The essential superiority of a White Race over a Coloured Race may fairly be accepted as a "first principle" in any discussion of world politics. There are numberless facts to be gathered from 2500 years of history to justify that faith, and there is lacking as yet any great body of evidence to support the other idea, that modern conditions of warfare and of industry at last have so changed the factors in human greatness that mere numbers and imitative faculty can outweigh the superior intellectual capacity and originating genius characteristic of the European peoples. Nevertheless it must be admitted that the conditions, in warfare and in industry, of life to-day as compared with life in past centuries, have increased the value of numbers and of a faculty of blind obedience, and have proportionately decreased the relative value of individual character. An Asiatic army to-day is relatively better fitted to cope with a European army; an Asiatic factory is relatively more efficient.

It is necessary, therefore, to call to aid all the reassuring records of history if one would keep a serene faith that the future of the Pacific, and with it the future of the world, is not destined to be dominated by the Asiatic rather than by the European. Japan with her fertile people and sterile soil has done so much since she discovered that the test imposed on a people by Christian civilisation is based on their powers of destruction, that there is good reason for the alarm expressed by many thinkers (with the German Emperor as their leader) as to "the Yellow Peril." China, too, awaking now after the slumber of centuries and grasping at the full equipment of a modern nation, reinforces that alarm. It is conceivable that White civilisation may be for a while worsted and driven from some of its strongholds by the arms which it has taught the Coloured Races to use. "Asia for the Asiatics," may be a battle-cry raised in the future not without avail. But in time European superiority must again assert itself.

There are many pessimists who foretell the doom of the White Races coming from a sterility self-imposed for the sake of better ease. They see in every advance of comfort a cause of further weakness, and they picture luxury as rapidly corroding the supports of our society. But it is comforting to recall that every age has had the same gloomy critics, and the Golden Age has always been represented in the past by the pessimists of the present. For myself, I am daring enough to think that the White Races of to-day are neither enervated nor decadent: that in physique, in good health and in sense of public duty they are improving rather than deteriorating; and that the Europe of next century will be more happy, more vigorous and more sane than the Europe of to-day. There was a time for the joy of pessimists, but it is a past time, that dismal past century when the industrial epoch rushed on man all unawares, when the clattering machine came to sweep away handicrafts, and the new economic idea of human beings as "hands" affected poisonously all social relations. It was as though a cumbrous wain, well-built for its slow and sedate rumbling, had suddenly been hitched to a rushing steam engine. There were disturbances, clatterings, groanings, and creakings. The period of adjustment was a painful one. But it is passing. Meliorism is the justifiable faith of the future.

The future of the Pacific, I hold then, is with the White Races. At the best, the Asiatic can hope to hold his own continent in security. Japan had the chance of securing a temporary dominance after the war with Russia, and at one time was said to have been on the verge of a struggle with the United States, as an assertion of that dominance. But the cloud passed over. With the opening of the Panama Canal, now a matter only of months, the opportunity of Japan will have finally passed. With the gradual re-establishment of British naval power in the ocean, a re-establishment which will come through the agency of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, if not through the Home Country, and which will be "anti-Asiatic" in purpose, a further veto will be put on any aggressive ambitions on the part of an Asiatic Power. The statesmen of Japan, indeed, seem to recognise that she has had her day of greatest power, and must be content for the future to be tolerated in her present position as one of the "Powers" forming the great council of the foremost nations. But in considering Japan, allowance must always be made for the danger of the people getting out of the hands of the oligarchy which rules them. The Japanese people, fed fat on praise of their own prowess, may one day force a mad course on statesmen asked to choose between civil and foreign war. Such a war would be doomed to failure for financial if for no other reasons. But it might leave a deep stain of blood on the Pacific.

China—a Federal Republic, and rid of the Manchus if present appearances (1912) are not belied—will have no aggressive ambitions for some years to come. She may insist, and rightly insist, on more honourable treatment from foreign nations. But it is not likely that she will set Fleets ranging over the Pacific in search of conquests. By the time that China has come to a warlike mood—if she does ever come—the White Races will be fully equipped for any struggle. The greatest Asiatic peril, so far as warlike forces are concerned, is of a Japanese-Chinese alliance: and the chance of that is slight, for the two peoples are not sympathetic. It will be noted that the very first official paper of the nascent Chinese Republic is a letter of complaint to the Japanese Government.

If it is agreed that the Pacific will fall, as the Mediterranean did, as the Atlantic did, to the rule of the White Man, the next step is to consider, which people? There is, in addition to much evidence, the temptation of race-pride to suggest that of all the European peoples the Anglo-Celtic (controlling the British Empire and the United States) is inherently the best equipped for world dominance. But that is not nearly so sure as is the superiority of the White over the Coloured Races. The Latin peoples—Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards—have in their day won to lofty greatness. The French—in the main Latin, but with a large element of Celtic and some element of Teutonic blood—were supreme in the world for many generations, and are not exhausted to-day. There is not an incident of Anglo-Saxon history; either of fighting against tremendous odds and winning a victory which the stars in their courses seemed to forbid; or of making disaster glorious by a Spartan death; or of pushing out on some frail plank into an unknown sea—which cannot be matched by some incident equally noble from the records of the Latin peoples or the French people. The Teutons are only now making their bid for mastery: the Slavs may have a great future. The future dominance of Europe may be for any one of the European peoples.

But the position in the Pacific can be simplified for the present by the elimination of all the European Powers but two. Spain and Portugal have had their day there, and have passed away. Neither France, Germany, Austria nor Italy can venture any great force from Europe. Nor is any one of them strongly established in the Pacific. Great Britain would be content with the Atlantic but that her overseas Empire gives her duties and advantages in the new ocean. The Pacific possessions of the British Empire were unsought. But they will be held. The other European Power in the Pacific is Russia, which has been checked but not destroyed there. That the supremacy of Europe—at present held, so far as any enterprises beyond its seas are concerned, by Great Britain—may pass to other hands is not impossible; and that would affect, of course, the position in the Pacific. Speculation on that point, however, is outside the scope of this book, which has attempted to deal with the Pacific conditions of the present and immediate future.

On the facts there must be a further elimination of European Powers in the Pacific, since Russia has no naval forces there and no design of creating such forces. There is at present a natural bewilderment in the Russian mind as a consequence of the recent war with Japan. That struggle destroyed her power in Europe as well as in Asia, and the European balance must be restored first. During the next five years—which will be the critical years—Russia will not count in the Pacific except as the useful ally of some powerful naval nation—either of Japan, the United States or Great Britain.

Great Britain is thus left as the sole European Power capable of independent effort in the Pacific. Clearly the rivalry for the dominance of the ocean lies between her and the United States. To discuss that rivalry is to discuss the real problem of the Pacific. It may be done frankly, I trust, without raising suggestions of unfriendliness. A frank discussion of the problem, carried out on both sides of the Atlantic, would be of the greatest value to civilisation. For the position seems to be that both Powers are preparing to capture the Pacific; that neither Power can hold it against the other; and that a peaceful settlement can only be founded on complete mutual understanding.

It is true that if the United States decides "to play a lone hand," she may win through if all the circumstances are favourable, for she seems destined to control the resources of all America. It is likely that within this decade the United States Flag will fly (either as that of the actually governing or the suzerain Power) over all the territory south of the Canadian border to the southern bank of the Panama Canal. Intervention has been threatened once already in Mexico. With any further disorder it may be carried into effect. The United States cannot afford to allow the chance of a disorderly force marching down to destroy £70,000,000 worth of United States property. Central America has been marked down for a process of peaceful absorption. The treaty with Honduras (a similar one exists with Nicaragua) shows the method of this absorption. It provides:

"The Government of Honduras undertakes to make and negotiate a contract providing for the refunding of its present internal and external debt and the adjustment and settlement of unliquidated claims for the placing of its finances upon a sound and stable basis, and for the future development of the natural and economic resources of that country. The Governments of the United States and Honduras will take due note of all the provisions of the said contract when made, and will consult, in order that all the benefits to Honduras and the security of the loan may at the same time be assured.

"The loan, which shall be made pursuant to the above undertaking, shall be secured upon the customs of Honduras, and the Government of Honduras agrees not to alter the import or export Customs duties, or other charges affecting the entry, exit, or transit of goods, during the existence of the loan under the said contract, without consultation and agreement with the Government of the United States.

"A full and detailed statement of the operations under this contract shall be submitted by the fiscal agent of the loan to the Department of State of the United States and to the Minister of Finance of the Government of Honduras at the expiration of each twelve months, and at such other times as may be requested by either of the two Governments.

"The Government of Honduras, so long as the loan exists, will appoint from a list of names to be presented to it by the fiscal agent of the loan and approved by the President of the United States of America, a collector-general of Customs, who shall administer the Customs in accordance with the contract securing said loan, and will give this official full protection in the exercise of his functions. The Government of the United States will in turn afford such protection as it may find necessary."

Under the terms of these loan conventions the independence of Honduras and Nicaragua dwindles to nothing. The purpose of the arrangements was stated by Mr President Taft in his message to Congress: "Now that the linking of the oceans by the Isthmian Canal is nearing assured realisation, the conservation of stable conditions in the adjacent countries becomes a still more pressing need, and all that the United States has hitherto done in that direction is amply justified, if there were no other consideration, by the one fact that this country has acquired such vast interest in that quarter as to demand every effort on its part to make solid and durable the tranquillity of the neighbouring countries."

"Solid and durable tranquillity" means in effect United States control. From the control of Central America to that of South America is a big step, but not an impossible one; and the United States already claims some form of suzerainty over the Latin-American peoples there. It insists upon giving them protection against Europe, whether they wish it or not, and under certain circumstances would exercise a right of veto over their foreign policy. The United States also is engaged in promoting through the Pan-American Bureau a policy of American continental unity. This Bureau was the outcome of the Pan-American Conference convened by Mr Blaine in 1890. The general object of the Bureau "is not only to develop friendship, commerce, and trade, but to promote close relations, better acquaintance, and more intimate association along economic, intellectual, educational and social lines, as well as political and material lines, among the American Republics." "The Bureau for commercial purposes," its Director, Mr Barrett, reports, "is in touch in both North and South America, on the one hand with manufacturers, merchants, exporters, and importers, doing all it can to facilitate the exchange and building up of trade among the American nations, and on the other hand with University and College Presidents, professors, and students, writers, newspaper men, scientists, and travellers, providing them with a large variety of information that will increase their interests in the different American nations." The Bureau publishes handbooks and reports on the various countries containing information relating to their commercial development and tariffs.

There will be held this year (1912) at Washington a Pan-American Conference on trade, organised by the Bureau, "to awaken the commercial organisations, representative business men, and the general public of both North and South America to an appreciation of the possibilities of Pan-American commerce, and the necessity of preparing for the opening of the Panama Canal." "The Conference," says the official announcement, "will have a novel feature in that it will consider the exchange of trade—imports as well as exports—and the opportunities not only of the United States to extend the sale of her products in Latin America, but of Latin America to sell her products in the United States, for only upon the basis of reciprocal exchange of trade can a permanent large commerce and lasting good relations be built up between the United States and her twenty sister American Republics. Heretofore all discussions and meetings have considered only the export field, with a corresponding unfortunate effect on public opinion in Latin America, and her attitude towards the efforts of the United States to increase her commerce with that important part of the world. Another special feature will be a careful consideration, from the standpoint of the business interests of all the American countries interested in the Panama Canal, of what should be done to get ready for greater exchange of trade through that waterway, and to gain practical advantages to their commerce from the day it is opened."

The policy of Pan-America may one day come into effect, and the United States Power command the resources of all America except Canada. (That Canada will ever willingly come under her suzerainty seems now little likely.) But from Cape Horn to the Gulf of St Lawrence is an Empire of mighty resources, great enough to sate the ambition of any Power, but yet not forbidding the ambition to make it the base for further conquests.

Yet, withal, the United States cannot rely confidently on an unchecked career of prosperity. She may have her troubles. Indeed, she has her troubles. No American of to-day professes to know a solution of the negro problem. "There are two ways out of the difficulty," said one American grimly; "to kill all the negroes, and to deport all the negroes; and neither is humanly possible." To allow them to be absorbed by intermarriage with the White population is unthinkable, and would, in a generation or two, drag the United States down to the level of a larger Hayti. A settlement of the black question will one day, sooner or later, absorb the American mind for some time to the exclusion of all else. Neither the acquisition of territories with great coloured populations, nor the extension of suzerainty over half-breed countries will do anything to simplify that problem.

There is also a possible social difficulty to be faced by the United States. The present differences between rich and poor are too extreme to be safe. Too many of the rich despise the poor on the ground that to be poor is to be a failure: too many of the poor hate the rich with a wolfish hatred as successful bandits. The quick growth of material prosperity has cloaked over this class feeling. When there were good crumbs for everybody the too-great wealth of the rich was not so obvious. But the time comes when the United States is no longer a Tom Tiddler's ground where everybody can pick up something: and the rivalry between those who have too much and those who have too little begins to show nakedly.

In short, the United States, justified as she is to keep a superb confidence in her own resources, might find a policy of hostile rivalry to the British Power in the Pacific an impossible one to carry through, for it would not be wise statesmanship on her part to presume that her future history will be, at home and abroad, an uninterrupted course of prosperity.

There is no need to presume that hostile rivalry. On the other hand, there is no wisdom in following blindly a policy of drift which may lead to that rivalry. The question of the future of the Pacific narrows down to this: Will two great Powers, sprung from the same race, take advantage of a common tongue to talk out frankly, honestly, their aims and purpose so that they may arrive at a common understanding?

There are some obstacles to such an understanding. The first is American diplomacy, which, whilst truthful to the point of brusqueness, is strangely reluctant to avow its real objects, for the reason, I think, that it often acts without admitting even its own mind into confidence. The boy who makes his way to the unguarded apple orchard does not admit to himself that he is after apples. He professes to like the scenery in that direction. American diplomacy acts in the same way. It would have been impossible, for instance, to have obtained from the American Government ten years ago a confidential declaration, in a friendly way, of the Pacific policy which is now announced. Yet it should have been quite plain to the American mind after the seizure of the Philippines and the fortification of Hawaii, if the American mind would have consented to examine into itself. Now, it is not possible for two great nations to preserve a mutual friendship without a mutual confidence.

Another obstacle to a perfect British-American understanding is that British diplomacy is always at its worst in dealing with the United States. That combination of firmness with politeness which is used in European relations is abandoned for a policy of gush when dealing with America. Claims for a particular consideration founded on relationship are made which are sometimes a little resented, sometimes a little ridiculed. British diplomats do not "keep their dignity" well in negotiating with the United States. They are so obsessed with the feeling that to drift into bad terms with the great English-speaking Republic would be calamitous, that they give a suspicion sometimes of truckling. There would be a better feeling if relationship were not so much insisted upon and reliance were placed instead on a mutual respect for power and on a community of purpose in most quarters of the globe. Meekness does not sit well on the British manner, and often the American's view of "relationship talk" is that it is intended as a prelude to inducing him into a bad bargain.

It should always be the aim of the leaders of American and British public opinion to encourage friendship between the two nations. But it is not wise to be for ever insisting that, because of their blood relationship, a serious quarrel between them is impossible. True, a struggle between Great Britain and the United States would have all the horrors of a civil war, but even civil wars happen; and it is human nature that relatives should sometimes let bickering, not intended at the outset to be serious, drift into open rupture. The sentimental talk founded, as it were, on the idea that the United States and Great Britain are married and must hold together "for better or for worse," is dangerous.

When Pacific questions come up for discussion in the near future, there is likely, however, to be a modification in the old British methods of diplomacy, for the Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand must be allowed to take part in the discussions; and Australia and New Zealand have a certain impatient Imperialism on which I have remarked before. Their attitude in foreign affairs appears as almost truculent to European ideas of diplomacy. Probably Canada will show the same spirit, for it is the spirit of youth in nationhood, with its superb self-confidence still lacking the sobering effects of experience.

It is a mistaken idea, though an idea generally held in some quarters, that the British Dominions in the Pacific are more sympathetic with American than with British ideas. The contrary is the case. Where there are points of difference between the Anglo-Celtic race in Great Britain and in the United States, the British Dominions lean to their Mother Country. Their progressive democracy is better satisfied with the conditions under the shadow of a Throne, which has nothing of tyranny and little of privilege, than with those offering under a Republic whose freedom is tempered a good deal with plutocratic influences. "To be exactly opposite to everything which is known as 'American'—that is the ideal of Australian democracy," said a responsible statesman of the Commonwealth. The statement was put strongly so as to arrest attention; but it contained a germ of truth. In spite of the theoretical Republicanism of a majority of the Australian people, their practical decisions would almost always favour the British rather than the American political system.

The fervid welcome recently given in the Pacific to the Fleet of American battleships which circumnavigated the world, gave rise to some misconceptions. American press correspondents with the Fleet generally formed the idea that Australia in particular was ready to fall into the arms of the United States at the first advance. But that welcome was in part simply the expression of a warm feeling of hospitality for visitors of a kindred race. For the rest, it was an expression of gratitude for the reassurance which the American Fleet gave that a White Race was determined to be a Power in the Pacific. Great Britain had just renewed her treaty with Japan, which had defeated Russia, and this treaty left the Japanese Fleet as the guardian of the British interests in the ocean. To the Australian mind such guardianship was worse than useless. If it were ever a question between accepting the guardianship of the United States—with all its implied obligations—and modifying their anti-Asiatic policy, Australia, Canada and New Zealand would, without a doubt, accept the first alternative. But they would very much prefer that the British Power should be the guardian of their safety, especially a British Power largely supplied and controlled by themselves.

It is towards that development that events now move. It has its danger in that there may be a growing brusqueness in British negotiations in the Pacific. The Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (I include Canada because all the indications are that she will now fall into line with the other Pacific British nations), paying so much to the piper, will want to call the tune: and whereas British diplomacy with the United States is to-day a shade too deferential, Australasian and Canadian diplomacy possibly will fall into the other error. Experience, of course, will cure the impatience of youth in time. But it is important that at the outset there should be no occasions for bad feeling. A friendly informal conference between Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, ushering in the opening of the Panama Canal, would provide an opportunity for beginning the frank discussion which is needed.

The position in the Pacific confronting such a conference would be this: that friendly co-operation between the United States and Great Britain would give to the Anglo-Saxon race the mastery of the world's greatest ocean, laying for ever the fear of the Yellow Peril, securing for the world that its greatest readjustment of the balance of power shall be effected in peace: but that rivalry between these two kindred nations may cause the gravest evils, and possibly irreparable disasters.

THE END