HoUinger Corp. 
 pH 8.5 
 
D S13 
 .W3 
 Copy 1 
 
 Continuous Mediation Without 
 Armistice 
 
 A Development of the Idea of a Continuous Conference of 
 
 Neutral Nations, which has occurred independently 
 
 to others besides the author of the Pamphlet. 
 
 by 
 
 JULIA GRACE WALES, 
 
 delegate from the University of Wisconsin to the Inter- 
 national Congress of Women, at The Hague. 
 
 WOMAN'S PEACE PARTY 
 
 NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 
 
 116 South Michigan Avenue 
 Chicago, 111. 
 
.W3 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 It is suggested that a Conference of Neutral Nations be 
 called to sit at least as long as the war shall last, for the purpose 
 of continuous and independent mediation with or without 
 armistice and if necessary without the specific permission of the 
 belligerents; such conference to consider and submit simultane- 
 ously to the warring powers reasonable propositions based on 
 principles most favorable to the establishment of a permanent 
 peace, and to continue to seek by the method of submitting 
 simultaneous standing proposals and by inviting suggestions 
 from the belligerents, some basis of settlement which may appeal 
 to all as worthy of consideration. 
 
 Continuous mediation by a neutral conference would co- 
 ordinate the thinking of the belligerent peoples; it would con- 
 centrate and render articulate the intellectual and moral forces 
 of the world. 
 
 D. of D.^ 
 OCT/ 1919 
 
CONTINUOUS MEDIATION WITHOUT 
 ARMISTICE 
 
 ^ 
 
 Can a means be found by which a conference of the neutral 
 powers may bring the moral forces of the world to bear upon 
 the present war situation, and offer to the belligerents some 
 opportunity, involving neither committal to an arbitrary pro- 
 gramme nor compromise of the convictions for which they are 
 fighting, to consider the possibility of peace? 
 
 In answer to this question there is offered here a plan for 
 Continuous Mediation without Armistice. 
 
 When great crises have arisen before, mankind has too often 
 gone through them blindly and paid the costliest price for its 
 lessons. It is one of the conventions of war that once blood 
 has been shed, no further rational consideration of the ques- 
 tions at issue shall be attempted. Today if our scientific spirit 
 and intellectual development are worth anything, we should 
 be able, under the stress of emergency, to break through the 
 paralysis of tradition and seek a rational way out, before the 
 inexorable forces of nature shall have wrung from us the 
 uttermost farthing. 
 
 Let us imagine for the sake of argument that all the nations 
 now fighting were to awake tomorrow morning in their right 
 minds, able to survey the wreck already caused, to sum up 
 the suffering, the human loss, the economic loss; able each to 
 comprehend the motives that have driven the other into battle ; 
 able to realize the futility of vengeance, the unwisdom and 
 wrong of trying to crush or humiliate a race, the folly of con- 
 tinued competition, the advantages of co-operation. What under 
 these circumstances would be the natural thing to do? Or, 
 again, let us suppose that the neutral nations came to their 
 senses-; for is it not possible that they too have been paralyzed 
 by a traditional mode of thinking? Suppose that they were able 
 to attack the problem with utter honesty, simplicity, and cour- 
 age. What would be the natural thing for the neutral nations 
 to do? 
 
It is the general conviction that so far the neutral govern- 
 ments are without sufficient opportunity to bring any definite 
 influence to bear on the war situation. The belligerents distrust 
 each other too much for armistice. And they see nothing to be 
 gained by mediation at this stage, for it seems to them that a 
 speedy settlement would mean compromise, and compromise 
 would mean that hostilities would have to be resumed in the 
 near future. Obviously, then, if the neutral powers were to 
 bring their official influence to bear at present, they would have 
 to mediate without armistice and ivithout the specific permission 
 of the warring powers, and in such a way as not to endanger 
 neutrality, and would have to make a proposition that would 
 not involve the evils of compromise. 
 
 In view of the foregoing considerations, what, we ask again, 
 would be the natural thing for the neutral nations to do — those 
 neutral nations to whom the task of thinking openmindedly for 
 the world is, for the time being entrusted? The natural thing 
 for them to do would be to come together in conference and 
 endeavor to frame a reasonable proposition. They would append 
 to it all conceivable arguments for its adoption, every possible 
 appeal to the self-interest of every warring nation. They would 
 then submit the proposition to the governments of all the warring 
 nations simultaneously, together with the following question : 
 
 Will you agree to adopt or consider the accompanying 
 proposition as a basis of peace if and when the governments 
 of the other warring powers will agree to do likewise? 
 
 The proposition itself would have to be worked out in detail 
 by experts. It would be an attempt to discover those principles 
 which underlie the welfare of all and which would constitute a 
 foundation for permanent peace. It may be that the conference 
 would have difficulty in agreeing upon the terms of the initial 
 standing proposal. In that case several proposals could be put 
 forward at the same time, representing various theories of 
 sound settlement. 
 
 If any government should reply in the negative, reply in- 
 definitely, or refuse to reply at all, the neutral powers would 
 place before it the following requests: 
 
 (1) if at any time while the war continues, you are will= 
 ing to adopt or consider our proposition, or a modified form 
 of our proposition, as a basis of peace provided the other 
 
warring powers will do likewise, we beg that you will notify 
 the conference of the neutral powers. 
 
 (2) !n the meantime the conference of the neutral powers, 
 WHICH WILL SIT WHILE THE WAR CONTINUES, will 
 be grateful to receive any information which you may care 
 to give as to your ultimate wishes — that is, as to the maxi= 
 mum which you desire to obtain — in order that the confer- 
 ence may be aided in an effort to discover at the earliest pos- 
 sible moment a plan of settlement such as may appeal to all 
 as worthy of consideration. 
 
 The conference would then proceed to frame and put for- 
 ward further standing proposals. 
 
 It is now evident and should be carefully noted that, for 
 the lack of a better term, the word mediation is here extended 
 in meaning to include more than such formal mediation as 
 implies the acquiescence of the belligerents. Let us repeat that 
 even if the belligerents were unwilling to accept mediation, the 
 neutral conference would not confijie itself to offers of mediation 
 but would, begin at once to frame and put forward standing 
 proposals based on principles favorable to the establishment of 
 a permanent peace. 
 
 The immediate advantages of such a course of action from 
 the point of view of the neutral nations would be (1) that it 
 avoids the necessity of securing an armistice or the permis- 
 sion of the warring powers to mediate; (2) that it avoids the 
 necessity of passing judgment on the past; (3) that it endan- 
 gers no one's neutrality; (4) that it gives an opportunity to 
 ascertain the attitude of the belligerents by an appeal to the 
 future; (5) that it would put forward a radical plan free from 
 the evils resulting from compromise — a plan which, if it could 
 shorten the present war, would tend also to prevent similar 
 wars in the future. 
 
 Now what practically could such a course of action on the 
 part of the neutral powers be expected to accomplish? 
 
 P^IRST, what is the minimum gain that could be expected with 
 ■*■ reasonable confidence? The minimum gain would be the 
 lifting of the programme of pacifism into the realm of serious 
 political consideration. As a proposition made seriously from 
 governments to governments, it would gain a hearing, it would 
 have a psychological effect, such as no private propaganda could 
 
6 
 
 ever give it. It would focus the thought of the world at least 
 momentarily on international righteousness. It would give a 
 concrete expression to the inarticulate passion of all idealists 
 both in the peaceful and the troubled lands. And if ever in the 
 world 's history there was dire need of such a common expression, 
 it is now. 
 
 By voicing an international political faith, the movement 
 would tend, furthermore, to give a new solidarity to popular 
 sentiment in those lands whose population is made up of many 
 races. For instance, it would relieve large numbers of Ameri- 
 cans of European birth or ancestry from an intolerable sense of 
 estrangement from many of their fellow Americans. It would 
 enable them to join hands in one great task and to weld into one 
 enthusiasm their affection for their fatherland, their loyalty and 
 devotion to America, their friendship for the whole world. Hence 
 the racial diversity of the United States would be rendered one 
 of the most potent forces making for peace. 
 
 And should the neutral nations of the world accept the invi- 
 tation of one of their number to send representatives to a con- 
 ference, such a deliberative body, sitting as long as the emergency 
 continues, would present a spectacle of profound significance — 
 one that would go far to restore the shaken faith of humanity 
 and enable it to set its face with new hope toward the goal of 
 ultimate "World Federation. 
 
 As to the question what is the most that the plan might 
 accomplish, we should hesitate to base serious argument upon 
 the answer. Yet it may be worth while to consider for a moment 
 some of the forces which might conceivably be brought into 
 action. First, what might the proposition gain from the motives 
 of self-interest (1) in peoples, (2) in governments? 
 
 OINCE the initial standing proposal is not a matter of secret 
 ^^ diplomacy, but is made openly before the face of all people, 
 it will come to the knowledge of the people of the belligerent 
 countries through the press. 
 
 In the labor element, the churches, especially the Society 
 of Friends, the women's organizations, and the greater part of 
 the commercial interests, we have a body of opinion already 
 strongly disposed to look with favor upon a proposal for a set- 
 tlement that will make for permanent peace. Now, the tempta- 
 tion to sound thinking which such a proposal presents will 
 
increase steadily in force with the increase of economic pres- 
 sure. Moreover, the plan will enlist on its side the argument 
 of fear itself, the strongest force which is at present making for 
 war. The great argument with which Great Britain has 
 appealed to her people and colonies is the danger that defeat 
 would mean at the least increased armaments in the future, mili- 
 tary enslavement, the weakening of the democratic principle. 
 This is the appeal that has marched out the armies of the 
 British Empire. But to such a motive our proposition would 
 make an appeal yet stronger, for it would promise security not 
 only from the aggression of a victor but from the revenge of a 
 vanquished foe. It would promise freedom, nationality, democ- 
 racy in no uncertain terms. 
 
 It will be objected that at present, nevertheless, national 
 hatred is too bitter to permit the sane consideration of peace 
 proposals. We cannot too much emphasize the point, however, 
 that national hatred is born of and nourished by fear. So far 
 as the twentieth century is concerned, pure hatred is too non- 
 material and at the same time negative a motive to keep masses 
 of people fighting in the face of severe economic pressure. If 
 fear be eliminated, hatred will die a speedy and natural death. 
 Moreover, it would be easy to bring evidence gathered from 
 partisan periodicals to show the compunction which each side 
 feels in destroying the other, the kind treatment accorded to 
 prisoners, the friendly relations between the soldiers in the 
 trenches. All would be thankful to return if they could to ' ' nor- 
 mal humane living." Again, the contemplation of a proposal 
 based on the principles of universal welfare will of itself tend 
 to diminish national hatred and to hasten the time when settle- 
 ment will be possible. And this goal may be nearer than we 
 think. It is fear, we repeat, rather than hatred which keeps 
 the nations fighting, fear which is strong enough for a time to 
 overcome the great counter force of economic pressure. But 
 economic pressure is a force inexorable and final, which must 
 sometime and in some way bring a cessation of hostilities. It 
 is the one formidable ally of those who would fight the battle of 
 peace. 
 
 The very emulation of the belligerents should spur them to 
 adopt the creditable course. They have all turned to the neu- 
 tral peoples eager in self-justification. Each nation says that 
 it is not to blame; that it did not seek the war; that it was 
 
8 
 
 forced to fight in self-defence immediate or anticipatory; that 
 it has to contend with those with whom it would fain have been 
 friendly; that it has no motive of cruelty, only that motive of 
 tenderness to its own which for the time being has rendered 
 necessary a stern closing of the heart to pity for others; that 
 the means it has used are justified by a vital end and a desperate 
 necessity; that the motive is ultimately the preservation of an 
 ideal and the welfare of the human family. If these protesta- 
 tions are sincere — and it is by no means clear that we have 
 adequate reason for doubting them — it is not strange that we 
 have felt unable to commit ourselves to any final judgment of 
 the moral attitude of any party to the conflict. We cannot esti- 
 mate past motives; we cannot distinguish perfectly between the 
 actions of peoples and the actions of governments, between the 
 responsibility of one nation and that of another. And there is 
 a sense in which all are to blame. We are all human together, 
 stumbling out of darkness into a twilight of imperfect knowl- 
 edge. Nevertheless it is true that by their appeal to world opin- 
 ion, the belligerents have laid themselves open to any ethical 
 challenge we choose to propose to them; and there is a test of 
 sincerity to which they may even now be brought and to which 
 they have given us the right to bring them — one that lies not 
 in a scrutiny of the past but in an appeal to the future. 
 
 The strength of such a radical proposal as that for a League 
 of Peace, for example, lies in the fact that it offers a good bar- 
 gain. While the concessions it demands of each government are 
 large, the advantages it presents, even from the point of view 
 of what Mr. G. Lowes Dickinson calls the ' * governmental mind, ' ' 
 are by no means small. All peoples would gain (1) immediate 
 relief from intense economic pressure and excruciating suffering, 
 (2) comparative freedom from military taxation, (3) security 
 from future wars, (4) relief from the prospect of further loss 
 of trade. All governments would gain a desirable exit from a 
 difficult situation. The world would gain the safety of west- 
 ern civilization, which is now threatened. Hence, there is no 
 question that the appeal to the people of all countries would 
 be very strong, especially after economic pressure had become 
 extreme. At the least, the governments of all countries would 
 find it difficult, once the argument of self-defense was wrested 
 from them, to keep the people enthusiastic for the continuation 
 of the war. 
 
"DUT since the best hope of a peace movement lies in the will 
 of the people, what is gained by appealing from govern- 
 ment to government instead of through the propaganda of peace 
 organizations to the people themselves? First, as we have seen, 
 government action is the most effective action because the most 
 national, the most immediate, and the most conspicuous. Sec- 
 ondly, by such government action as we propose, we give the 
 people of any country the invaluable aid of a ready-made propo- 
 sition. We have relieved them of the difficulties, especially great 
 in time of war, of initiation, formulation, organization, of get- 
 ting a hearing with their own government. The campaign of 
 those individuals and groups who desire to ally themselves with 
 our movement is already organized. All they have to do is to 
 importune their government to say yes. And thirdly, we have 
 put into their hands this argument, that the plan has already 
 been brought from the realm of the ideal into the realm of 
 practical politics, that there is already in the world one govern- 
 ment at least that regards it seriously as a political expedient. 
 
 Through the plan of independent and continuous mediation 
 without armistice — that is, through making simultaneous stand- 
 ing proposals to all — there is thus a chance, slight indeed and 
 dependent upon the turn of circumstances, of materially affect- 
 ing the duration and the outcome of the war. Be it observed 
 that such a device would bring a steady psychological pressure 
 to bear on the belligerent governments; it would keep them 
 under perpetual temptation to the right course. At present each 
 side is resolved to fight practically to extermination rather than 
 yield. Our proposal would hold before each, one hope of escape 
 from indefinitely continuing a self-destructive struggle. Such 
 are the possibilities of practical appeal on the ground of the 
 sordid motives — fear, pride, desire for relief from suffering. 
 
 But there are other motives than sordid ones to be consid- 
 ered. Humanity is not a shallow thing. When we think of the 
 motives of mankind in the mass, we get into the habit of thinking 
 of those motives which we can estimate and turn to practi- 
 cal account ; and these are the lower motives ; the higher motives 
 are incalculable. Idealism is from the point of view of practical 
 politics an uncertain and therefore a negligible quantity; but 
 it exists. That it is not a practical force is due to the fact that 
 we have not yet learned to liberate and use it. And today it is 
 singularly active, singularly accessible. Though in neutral 
 
10 
 
 couutries moral conditions are approximately normal, in the 
 countries which are at war they are very far from normal — not 
 abnormally low, but almost superhumanly high. The very unity 
 and cohesion of a race has carried the individual beyond his 
 normal range. Each people is as a single family ; there is neither 
 high nor low, rich nor poor, but a brotherhood of men. No man 
 counts his life dear unto himself. All are fighting with unques- 
 tioning devotion for homes and fatherland, for language, insti- 
 tutions, traditions, for all that they hold most sacred and most 
 dear. Whatever we may believe about the folly or the deliber- 
 ate wrong-doing of governments, the fact remains that each 
 people is in a state of spiritual exaltation. Individuals are 
 everywhere thinking, feeling, suffering, facing the ultimate 
 issues of life and death. Their senses are sharpened, their spirits 
 sensitized to the significance of what had become commonplace, 
 to familiar landscapes, to the associations of home, to the ideals 
 of the race, to its heroism and its poetry, to the symbols of its 
 religion. This thing is like a tidal wave of the sea ; it has drawn 
 deep. And in the hour of their aspiration and their agony, 
 they have turned to us, beseeching our understanding and ap- 
 proval. Powerful and sophisticated peoples have cried out to 
 us with the helplessness anl simplicity of children, as if we for 
 the time being represented to them that World Spirit of rea- 
 son and wisdom which alone can rescue them from irreparable 
 tragedy. 
 
 We have only to turn to their own periodicals to know that 
 each nation, in the confused complexity of its motives, has been 
 swept by a genuine passion of self -justification — a passion that 
 indicates in each a sense of loyalty to a standard of national 
 conduct. It is our unique opportunity to propose to each the 
 supreme ethical challenge which, whether or not any can rise to 
 the point of accepting it, must for ourselves and for them endure 
 through the coming centuries as a tangible expression of the 
 international ideal. 
 
 Now between the maximum for which we hope and the mini- 
 mum which we may expect to obtain, there is one possible gain 
 that should not be overlooked. Even though ideal proposals be 
 rejected, a conference of continuous mediation would supply 
 a means of defining the issue and hastening the discovery of 
 such a basis of settlement as would normally be reached at the 
 end of the war. The device of such a conference might well be 
 
11 
 
 adopted at the beginning of any war, for any problem that 
 justifies bloodshed is worthy of the collective, systematic think- 
 ing of the race. And it is possible for each party to a conflict 
 to be somewhat mistaken as to what the other supposes the main 
 issues to be. Any confusion of issues must result in a tragic 
 waste of effort. Especially is there danger of such waste in the 
 present war. In the vastness of the issues involved, in the nature 
 of the deadlock, in the interest which the neutral powers have in 
 finding a solution, the world problem is unprecedented and may 
 well demand a pioneer method of treatment. Noble races are 
 engaged in a death struggle, kindred peoples who have no real 
 quarrel, who would rather be friends, but who cannot come to 
 an understanding because they have no true opportunity to com- 
 municate. So far as the peoples are concerned, the war began 
 on a few days' notice. There was no time to talk then; there 
 is no chance to talk now. There will be no opportunity to be 
 rational until all the nations are practically exhausted unless a 
 machinery can be devised to do the thinking and interpreting 
 on neutral ground. Hence a conference of continuous ynediation 
 proceeding hy a method of simultaneous standing proposals, 
 might prove to have a practical value independent of the willing- 
 ness of the powers to accept an ideal plan. Nevertheless it must 
 not be forgotten that whatever modifications may be introduced 
 for discussion later by the belligerents themselves, the initial 
 standing proposal of the neutral powers should be based on some 
 such universal principles as we have already indicated, for, as 
 we have seen, (1) such a proposal is an expression of the ideal 
 and is therefore worth holding before the imagination of the 
 world ; (2) it is a neutral proposal because it is based on abstract 
 principles; (3) it approaches a sound bargain because it is based 
 on principles which govern the welfare of all, and as a sound 
 bargain it may ultimately produce a practical effect on the 
 attitude of the governments. 
 
 But let us repeat that it is on the ground of the minimum 
 result that may be expected from prompt action that we de- 
 sire chiefly to base our argument. We wish to emphasize the 
 point that the awful force of human anguish will be to a cer- 
 tain extent dissipated and wasted unless it can in some way be 
 concentrated to drive the idea of world peace into the minds of 
 the people. It is the task of the neutral powers to put the 
 psychological screws in place and let nature turn them by the 
 
12 
 
 relentless pinch of physical fact. If a single belligerent govern- 
 ment could be induced to commit itself, though of course con- 
 ditionally, to the sound programme, that were a hitherto un- 
 paralleled triumph for the cause of pacifism. But even if no 
 such result could be effected, even if the only result were the 
 crystallizing of an avowedly national sentiment in one neutral 
 country and of popular opinion in other lands, the effort would 
 be worth while. And that any government should have taken 
 an historic stand for the radical right would be for all time a 
 source of pride and thankfulness to its people. 
 
 "OUT there is a third question to be asked: For the individual 
 believer in the cause of peace, w^hat, under actually existing 
 circumstances, is the natural thing to do? "We may say confi- 
 dently that there are more than the prophet's seven thousand 
 in every neutral country who believe ardently in the cause of 
 peace and are willing to put forth their utmost effort in its 
 support. To them we make our appeal. If the course of action 
 which we have outlined is indeed the reasonable one for the 
 neutral nations to follow, if it contains any promise of help, 
 direct or indirect, immediate or future, to the cause of peace, 
 then the natural thing for the individual to do is to advocate 
 that course in season and out of season, by personal propaganda, 
 through the press, through public meetings, by resolutions of 
 societies, through open letters to persons of authority. When 
 he has striven by every means at his command to gain for the 
 matter the serious consideration of the neutral people and the 
 neutral governments, then and not till then has he delivered his 
 soul. 
 
 /^UR task is a definite one. It is the task of persuading the 
 ^-^ neutral governments to immediate action. We shall on 
 every hand encounter the opinion that when the belligerents are 
 ready for mediation, they can make the move for it without 
 further interference from us ; that we shall gain by waiting until 
 they are in a mood to listen to us. Let us in conclusion sum 
 up the principal arguments against this view: (1) Though 
 opposed to armistice and not consciously ready for mediation, 
 the belligerents may in reality be more open than either we or 
 they themselves are aware to the appeal of common sense. (2) 
 They dread speedy settlement because they dread compromise ; 
 
13 
 
 but a proposal, for example, for the adjustment of disputes by 
 appeal to the principle of nationality' does not involve the great 
 evil of compromise — namely, the danger of a speedy resumption 
 of hostilities. (3) The warring nations themselves are unwilling 
 to initiate a movement for peace ; and in the meantime the peo- 
 ples are powerless to communicate. For the sake of the welfare 
 of all, for the sake of a dispassionate examination and a uni- 
 versal interpretation, the neutral nations must work out plans 
 and propose them. (4) If a standing proposal is likely to exert 
 a psychological pressure that will tend to hasten the time of set- 
 tlement, then it is a grave wrong to delay putting it before the 
 belligerents. Though it may not be immediately accepted, yet 
 the sooner it is made, the sooner it will take effect. Dare we 
 delay to act when promptness of action may in the long run 
 save even a week of bloodshed and suffering? (5) A radical 
 proposal made simultaneously to the warring powers would tend 
 to promote not only speedy settlement but sound settlement. It 
 would at the least begin the task which must be begun sometime 
 of bringing the force of sane public opinion to bear upon the 
 conservatism of governments; and now while public opinion is 
 reinforced by economic pressure within the nation and by danger 
 from without, it may be easier to make that force felt than it 
 will be later. (6) The only alternative to prompt action is 
 passive acfjuiescence in the indefinite continuation of the war — 
 a war that is daily weakening the vitality of Europe, sweeping 
 away the slow gain of centuries, "mortgaging the future of 
 civilization," and bringing inestimable loss upon our children 
 and our children's children. 
 
 Shall we wait until these blind and futile forces have spent 
 themselves? The time to make a resolute effort to save our 
 world is noiv, before the destruction has gone any further. 
 
 'The principle of nationality is here understood to mean the prin- 
 ciple that any racial unit should have freedom to develop according to 
 its own genius, in so far as its development does not interfere with 
 the equal freedom of every other racial unit. Such freedom can be 
 accorded within any unit of government. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 020 934 801 9 # 
 
 w 
 
 f 
 
 i\