
And Russia moves that we call a halt.”
After Colonel von Schilinsky had spoken, Captain Sheïn made a similar proposal for the navy. All this perfectly corresponds with what Emperor Nicholas said to Stead, and also with the utterances that Muravieff had made in my presence.
The truth is, the Russian government, in the presence of the whole world, in behalf of the welfare of all nations, has officially proposed to the other governments that they should come to an agreement henceforth not to increase armaments. At the same time, it has clearly opened up the prospect of a subsequent reduction. The accompanying proposals for a permanent tribunal, the arbitration code, and the propositions regarding mediation as well,—all this shows that, whatever the decisions of the Conference may be, the promoters have done their part honorably.
Session of June 26. The Commission assembles again. Léon Bourgeois has arrived. Colonel von Schwarzhoff is opposing the Russian motion. He takes sides also against General den Beer Poortugael; he cannot, he says, accept these ideas, and is unwilling that his silence should be construed as assent. The German people is not oppressed by the weight of taxes; it is not on the sheer edge of the abyss; it is not hastening to ruin,—quite the contrary. As regards the universal duty to bear arms, the German does not regard it as a heavy burden but as a sacred and patriotic duty, to the fulfillment of which he owes his existence, his prosperity, and his future. Then he speaks of the difficulties which beset the plan of limiting armaments, and explains that it would meet with insuperable technical obstacles.
The German delegate’s speech is regarded by the others as a clear proof that Germany is going to vote against the limitation motion.
Then Schilinsky, Den Beer Poortugael, and Dr. Stancioff of Bulgaria speak once more in defense of the motion.
The chairman proposes the nomination of a committee to study into the subject. For this committee the opponent, Colonel von Schwarzhoff, and the maker of the motion are chosen; also army and navy experts.
June 30. So, then, to-day, in the “House in the Wood,” the fate of the proposal for limitation of armaments was decided.
Rejected. Referred for further consideration to the cabinets of the great powers. A resolution made by Léon Bourgeois and adopted by the Conference saved the principle.
Last soirée at Minister Beaufort’s.
Sir Julian Pauncefote comes and sits by me. Of course I lead the conversation to the Conference again and ask him how long it will probably continue.
“At least a fortnight,” Sir Julian opines. “I can assure you,” he adds, “the Conference is doing a great work, and other conferences will follow. To be sure, the limitation clause was voted down, yet with the general declaration that it must be taken up later. But, on the other hand, the permanent tribunal has become a fact, and for this result Professor Zorn is to be specially praised for his endeavors.”
Turkhan Pasha escorts me to the refreshment table. There Herr Beernaert hands me an ice. He has recently arrived from Brussels, where the disturbances have fortunately come to an end. The obstruction of the socialists in the Chamber consisted in their always starting the Marseillaise whenever any one began to speak.
“Things are now all right again,” says the minister, “ils ont mis bas les armes. But here I understand some things are not all right. ‘Limitation’ is buried; the military experts declared it was out of the question.”
“Buried? At all events, the flowers are saved. Bildt[40] spoke wonderfully, beautifully; and a motion by Bourgeois was voted and assures a resurrection. The coffin is not nailed up; the boards are loose....”
“Such questions,” I added, “should not be treated from the technical but from a quite different standpoint. If the military men alone are to be allowed to decide about disarmament—”
“Surely,” says Herr Beernaert, finishing my sentence. “It is as if cobblers should deliberate on how men could give up wearing footgear!”
July 1. Now I know the report concerning yesterday’s limitation session. Servia first declared its adhesion; then Greece its dissent. Hereupon the report of the commission on studies was read—a very laconic report:
1. That it would be very difficult, even for a space of only five years, to fix the number of the troops without simultaneously regulating other elements of defense.
2. That it would be no less difficult to regulate the elements of this defense by means of an international convention, since the defense is organized in each country from very different points of view.
Consequently the committee regrets its inability to accept the proposal made in the name of the Russian government.
The committee recommends that the subject of the subsequent decision be intrusted to the respective governments.
Such is the text of the military commission’s report; and so the matter was simply set aside. The execution of the proposal offers difficulties, “consequently” it cannot be accepted! This “consequently,” however, is not satisfactory. The motive adduced for setting aside a project of such wide scope is not sufficient. There is more to be said about it than that it is difficult to carry out. It must also be clear whether it is not desirable, beneficent, nay, more, essential. And if this conclusion is reached, then if it is to be rejected, there must be a better reason than its difficulty; its impossibility must be shown.
But the matter before us cannot be impossible in principle; certainly not in the form just presented. And it must not be rejected, but rather postponed for future realization. This was the feeling of a large part of the Conference; and two other delegates—the Swede Baron Bildt and the Frenchman Léon Bourgeois—give expression to this feeling in fiery extempore speeches.
From Baron Bildt’s speech (“It is not enough”):
... Now, at the conclusion of our labors, we shall realize that we have faced one of the most important problems of the century, and that we have accomplished very little. We have no right to cherish illusions. If the transactions of the Conference come to public knowledge, then, in spite of all that has been done for arbitration, the Red Cross, and the rest, a loud cry will be raised, “It is not enough!”
And the majority of us, in our own consciences, will justify that outcry, “It is not enough!” To be sure, our consciences will tell us, for our consolation, that we have done our duty, because we have been faithful to the instructions that have been given us. But I venture to say that our duty is not yet completed, and that we still have something left to do. That is, to investigate with the greatest frankness and truth and to report to our governments what defects are to be found in the preparation or execution of the great work, and with steadfastness, with obstinacy, to seek the means to do better and to do more. Now let these means be found in new conferences, in direct negotiations, or simply in the policy of a good example. This is the duty which is left for us to fulfill.
This speech made a sensation. The applause had not died down when