Suchergebnisse

It is inevitable that any undertaking should be judged primarily from the point of view of what was originally attempted by the participants and expected by onlookers rather than by a strict standard of actual achievement. In most of the unfavorable discussion that has been current during and since the conference, the point of criticism is the opinion that the conference has not fulfilled its avowed purpose, rather than a complete denial of the usefulness of such results as actually have been accomplished. At the very opening session of the conference, M. Nelidoff in his presidential address pointed out in disillusioned language the impossibility of realizing certain general ideals that had been entertained with respect to these great meetings. He admitted that "we need not be discouraged from dreaming of the ideal of universal peace and the fraternity of peoples, considering that the essential condition of all progress is the pursuit of an ideal towards which we always strive without ever reaching it. Nevertheless, we should not be too ambitious." He concluded by saying: "Let us set bravely to work, our path lit up by the bright star of universal peace which we shall never reach but which will always guide us." While some among M. Nelidoff's audience approved of his cautious conservatism, others felt that his utterances had received an unduly pessimistic tinge from the unfortunate position in which Russia has found herself since the war. Nevertheless, when we now review the efforts and the accomplished work of the conference, we may take as the keynote, the words of the presiding officer, pointing out inevitable limitations and bidding us look for results not in sweeping resolutions, but in detailed and specific arrangements which at first sight may appear somewhat trivial and of a purely technical nature.

The dominant note of political development during the nineteenth century was undoubtedly nationalism, and the political forces of the century, intricate and involved as their action was, may be understood and analyzed with the greatest clearness from the point of view of the struggle for complete national existence and unity which was going on in all the principal countries of the earth. Nations are readily personified, and there is a unity and sequence in their action which makes it appear very concrete when compared with other political influences and movements. Thus, when toward the end of the century, after the great struggles in the United States, Germany, and Italy had been decided in favor of the national principle, it seemed as if the latter were bound to exercise an almost exclusive sway over the future destinies of humanity, as if the twentieth century would be taken up with a fierce economic and military competition among the nationalities who had achieved a complete political existence. Under such conditions, international or diplomatic action would have had for its main function the maintenance of a political balance or equilibrium which would prevent the undue aggrandizement of any one state or nation. Such indeed had been the original and continuing purpose of diplomatic action.

The Third International Conference of American States, which was held in Rio de Janeiro in July and August, 1906, differed in some important respects from the two conferences which had preceded it. While it was left to the conferences of Washington and of Mexico City to arrange their own programs and to determine upon their rules and regulations, and while no limit was set to the length of their sessions, all these matters had, in the case of the last conference, been settled beforehand by arrangement of the diplomats representing the American States in Washington who constitute the council of the Bureau of American Republics. A complete program had been worked out, containing all the subjects upon which joint action was considered desirable. A set of rules and regulations also had been adopted and the length of the session had been fixed not to exceed six weeks. The conference when it convened was, therefore, saved all the trouble and loss of time which a discussion of these matters would have made necessary had they been left to the conference itself. As a matter of fact the discussion of these preliminary matters consumed several months at both the conferences of Washington and of Mexico.