Part 2

“The name ‘Peace Conference,’ which the instinct of the nations, anticipating the resolution of the Governments, has given to our Assembly, this name well describes the principal object of our labors; the Peace Conference must not be faithless to the mission laid upon it; it must bring forth a tangible result from these deliberations, which is awaited in confidence by all mankind.”

All mankind? Not yet. A great portion of it, that which still holds fast to the thousand-year-old institution of war, be it through personal interest or the power of imparted prejudice, hopes that the Conference will produce no result which may endanger war; a still greater portion, the dull masses, expect nothing at all. But those who really have confidence in the progress of culture, who, in agreement with the originator of the Conference and his faithful fellow-workers, are convinced of the necessity of the present ruinous system giving place to another, these latter will note these words of the President of the Conference; and in case of disappointment, in case the Conference were faithless to its mission, would raise the demand for fulfilment so loudly and continuously that at length all mankind would be carried away by it.

But such disappointment will not take place. That may be boldly said beforehand. The proposals already put before the Assembly vouch for the earnestness and sincerity of the work which has been begun. They are a proof that the following sentence from Staal’s speech is no mere phrase, but the expression of noble resolve:

“Diplomacy, following a universal law, is no longer an art in which personal skill plays the principal part, but is striving to become a science, which must possess fixed rules for the settlement of international conflicts. That is to-day the ideal aim that it must bear in view, and great progress will indubitably be made, if diplomacy succeeds in laying down some of these rules at this Conference. We shall also particularly endeavor to codify the practice of arbitration and mediation. These ideas form, so to speak, the essence of our task, the chief aim of our exertions; ‘to prevent conflicts by peaceful means.’”

These words faithfully echo the instructions given by the Tsar to his ambassador. And already much has been done in the specified direction. It is clear that other powers had come to the Conference with plans equally far-reaching if not more so, and the subject of an “International Permanent Tribunal of Arbitration”—this wildest dream of the Utopians—has already been discussed and even in many points unanimously accepted.

The propositions offered by the representatives of Russia, England, Italy and the United States are known through the newspapers. To the opponents of the peace movement that have lately pointed out with special satisfaction that America, that stronghold of efforts for peace, has lately entered military channels, to these the plan sent by the American Government must have caused remarkable stupefaction. With these proposals, with this energetic and open participation in the work of peace, the American will again fill that position in the history of civilization with which the friends of peace in the whole world have always credited him: the Pioneer of peace and freedom.

A tangible result will be produced by the Conference, something newly created, constituted, permanent, that can be developed and expanded. And besides this, a direct result, how many indirect ones? The whole world must now take part in the question, and the various branches of the social organism, the Church, Art, Literature, the Press, are drawn into the service of propagandism. Gifted men like Stead and Bloch, now resident at the Hague, have an opportunity of a field worthy of their labors. Stead has prevailed upon a Dutch daily paper to publish an article on “War against War,” which plays the same part towards the Conference as the weekly paper for the English, “Crusade of Peace.” Bloch is giving lectures, illustrated by views, offering a resumé of the great six-volume work in which, supported by dates and facts, he proves that the war of the future is a technical impossibility, an “Utopia.” Even if the general public has not comprehended the marvellous significance of the meeting of the Conference, perhaps it will be capable of perceiving the significance of positive results. Facts and successes are always more powerful than the most glorious theories, however irrefutable. And the positive results will be of various kinds. One brings another with it. The question of neutralizing the States, the question of the coalition of neutrals, and lastly the question of disarmament, although the two former are not upon the programme, and the latter seems to have been momentarily put aside—will come to the front. Disarmament and a check to military equipment, these were the chief motives of the Tsar’s manifesto. To avert the ruin and misfortune brought upon nations by “armed Peace,” was mentioned as the object for which remedies were to be found. When once these remedies—international justice, etc.—have been found, the object can no longer be evaded. I believe that the decision of the Conference upon the question of disarmament will offer a startling resolution, or at least a declaration of principle, which will be binding in the future. One need not fear to be confounded when prophesying agreeable surprises.

Truly, I venture to assert with confidence, the progress from the first of the past eight Peace Congresses in 1889 to the Hague Congress of 1899 has been far longer and more difficult than that leading from this Conference to a complete attainment of its aims; i. e., to the abolition on principle of the institution of war. In the midst of our endeavors for universal peace the Tsar’s initiative fell like a bombshell; but now, even were it in the near future, the inauguration of lawfully guaranteed peace would appear to those qualified to judge no longer as a surprise, but as a fulfilment.

BERTHA VON SÜTTNER.

The Hague, June, 1899.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling. 2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed. 3. Enclosed italics font in underscores.