nt interests. We all know that the British
Empire comprising the United Kingdom and the so-called independent
dominions, namely Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, and
South Africa, is kept together not really by the powers of the British
Government but by the good will of the component parts. The Government
of the United Kingdom could not keep the Empire together by force, could
not compel by force one of the independent dominions to submit to a
demand, in case it refused to comply. The interests of the several
component parts of the British Empire are so divergent that no central
Government could keep them together against their will. Now what applies
to the British Empire, which is to a great extent bound together by the
same language, the same literature, and the same Law, would apply much
more to a Federal State comprising the whole of the world: such a
Federal State, so far as we can see, is impossible.

XII. But what about an International Army and Navy?

It is hardly worth while to say much about them. Those who propose the
establishment of an International Army and Navy presuppose that the
national armies and navies would be abolished so that the world
Government would have the power, with the help of the International Army
and Navy, at any moment to crush any attempt of a recalcitrant member of
the Federal World State to avoid its duties. This International Army and
Navy would be the most powerful instrument of force which the world has
ever seen, because every attempt to resist it would be futile. And the
Commander of the International Army and the Commander of the
International Navy would be men holding in their hands the greatest
power that can be imagined.

The old question therefore arises: _Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?_
which I should like here to translate freely by: Who will keep in order
those who are to keep the world in order? A League of Nations which can
only be kept together by a powerful International Army and Navy, is a
contradiction in itself; for the independence and equality of the member
States of the League would soon disappear. It is a fact--I make this
statement although I am sure it will be violently contradicted--that,
just as hitherto, so within a League of Nations some kind of Balance of
Power only can guarantee the independence and equality of the smaller
States. For the Community of Power, on which the League of Nations must
rest, would at once disappear if one or two