Letter: Lessons of war

Sir: In the war of words over the First World War the underlying moral issue, the problem of international terrorism, is easy to overlook.

Germany's original claim was that "no one had the right to stay the arm of Austria" in punishing the Serbian terrorism at Sarajevo. On this view, the right of victims to punish terrorists overrode the rights of national sovereignty. On the view of the British, who went to war in defence of Belgian sovereignty, these German claims destroyed the whole idea of sovereignty and of fidelity to treaties: not even for the punishment of terrorism should something so important be destroyed.

People on both sides believed that by defending their country they defended a principle of the highest moral importance. For this we should honour them all, British and German alike. They died in defence of conflicting moral principles which cannot both be right but which are both persuasive. The decision between the two principles was and is extremely difficult. People at once began to flinch from discussing it, lest each should see that the other side had a point. The discussion was displaced to general condemnation of British commercialism or German militarism.

But in recent years the original question has become lively again. President Reagan's address to terrorists - "You can run but you can't hide" - gave the German moral position of 1914 a new lease of life.

MARTIN HUGHES

Department of Philosophy

University of Durham