Continental Politics
The highest ultimate aim of rational politics is (as we haveshown in our Second Book) the uniting of all nations under a commonlaw of right, an object which is only to be attained through thegreatest possible equalisation of the most important nations of theearth in civilisation, prosperity, industry, and power, by theconversion of the antipathies and conflicts which now exist betweenthem into sympathy and harmony.But the solution of this problem isa work of immensely long duration.At the present time the nationsare divided and repelled from one another by manifold causes; chiefamong these are conflicts about territory.As yet, theapportionment of territory to the European nations does notcorrespond to the nature of things.Indeed, even in theory, peopleare not yet agreed upon the fundamental conditions of a just andnatural apportionment of territory.Some desire that their nationalterritory should be determined according to the requirements oftheir metropolis without regard to language, commerce, race, and soforth, in such a way that the metropolis should be situated in thecentre and be protected as much as possible against foreignattacks.They desire to have great rivers for their frontiers.
Others maintain, and apparently with greater reason, thatsea-coasts, mountains, language, and race, constitute betterfrontiers than great rivers.There still are nations who are not inpossession of those mouths of rivers and sea-coasts which areindispensable to them for the development of their commerce withthe world and for their naval power.
If every nation was already in possession of the territorywhich is necessary for its internal development, and for themaintenance of its political, industrial, and commercialindependence, then every conquest of territory would be contrary tosound policy, because by the unnatural increase of territory thejealousy of the nation which is thus encroached upon would beexcited and kept alive, and consequently the sacrifices which theconquering nation would have to make for retaining such provinceswould be immeasurably greater than the advantages accruing fromtheir possession.A just and wise apportionment of territory is,however, at this day not to be thought of, because this question iscomplicated by manifold interests of another nature.At the sametime it must not be ignored that rectification of territory must bereckoned among the most important requirements of the nations, thatstriving to attain it is legitimate, that indeed in many cases itis a justifiable reason for war.
Further causes of antipathy between the nations are, at thepresent time, the diversity of their interests in respect tomanufactures, commerce, navigation, naval power, and colonialpossessions, also the difference in their degrees of civilisation,of religion, and of political condition.All these interests arecomplicated in manifold ways through the interests of dynasties andpowers.
The causes of antipathy are, on the other hand, causes ofsympathy.The less powerful nations sympathise against the mostpowerful, those whose independence is endangered sympathise againstthe aggressors, territorial powers against naval supremacy, thosewhose industry and commerce are defective sympathise against thosewho are striving for an industrial and commercial monopoly, thehalf-civilised against the civilised, those who are subjects of amonarchy against those whose government is entirely or partiallydemocratic.
Nations at this time pursue their own interests and sympathiesby means of alliances of those who are like-minded and have likeinterests against the interests and tendencies which conflict withtheirs.As, however, these interests and tendencies conflict withone another in various ways, these alliances are liable to change.
Those nations who are friends to-day may be enemies to-morrow, andvice vers? as soon as ever some one of the great interests orprinciples is at stake by which they feel themselves repelled fromor drawn towards one another.
Politicians have long felt that the equalisation of the nationsmust be their ultimate aim.That which people call the maintenanceof the European balance of power has always been nothing else thanthe endeavours of the less powerful to impose a check on theencroachments of the more powerful.Yet politics have not seldomconfounded their proximate object with their ultimate one, and vicevers?
The proximate task of politics always consists in clearlyperceiving in what respect the alliance and equalisation of thedifferent interests is at the moment most pressing, and to strivethat until this equalisation is attained all other questions may besuspended and kept in the background.
When the dynastic, monarchic, and aristocratic interests ofEurope allied themselves against the revolutionary tendencies of1789, disregarding all considerations regarding power and commerce,their policy was a correct one.
It was just as correct when the French Empire introduced thetendency of conquest in place of that of revolution.
Napoleon sought by his Continental system to establish aContinental coalition against the predominant naval and commercialpower of England; but in order to succeed, it was necessary forhim, first of all, to take away from the Continental nations theapprehension of being conquered by France.He failed, because ontheir part the fear of his supremacy on land greatly outweighed thedisadvantages which they suffered from the naval supremacy.
