the same.

{258}

CHAPTER XIX

THE HIGHER IMPERIALISM

One of the greatest difficulties in the problem of working out an
international colonial policy is our neglect of the immediate and
overwhelming influence of colonies, as of other economic outlets, in
the provocation of destructive wars. Until the nations recognize that
wars are in the main wars of interest, fought for concrete things, and
unless such things can be utilised with some regard to the desires of
all nations involved, war cannot be avoided.

If these questions of interest were merely a matter of short division,
of so much trade to be distributed, the problem, though difficult,
would be easier of solution. But in many cases a single, indivisible
prize must be awarded. There is only one Antwerp, one Trieste, one
Constantinople, and there are many claimants. Is Russia to control the
Yellow Sea or is Japan? Is the Persian Gulf to be British, Russian or
German? Is the present division of colonial possessions to be
maintained or is there to be a new distribution, from which some
nations will gain and others lose? What is to decide what colonies
shall belong to what nation or what share each nation shall have in the
profits of exploitations? These and a hundred other questions indicate
the wide range of complicated economic interests which to-day divide
nations and illustrate the difficulty of establishing a basis of
agreement.

Clearly we cannot solve the problem by permanently {259} maintaining
the _status quo_. For the _status quo_, being based upon the relative
power of nations in the past, does not conform to the power of the same
nations to-day or to-morrow. Moreover, the maintenance of the _status
quo_ means the perpetuation of absurd anachronisms. It is undesirable
as well as impossible. Nations are not static. You can no more assure
exclusive economic advantages to a weak and unprogressive nation than
you could have preserved the American continent to the aborigines.

Even if there were no single economic principle to apply, it would not
follow that some approach to an economic equilibrium would be
impossible. As law develops out of an endless chaos of human relations
by means of decisions (based on temporary exigencies) until a rule of
law is established, as the market-price grows out of the innumerable
hagglings of the market, so even without the aid of a fundamental
principle, some _modus vivendi_, some approach to an e