The false peace :protectionism means endless conflict /by Henri Lambert.

^

40, 3

I !

The

False Peace

Protectionism Means
Endless Conflict

By

HENRI LAMBERT

Manufacturer in Charleroi, Belgium

Titular Member of the Societe d'Economie Politique,

of Paris

The International Free Trade League

38 ST. BOTOLPH STREET
BOSTON, MASS.

International Free Trade League

38 ST. BOTOLPH STREET, BOSTON, MASS.

A League to INDUCE Peace

OBJECT : to free production by abolishing all such restrictions as

taxes, licenses and other economic barriers to the free exchange

of the products of men's labor in all parts of the world.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

James H. Dillard
William C. Edwards
Edmund C. Evans
Frank W. Garrison
Bolton Hall
Charles H. Ingersoll

Richard Mayer

Western Starr

Frank Stephens

Emanuel Sternheim

Ellen Winsor

Daniel Kiefer, Treasurer

ICenneth B. Elliman, Secretary

ARGENTINA
Alberto Alves de Lima
Ferdinand Lodi

AUSTRALIA

E. J. Craigie
A. G. Huie
Cyril F. James

AUSTRIA
Julius Meinl

BELGIUM
Sen. Henri LaFontaine
Henri Lambert

BRAZIL
A. de Queiros Telles

CANADA
Christine Ross Barker
D. W. Buchanan

F. J. Dixon, M.L.A.
W. A. Douglass. M.A.
Harriet Dunlop Prenter
Charles P. Rice

CHINA
Dr. W. E. Macklin
Sun Yat Sen

ALABAMA
Ernest B. Gaston
ARKANSAS
Dr. Robert McAdam

CALIFORJ^IA
Dr. David Starr Jordan
J. H. Ryckrnan
Upton Sinclair

CONNECTICUT
Mary B. Ely
Theodore Schroeder
DELAWARE
Donald Stephens
DIST. OF COLUMBIA
Charles T. Hallinan
Hon. J. H. Ralston
IDAHO

G. M. Paulsen

ILLINOIS
Otto Cullman
George E. Dawson
Fay Lewis
Francis Neilson

INDIANA
J. H. McGill

MARYLAND
H. Martin Williams

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DENMARK
Dr. Georg Brandes

ENGLAND
Henry Bool
Francis W. Hirst
J. A. Hobson
George Lansbury
Arnold Lupton, M.E.
E. D. Morel
H. M. Swanwick. M_A.
Col. J. C. Wedgwood.M.P.
Charles Wicksteed, J. P.

FRANCE
Georges Darien
Ernest Mansuy

GERMANY
Prof. G. F. Nicolai
Lida Gustava Heymann

INDIA
N. S. Hardiker

MEXICO
Linn A. E. Gale

MASSACHUSETTS
Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Jr.
Frank Grant
Dr. William A. Neils^on
John Orth

MICHIGAN
Wilber Brotherton
S. G. Howe
Frederick F. Ingram

MINNESOTA
C. J. Buell
S. A. Stockwell

MISSISSIPPI
Prof. Calvin S. Brown

MISSOURI
R. C. Marr
Judge James M. Rea
NEW JERSEY
Hon. Mark M. Fagan
Dr. Mary D. Hussey

NEW YORK
Crystal Eastman
Dr. A. L. Goldwater
Hon. Frederic C. Howe
Fanny Garrison Villard

NETHERLANDS
Hon. J. T. Cremer
Dr. A. Van Daehne van
Varick

NEW ZEALAND
Hon. George Fowlds
P. J. O'Regan, M.P.

NORWAY
Governor Hakon Loken

RUSSIA
L. A. K. Martens
Santeri Nuorteva

SCOTLAND
Harry Llewelyn Davies

SPAIN_
Antonio Albendin
Baldomero Argente

SWITZERLAND
Jean Debrit
Dr. Auguste Forel
Dr. Raoul Gerber
URUGUAY
Dr. Felix Vitale

OHIO

Edmund Vance Cooke
Dr. J. E. Tuckerman
Fred S. Wallace
A. L. Weatherly, D.D.

OREGON
Col. C. E. S. Wood
PENNSYLVANIA
Eliza Middleton Cope
A, Warren Kelsey
C. F. Shandrew
Marshall E. Smith

TENNESSEE
Bolton Smith

TEXAS
William A. Black
John Davis

WASHINGTON
William Bouck
W. E. Brokaw

WISCONSIN
Zona Gale
Dr. J. Weller Long

The False Peace

Protectionism Means Endless Conflict

THE nations have "concluded peace." The vanquished have
subscribed to the protectionist peace. The sense of insecur-
ity among nations remains, — it is even accentuated. Everyone
feels it, everyone deplores it and declares that after four years
of immense military effort to overthrow autocracies, followed
by ten months of study during which the leaders of both hemi-
spheres discussed the problem of organizing the relationships of
the democratized peoples, the chief result is a large scrap of
diplomatic paper. It does not seem to be realized that if nothing
is settled, if the future seems less certain than ever, it is doubtless
because "the conventions of peace" are not based on any inherent
and essential principle of international truth, justice and morality.
Necessity or natural law is superior to human will and custom.
Nor could a popular "will to peace" prevent new and worse wars
from following closely on the heels of the one just ended if it con-
tinued to disregard the law of unity as expressed and revealed
by the nature of things.

To give a more concrete illustration of our meaning let us
take President Wilson's Fourteen Points as an example. They
were for the most part concessions to political empiricism, com-
promises with false conceptions which have hitherto prevailed in
international relations. But the Third Point, inspired by philo-
sophic truth, set forth the natural and permanent international
requirements. It provided the necessary economic foundation
for peaceful intercourse between nations. Since the economic
needs of man are his most vital needs, his economic activities,
interests and rights are immediate and fundamental. Harmonious
intercourse must, from the very nature of things, be dependent
upon the economic conditions. Is it not clear that nature has
provided for the economic interdependence and unity of the
nations by the unequal distribution over the surface of the globe

3

of the available materials of wealth necessary to mankind? Does
not co-operation in the free exchange of economic services become
for them a first necessity, and consequently a primary moral
obligation ? Harmony and peaceful intercourse, whether between
individuals or nations, are impossible unless based on this first
principle of freedom, justice and morality.

It will be recalled that the third of the Fourteen Points de-
manded "The removal, as far as possible, of all economic barriers,
and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among
all the nations consenting to the peace and associating together for
its maintenance." It laid down the principle, the primary condi-
tion; it provided the very basis for a genuine association of
peoples, a real League of Nations. Now, the various Wilson
Points have received a broad application with the exception of
the third, which has been utterly ignored. The peace lacks its
natural and essential foundation. Therefore there is not, there
cannot be, peace !

Germany is especially to blame, for, in the reply made by
Count Brockdorff-Rantzau to the Allies' treaty proposal, while
seeming at first to rely on the Third Point, the words he used were
devoid of precision or clearness, but were couched in sibylline
terms (a "universal commercial treaty" was proposed) which
would have justified every suspicion, had they been able to chal-
lenge serious attention. Now, it was more incumbent upon
Germany than upon any other nation to demand a thoroughgoing
application of the Third Point, by means of a gradual inaugura-
tion of universal Free Trade. What she could have done, and
ought to have done, was to make her acceptance of the peace '
treaty rest upon it, declaring herself ready for the immediate
abolition of her own economic barriers. Had she done so, she
would have taken an impregnable diplomatic position, a position
that could not be attacked by the allied diplomats, and irreproach-
able before history. She lamentably, stupidly failed to do so.

This new blunder of Germany (of all nations the most imbued
with false theories, the most "learned" in error and ignorant of
truth) in no way excuses the serious fault of the rulers of the
allied democracies. The British Prime Minister said recently in
the House of Commons that he "defied anyone to show that the

4

peace treaty was lacking in justice or wisdom." I accept Lloyd
George's challenge and affirm it to be without wisdom or justice.

The treaty is fundamentally and thoroughly unjust, since we
deny our late enemies economic equality; that is to say, equality
in fundamental human rights. It is unwise, because, while impos-
ing indemnities on Germany, it forbids her the only two means
of paying, viz.: either colonies in proportion to her needs, or,
preferably, free trade with the colonies of other nations. It is
supremely lacking in wisdom because war results from inequality
of territorial possessions, of ''places in the sun," of empires; and
because, by its tendencies, its spirit, and the monopolies it sanc-
tions, the treaty has greatly emphasized and aggravated this chief
cause of wars, whether past or future.

The Paris "peace conventions" have too clearly the effect, if
not the purpose, of sacrificing the civilization of the world in order
to satisfy the predatory designs of a few Great Powers. Having
waged endless wars against weak nations, and conquered an
enormous part of the territories and natural resources which the
planet offers to all mankind, they now propose to retain them by
force. (This is called "reaping the fruits of victory.") If they
persist in such enterprises of national plunder, sooner or later
deserved and inexorable punishment will overtake them. In the
meantime, it is a simple matter of self-interest for these nations,
only too well provided with places in the sun, to proclaim their
desire for peace, implying thereby a permanent territorial status
quo as well as the possession and exclusive use of the natural
riches which ought, by exchange, to be made the common pos-
session of all mankind.

But will this peace of the Great Allies with its imperialism,
its protectionism, its monopolies— its British, French, American,
Italian and Japanese Imperial Preference — will it long satisfy the
cheated and despoiled nations which comprise the rest of human-
ity ? They will abhor it within ten years,— as soon, in fact, as they
realize the iniquity which has been treacherously imposed upon
them, unwelcome guests at Nature's banquet table.

How can the numerous small democracies into which Central
and Eastern Europe have been subdivided live in peace? Hozu
can they live at all if, in imitation of the great protectionist and
imperialist democracies of the old world and the new, they seek

5

isolation and "protect" themselves against each other? How can
these young democracies enjoy economic and political prosperity,
how can they survive if French, American and British protection-
ism monopolizes the greater part of the world's resources?

The protectionist peace of the "allied democracies" is anti-
democratic, absurd and iniquitous. It is an oppressive peace, im-
posed by force in defiance of right. That is my reply to Lloyd
George.^

The statesmen gathered at Paris were the masters of human
destiny. It was their duty, and it was within their power, to
solve the international problem once for all, making further wars
useless and conquest and annexation an absurdity. But they
could only do so by making a Free Trade peace, gradually open-
ing the world to free economic intercourse in which all countries
would be on equal terms, thus making the whole earth a "place
in the sun" for every nation. A pax econoniica is the only pos-
sible anti-imperialist and anti-militarist peace, the only democratic
peace, the only fundamentally just, wise and true peace. ^

^Also to M. Clemenceau who considers that the Treaty of Versailles
"is nevertheless, a fine treaty" . . . since it consecrates "a peace of human
solidarity." Thus, the statesman chosen as President of the great council
of humanity at the gravest moment of history was, in common with those
who surrounded him at Paris and Versailles, ignorant of the fact that
human solidarity must in the nature of things begin with economic condi-
tions, man's vital needs — food, clothing and shelter. And this happens in
the 20th century, after fifty years of industrial civilization. And we are
surprised at the disastrous results of such romantic politics !

* As long ago as 1908, during the discussions over the annexation of the
independent Congo State by Belgium, the present writer proposed the inter-
nationalization of this colony, which might thus have formed the nucleus
of a great international State, comprising the various colonies of the Congo,
French, English, German, Portuguese and Belgian. This international
colonial domain would have been open to the free economic activities of
all nations on a basis of absolute equality. Although its adoption might
have dissipated the black clouds then overshadowing Europe, the project
did not meet with favor either in Belgium or elsewhere.

From that time to 1914 the writer has embraced every opportunity to
explain that the adoption of the open door policy — or at least equal treat-
ment for all nations — in all the European colonies would supply the means,
and the only hope of escaping a European conflagration. He believes that
this plan is still the only one capable of contributing efifectively to the
solution of the international crisis.

Immediate free trade with the colonies — while we are waiting for
universal Free Trade — would brighten with the light of truth and justice a
sky hitherto charged with the clouds of ignorance and injustice that
overhang most of the nations and their governments.

During the whole length of the war Free Trade offered the
desirable and practicable solution. As I never ceased by speech
and pen to insist from the beginning of the great conflict, both in
England and the United States, this principle was alone powerful
enough to bring the war promptly to an end and create a definite
sense of international security, thereby averting revolution and
anarchy and saving the world from barbarism. It required, how-
ever, not only in Germany but in the Allied and Associated
countries as well, an understanding that was everywhere tragically
lacking — a comprehension of true international needs, of political
wisdom, philosophy and foresight.

In all countries and in every circle in Europe everyone, from
the Pope, the emperors, kings, presidents of Republics and heads
of governments, to the lesser politicians, professors and writers, —
everyone (or so we like to believe for the honor of mankind)
sincerely tried from the first to the last day of the war to put an
"honorable" end to the abominable and shameful international
drama of mutual slaughter and destruction. But they all relied
either on childish, artificial or insincere political combinations, or
on territorial dickering or more or less oppressive economic
machinations. They mistook for "realities" a base materialism
which stimulated their appetites while exasperating their preju-
dices and passions. No one took the trouble to seek agreement
in the only feasible way, by satisfying the natural, common and
fundamental needs of the nations in acknowledgment of inter-
national morality, a course dictated alike by nature and the
force of circumstances.

At the Peace Conference the Four did their worst. Instead
of warning the civilized world against the old errors which were
the underlying cause of the wars of the past; instead of instruct-
ing the nations in economic freedom, the fundamental truth of
internationalism; instead of imposing Free Trade so sorely
needed by the whole Continent upon Germany and Central and
Eastern Europe,^ and promising to adopt it themselves in the
near future, these great statesmen (themselves victims of the
protectionist superstition, if not of contemptible schemes of
domestic politics and party interest) seem to have done their best

Cf. Yves-Guyot : Les Causes et les Consequences de la Gxterre.

7

to avoid, either by word or deed, disturbing the Great Powers in
the exercise of their shameful, wicked and criminal policy.

The Treaty of Paris has not succeeded in creating a sense of
international security. It has not only failed to do so, but by
giving the sanction of an international agreement to the violation
of the primary rights of nations, it has greatly increased the
sense of insecurity. It has thus compromised, perhaps irremedi-
ably, the possibility of a solution to the social problem. If it is
not promptly amended so as to give a vigorous application to the
Free Trade principle, permitting the association of all countries
in a genuine League of Nations based on economic and political
co-operation, this so-called treaty of peace will condemn the world
to an indefinite period of wars, revolutions and counter-revolu-
tions, and international and social anarchy, leading inevitably to
barbarism.

Henri Lambert.

83

Walter Clinton Jackson Library

The Uni\'ersity of North Carolina at Greensboro
Special Collections & Rare Books

World War 1 Pamphlet Collection