Imágenes de páginas

in this Balkan concert of first violins. She does not aspire to play world-politics in the see-saw manner so much in fashion at Bucharest. Bulgaria is only anxious that the worldpolitics prospectors should leave her in peace; she was content for many years to manage her own affairs without even Russia's diplomatic representation at Sofia. Throughout her history she has shown a decided reluctance to join European coalitions, craving cultural commerce with all European nations as emphatically as she craved entangling alliances with none (whence the tragic circumstance that, after the disaster of 1913, the abundance of calumniated Bulgaria's friends outside of European chancellories was matched only by the total absence of such friends within those diplomatic enclosures). Nor does Bulgaria care to imitate Servia and conceive her rôle as that of a South Slavonic Piedmont. Nor is she afflicted with the megalomania and imperialitis of the neo-Byzantine hosts of King Constantine. Her aim is prosaic, simple in comparison with these; it is only this: to make political Bulgaria coextensive with ethnic Bulgaria, and thus express in the social life of all Bulgars those ideals which have made one-half the Bulgar land the home of material and cultural progress, tolerance, and democracy in the Balkans.

It is precisely this conception of her national ideals which keeps Bulgaria neutral today. In the European conflict as such, the Bulgar as Bulgar can take no side; for, if Russia's objective is Constantinople, the Austro-German road to the Aegean and beyond crosses Bulgar Macedonia. Bulgaria's disinclination to aid Servia, and the menace which the champions of Rumania irridenta find today in Bulgaria, are both explained by the fact that these self-professed liberators of oppressed kinsmen are themselves using Romanoff methods in regions ethnically Bulgar. Bulgaria has no territorial hunger nor a militaristic thirst; her wants are purely ethnic. An understanding of this first article in the Bulgarian program will make clear what to many may have seemed an inexplicable circumstance: Bulgaria's recent rapprochement with the Sublime Porte. This rapprochement is due merely to the fact that Bulgaria has now


fewer ethnic quarrels with the Turk than with any other of her neighbors. The Drang nach Tchatalja, Bulgaria's solitary departure from the path she had always followed, has only confirmed her to that path. And today her military energy is not to be hired by anyone who promises to her profits at Turkey's expense; for while Turkey's loss may today be Bulgaria's gain, it cannot be Bulgaria's ethnic gain to any degree justifying the venture. Hence Bulgaria's firm intention to remain neutral, to wait for the moment when she can claim from the gods of war or peace what is ethnically hers and what alone she demands: the lands where prayers are still offered to the Bulgarian God. So long as the conflict is one of Ententes and Alliances, Bulgaria's every interest is to remain neutral, for she has no sons to waste in a world-politics quarrel. Neutrality is Bulgaria's unquestioned choice; although, to be sure, a prophet would be bold who undertook to forecast the course which any European state may have to follow before this war is over, especially a state like Bulgaria upon whom both coalitions are exercising all the pressure which solemn promises and solemn threats can bring to bear. Indeed such may be the course of this war that the very continuance of Bulgaria’s neutrality may be sufficiently valuable to one or the other of the hostile groups to assure to her ethnic justice in the final settlement.

Bulgaria watches and waits for that day. They understand her ill who interpret her present stubborn neutrality as a mark of torpid indifference toward resolute action. The Bulgar is not hot-headed and quick-tempered; he can keep his head. A crisis such as Bulgaria survived in the summer of 1913 would have precipitated a revolution and a reign of terror in many European countries. The Bulgarian nation faced the tragedy with a stoicism which can not be understood, much less emulated, by a people who, like the Serbs, have managed to crowd into one short century four changes of dynasty, eight coups d'état, and at least four royal assassinations, and who have allowed only two of their ten rulers to die a natural death in office. The Bulgar grief is not despondency, nor is the Bulgar stolidity that of inaction. Whether Bulgaria will attain her goal by allying herself with one of her neighbors in order to bring the rest to justice, or by joining others stronger than herself, by neutrality or by war, now or later, are questions as to how her ethnic ideal is to be realized. That it will be realized will cease to be a certainty only when the Chronicler has recorded the death of the race which marched from Batak to Lule Burgas in thirty-five years.


By Jinzo Naruse, Ph.D., President of Japan's Women's

University, Tokyo

While the thickest of thick darkness still covers the valleys, there is yet a gleam upon the hills, and a glow in the upper air, which the Association Concordia is glad to discern.

Beginning with the tower of Babel, history repeats the old, old story of the rise and fall of mighty nations, of the aggrandizing dreams of men. Many a great Caesar, many an ambitious Napoleon has attempted to build up worldwide dominions with force and might; and failing left them in consternation and disaster. To them might gives right; yes, might is the supreme right. With mighty power, they not only trample on their political, military, or trade rivals, but ofttimes upon even their religious antagonists. The flesh of the weak is the food of the strong.”

Now Germany is ravaging all Europe with the most tragic of wars. But according to the philosophy of Germany, war is not only right for the maintenance of her existence; war is “a necessity for her success;" aye, war for her is the only factor of education, culture, and ability. She believes that she is the divinely ordained nation; ordained to accomplish the salvation of the world by force, by despotic militarism. Therefore aggrandizement is a passion with her emperor. No cost is too great for him to pay for this cause. Almost everything consequently has been sacrificed to the construction of the stupendous temple of militarism, with which he would overawe the world.

I am not discussing the questions whether or not it is necessary for Germany to accumulate such mighty armaments for the maintenance of peace, or if it is morally right for her to fight for her own life and “success” as she is doing, and as the other powers might do under similar circumstances. I want only to emphasize the most ancient and the most grave law of nature, that "things produce after their own kind.” Yes, war begets nothing but war; militarism is the worst violator of peace, harmony, freedom, and justice. “Under any conditions war is sad enough. But the saddest thing is to know that even now, in the twentieth century after Christ, man still relies upon brute force to further his ambitions. Can we not learn to be ambitious for humanity instead of for a single nation?

To save the world from this saddest calamity, and to produce a better and a more humane state of society, through the coöperation of different peoples and races, not only among religions, but among nations, is the great aim of the Association Concordia. In order to bring about such coöperation, I went to America and Europe two years ago. There I found, to my pleasant surprise, the same spirit, which had promoted the organization of the Association Concordia, awakened also deep in the heart of those mations. A spirit of ready approval and response to any appeal of the Concordia movement, was shown among the leading thinkers. The statements of their views, given me in answer to my questions—refer to the first number of the English Report of the Association Concordia-prove the verity of my words. Not only their words of sympathy, but their thoughts and sentiments have assumed a tangible form in the organization, first in the United States of America, and next in England. But this is not all. “There was established some years ago, in France," says President Butler in his personal letter to me, “under the leadership of Baron D’Estournelle de Constant, an organization known as Conciliation Internationale, having precisely the same end as you propose for Concordia.

In the United States, the Association reaches more than 70,000 persons and is steadily developing its range of influence. Additional branches are being organized at this moment in Great Britain, in the Argentine Republic, in Spain, in Italy, and in America.” The Baron himself wrote to me, “Before war, there is arbitration, but before arbitration


« AnteriorContinuar »