“Self-determination” is as right in theory as the more famous phrase “the consent of the governed,” which has for three centuries been repeatedly declared to be sound by political philosophers and has been generally accepted as just by civilized peoples, but which has been for three centuries commonly ignored by statesmen because the right could not be practically applied without imperiling national safety, always the paramount consideration in international and national affairs.  The two phrases mean substantially the same thing and have to an extent been used interchangeably by those who advocate the principle as a standard of right.  “Self-determination” was not a new thought.  It was a restatement of the old one.

Under the present political organization of the world, based as it is on the idea of nationality, the new phrase is as unsusceptible of universal application as the old one was found to be.  Fixity of national boundaries and of national allegiance, and political stability would disappear if this principle was uniformly applied.  Impelled by new social conditions, by economic interests, by racial prejudices, and by the various forces which affect society, change and uncertainty would result from an attempt to follow the principle in every case to which it is possible to apply it.

Among my notes I find one of December 20, 1918—­that is, one week after the American Commission landed in France—­in which I recorded my thoughts concerning certain phrases or epigrams of the President, which he had declared to be bases of peace, and which I considered to contain the seeds of future trouble.  In regard to the asserted right of “self-determination” I wrote: 

“When the President talks of ‘self-determination’ what unit has he in mind?  Does he mean a race, a territorial area, or a community?  Without a definite unit which is practical, application of this principle is dangerous to peace and stability.”

Ten days later (December 30) the frequent repetition of the phrase in the press and by members of certain groups and unofficial delegations, who were in Paris seeking to obtain hearings before the Conference, caused me to write the following: 

“The more I think about the President’s declaration as to the right of ‘self-determination,’ the more convinced I am of the danger of putting such ideas into the minds of certain races.  It is bound to be the basis of impossible demands on the Peace Congress and create trouble in many lands.

“What effect will it have on the Irish, the Indians, the Egyptians, and the nationalists among the Boers?  Will it not breed discontent, disorder, and rebellion?  Will not the Mohammedans of Syria and Palestine and possibly of Morocco and Tripoli rely on it?  How can it be harmonized with Zionism, to which the President is practically committed?

“The phrase is simply loaded with dynamite.  It will raise hopes which can never