The European war is terrible in its actual course and was terrible also in the preparations for it which had been ruining the European nations for long decades. It is only natural that right at its beginning hopes were being expressed in all quarters that this war would be the last one. Now, we are not optimistic enough to believe that mankind will get some common sense soon, though we are inclined to hope that the time is approaching when the people will stop killing each other off like beasts. It will not be right now, but it may be in the near future. Yet even when that happens the world will be far from being an earthly paradise in which, in accordance with the Bible, men will love their neighbors as themselves. There were times when even greater barbarity prevailed in the world than we see in this war, and it was believed then that it was inherent in man's nature, that mankind could not exist without it, and just the same, it now belongs to the past. There was inquisition, there were executions preceded by long and terrible torture, there were slavery, serfdom, and 2other atrocious conditions, and nobody seemed to be able to imagine that the world would go on if they were abolished. Today, they are gone. War also will cease some day, will belong to the past, and will be remembered with horror.

We have already said that even then people will not love each other and cheerfully submit to the provisions of law and justice. There will always have to be an agency which has the power to punish evil doers and make people keep the law. We have courts, fines, and jails to discourage or frighten individuals. But what should be done with nations which misbehave and disregard the law? With an effort and will to do something about it, the proper means will be found. The time has passed when every nation was self-sufficient. Now, all the nations of the world form one great family in which none can live without the others; one needs the others, and cannot live in isolation. And under such conditions a nation can be made to mind by other means than war.

3

The noted English writer; Norman Angell, who has always been opposed to war, has made this the subject of a recently published book. He maintains that, instead of declaring war on them, nations which would not obey the ruling of an international court tribunal could be punished by closing their borders, by an ambargo, and an international boycott. of course, a very thorough and binding understanding between nations would be necessary to impose such strict discipline and scare a nation ready for war from attacking its neighbor. This war was caused by fear more than by anything else. Germany had her plans of world domination but saw that the other nations of Europe were allying themselves against such plans and were organizing for resistance against their realization. Hence Germany was afraid it would miss the right moment, that any further delay would make her come too late. France and England were afraid that they would be ambushed and ruined by Germany. The Germans were afraid that they would not win by honest means and so resorted to treachery and violation of binding agreements--such acts as the attack on and occupation of Belgium, which had never done Germany any harm, but which provided her armies a more comfortable and 4shorter, easier way to France. The war broke out because there was no world tribunal to arbitrate international disputes. Yet even if such a tribunal were in existence it would be useless without a means, generally agreed upon, to make a recalcitrant nation abide by its ruling. It is hardly to be expected that, at this stage of the game, a nation ready for trouble would submit without opposition.

Angell thinks that a boycott, or an economic war, could be maintained as long as necessary to make the disobedient nation mind and submit to the ruling. That nation's ships would be barred from all ports in the world, they would be interned wherever they were at the start of the boycott; no payments would be made to it from other nations, her securities would be declared worthless, her citizens would be refused facilities to travel abroad, and their passports would be declared void. In that way a nation under boycott would get nothing from abroad--no foodstuffs, no raw materials, nor even mail or cables and telegrams. Patents owned by her citizens would lose protection; deposits abroad would be confiscated, etc., etc.

5

The writer says that this weapon would be very effective, that it has shown its effectiveness in the war against Germany already. "Experience last year showed that a group of nations, such as the Allies in the present case, can exert a more powerful influence in economic, commercial, and industrial matters than was formerly believed possible. A nation deprived of cotton, rubber, coffee, colonial goods, and other imports, one without any contact with her neighbors and the rest of the world, will be a poor place for her citizens to live in. Her ideas of world domination will vanish like steam over the teakettle."

Evidently, Angell's ideas are somewhat one-sided. True enough, the international boycott has harmed Germany a great deal, but suppose that the culprit should be Angell's home country--England--with her own colonies in all parts of the world. In such case a boycott would be almost impossible to enforce.

Angell is known as a dreamer. Some eight years ago he published a long book 6that has been read by very many people throughout the world. Its name was The Great Delusion. In it he attempted to prove that a world war, or at least a war between the great powers of Europe, was an impossibility. Events have proved how wrong he was.

Even we are willing to believe that wars will cease, and that the time may not be so very far in the future. But strife, competition, controversy, struggle of one against another, will stay in the world as long as there are at least two creatures in existence. Such strife, however, may, and will, assume a more decent, more humane form than the present bloodshed on battlefields. Humanity has already advanced to the point where hold-up and murder of individuals is a criminal offence and is being punished, although in the Middle Ages end in antiquity it was an honorable occupation, or at least went unpunished. Now it may be practiced only by nations, but even that will end. Humanity is advancing. It has not stopped its advance in the face of greater obstacles than that; there is therefore no reason to believe that it cannot solve such a problem as the abolition of war.