The West and the Global Power Shift:

Transatlantic Relations and Global

Governance 1st Edition Riccardo
Alcaro
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-west-and-the-global-power-shift-transatlantic-relat
ions-and-global-governance-1st-edition-riccardo-alcaro/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Europe and Iran’s Nuclear Crisis Riccardo Alcaro

https://textbookfull.com/product/europe-and-irans-nuclear-crisis-
riccardo-alcaro/

Police and the Policed: Language and Power Relations on

the Margins of the Global South Danielle Watson

https://textbookfull.com/product/police-and-the-policed-language-
and-power-relations-on-the-margins-of-the-global-south-danielle-
watson/

City power : urban governance in a global age 1st

Edition Schragger

https://textbookfull.com/product/city-power-urban-governance-in-
a-global-age-1st-edition-schragger/

Global governance and development 1st Edition Ocampo

https://textbookfull.com/product/global-governance-and-
development-1st-edition-ocampo/
Global Insecurity: Futures of Global Chaos and
Governance 1st Edition Anthony Burke

https://textbookfull.com/product/global-insecurity-futures-of-
global-chaos-and-governance-1st-edition-anthony-burke/

Global Poverty Global governance and poor people in the

Post 2015 Era 2nd Edition David Hulme

https://textbookfull.com/product/global-poverty-global-
governance-and-poor-people-in-the-post-2015-era-2nd-edition-
david-hulme/

Digital DNA : disruption and the challenges for global

governance 1st Edition Aronson

https://textbookfull.com/product/digital-dna-disruption-and-the-
challenges-for-global-governance-1st-edition-aronson/

The Global 1980s People Power and Profit 1st Edition

Jonathan Davis

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-global-1980s-people-power-
and-profit-1st-edition-jonathan-davis/

The Shifting Global Economic Architecture:

Decentralizing Authority in Contemporary Global
Governance 1st Edition Jonathan Luckhurst (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-shifting-global-economic-
architecture-decentralizing-authority-in-contemporary-global-
governance-1st-edition-jonathan-luckhurst-auth/
 PALGRAVE STUDIES IN
EUROPEAN UNION POLITICS
Series Editors: Michelle Egan, Neill Nugent
and William E. Paterson

THE WEST AND THE

GLOBAL POWER SHIFT
Transatlantic Relations and
Global Governance
Edited by
Riccardo Alcaro, John Peterson,
and Ettore Greco
Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics

Series Editors
Michelle Egan
Associate Professor and Jean Monnet Chair
of European Integration
School of International Service
American University
Washington DC, USA

Neill Nugent
Emeritus Professor of Politics
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

William E.Paterson
Honorary Professor for German and European Politics
Aston University, UK
Following on the sustained success of the acclaimed European Union
Series, which essentially publishes research-based textbooks, Palgrave
Studies in European Union Politics publishes cutting edge research-driven
monographs. The remit of the series is broadly defined, both in terms of
subject and academic discipline. All topics of significance concerning the
nature and operation of the European Union potentially fall within the
scope of the series. The series is multidisciplinary to reflect the growing
importance of the EU as a political, economic and social phenomenon.

More information about this series at

http://www.springer.com/series/14629
 Riccardo Alcaro • John Peterson • Ettore Greco
Editors

The West and the

Global Power Shift
Transatlantic Relations and Global Governance
Editors
Riccardo Alcaro Ettore Greco
Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI)
Rome, Italy Rome, Italy

John Peterson
University of Edinburgh
United Kingdom

Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics

ISBN 978-1-137-57485-5 ISBN 978-1-137-57486-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-57486-2

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016940967

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Cover Illustrations: © rommma / Alamy Stock

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd. London
 PREFACE

In an era of global flux, emerging powers and growing interconnected-

ness, transatlantic relations appear to have lost their bearings. As the inter-
national system fragments into different constellations of power across
different policy domains, the USA and the European Union (EU) can no
longer claim exclusive leadership in global governance. Not only the abil-
ity, but also the willingness of the USA and the EU to exercise leadership
together can no longer be taken for granted. Political, economic and social
elites on both shores of the Atlantic express different views as to whether
the USA and the EU should bind together, freelance or seek alternative
partnerships in a confusing multipolar world.
In this global context, traditional paradigms employed to understand
the transatlantic relationship are exposed as wanting. The relationship is
no longer determined by the imperative to contain a military and ideologi-
cal threat of the magnitude of the Soviet Union. Nor is the transatlantic
relationship any longer able to present itself as in the vanguard of history,
as it often did in the 1990s, when Western liberal democracy appeared the
ultimate destiny towards which the world was headed. Common strategic
and normative interests still exist, but are of a looser nature than they used
to be. The future of transatlantic relations remains very much an open
question.
In 2012, the EU awarded a consortium of 13 research and university
centres from Europe, the USA and Turkey a generous grant to investigate
the direction of transatlantic relations and their role in shaping governance
architectures both globally and regionally. Under the leadership of the
Rome-based Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), the consortium launched

v
vi PREFACE

the Transworld project (www.transworld-fp7.eu). This book represents

the culmination of research activities carried out by the consortium. It
collects together revised and updated versions of some of the best-quality
pieces of analysis produced by the Transworld research team, along with
contributions from two leading US-based experts: Daniel S. Hamilton of
Johns Hopkins University and Jolyon Howorth of Yale University.
This volume has two primary aims. The first is to assess the state and
the future direction of transatlantic relations. The second is to explore the
limits and potential of transatlantic leadership in creating effective gover-
nance structures.
The volume proceeds in three steps. The first involves resorting to the-
ory and history to understand the transatlantic relationship. After John
Peterson’s introductory chapter, three chapters conceptualize the trans-
atlantic relationship as a distinct form of security community (Thomas
Risse), consider the claims of competing international relations theories
about transatlantic relations (Peterson, Riccardo Alcaro and Nathalie
Tocci) and link past and present in an historical overview (Maria Green
Cowles and Michelle Egan).
The second step is to look at the factors that might set the relationship
between the USA and Europe on a different path. Chapters 5 and 6 focus
on internal or domestic drivers of change, with an emphasis on the impli-
cations for transatlantic relations of European integration (Peterson) and
the evolution of US foreign policy thinking (Hamilton). Delving into the
systemic dimension, Chap 7 (Howorth) analyses how the USA and the
EU have approached the emerging powers (old and new), notably Brazil,
Russia, India and China (that is, the BRIC group).
The third step is to locate the transatlantic relationship in the context
of the global power shift. Here, the focus is on the nature of transatlantic
leadership—actual, potential or declining. One clear finding (illustrated
in the first part of the book) is that the world of the twenty-first cen-
tury displays different power configurations in different policy domains.
This changing structure of power complicates the exercise of leadership.
Leadership requires not only greater power and authority, but also persua-
sion, bargaining and moral suasion, all necessary strategies to build coali-
tions. Soft power, for lack of a better term, is needed to exert pressure
and promote pragmatic engagement, and especially to manage conflicts
between great powers. More importantly, leadership entails the capacity
to put forward solutions to transnational problems and ensure governance
of global and regional issues. The third part of the book considers how
 PREFACE vii

the USA and Europe can supply leadership in the policy fields of political
economy (Chad Damro), security (Alcaro), human rights (Tocci) and the
environment (Christine Bakker and Francesco Francioni).
The book ends with Alcaro and Ettore Greco shedding light on the
gap between resilience—a distinctive feature of the transatlantic relation-
ship throughout its history—and leadership—which the West has found
increasingly difficult to deliver. The book thus comes full circle: it con-
nects the state of transatlantic relations (Part I) to domestic and systemic
undercurrents of change (Part II), and finally considers strategies for turn-
ing the transatlantic relationship into a proactive force for managing and
even remodelling international relations (Part III).
We are grateful to Kate Ellis of IAI and Clara Eroukhmanoff at the
University of Edinburgh for valued assistance in completing the book,
and to Nathalie Tocci for her key role in getting it started. The team at
Palgrave Macmillan—Ambra Finotella, Imogen Gordon Clark and Hannah
Kaspar—were kind, patient and professional throughout. We are in debt
to all of those (too many to name) who helped organize Transworld work-
shops at which contributions were presented and critiqued in Brussels,
Edinburgh, Istanbul, Rome and Washington, DC. Finally, we thank the
authors for being a joy to work with and for their collegial relations with
each other. If there remains much that is unclear about the future of the
transatlantic relationship, it is abundantly clear that none of us could have
done this book on our own.

Riccardo Alcaro
John Peterson
Ettore Greco
Rome and Edinburgh
 CONTENTS

1 Introduction: Where Things Stand and What Happens Next 1

John Peterson

Part I Theory and History of Transatlantic Relations 19

2 The Transatlantic Security Community:

Erosion from Within? 21
Thomas Risse

3 Multipolarity, Multilateralism and Leadership:

The Retreat of the West? 43
John Peterson, Riccardo Alcaro, and Nathalie Tocci

4 The Historical Evolution of the Transatlantic Partnership 75

Maria Green Cowles and Michelle Egan

Part II Domestic and Systemic Drivers of Change 99

5 All Roads Don’t Lead to Brussels (But Most Do):

European Integration and Transatlantic Relations 101
John Peterson

ix
x CONTENTS

6 The Domestic Setting of American Approaches to Europe 127

Daniel S. Hamilton

7 Sustained Collective Action or Beggar My Neighbour?

Europe, America and the Emerging Powers 147
Jolyon Howorth

Part III Transatlantic Relations and Global Governance 177

8 Competitive Interdependence: Transatlantic

Relations and Global Economic Governance 179
Chad Damro

9 The Paradoxes of the Liberal Order: Transatlantic

Relations and Security Governance 197
Riccardo Alcaro

10 The Responsibility to Protect in Libya and Syria:

Europe, the USA and Global Human Rights Governance 221
Nathalie Tocci

11 Past, Present and Future of Transatlantic Cooperation

for Climate Governance 247
Christine Bakker and Francesco Francioni

12 Conclusions: Beyond Resilience. The Case

for Transatlantic Leadership 271
Riccardo Alcaro and Ettore Greco

Index 289
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Riccardo Alcaro is a senior fellow in the Transatlantic Programme of the Istituto

Affari Internazionali, Rome. He was coordinator of the Transworld project.
Christine Bakker is a former research fellow at the European University Institute,
Florence, and is a research associate at the LUISS-Guido Carli University, Rome,
and a visiting lecturer at the Law Faculty, University of Roma Tre.
Maria Green Cowles Maria Green Cowles is Vice President for Academic Affairs,
Immaculata University, Immaculata, Pennsylvania (USA).
Chad Damro is Senior Lecturer of Politics and International Relations, University
of Edinburgh, and Jean Monnet Chair and Head of Edinburgh’s Jean Monnet
Centre of Excellence.
Michelle Egan is a Woodrow Wilson Scholar and Professor at the School of
International Service of the American University, Washington, DC.
Francesco Francioni is Professor of International Law Emeritus at the European
University Institute, Florence, and Professor at the LUISS-Guido Carli University,
Rome.
Ettore Greco is Director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali, Rome.
Daniel S. Hamilton is Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation Professor and Founding
Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of
Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC.
Jolyon Howorth is Visiting Professor of Political Science and International Affairs
at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut (USA), and Jean Monnet Professor
ad personam and Professor Emeritus of European Politics at the University of
Bath.

xi
xii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

John Peterson is Professor of International Politics at the University of Edinburgh.

Thomas Risse is Professor of International Politics at the Otto Suhr Institute of
Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin.
Nathalie Tocci is the Deputy Director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali, Rome,
and Special Advisor to the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign
Affairs and Security Policy. She was coordinator of the Transworld project.
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABM Anti-Ballistic Missile (treaty)

ADIZ Air Defence Identification Zone
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
AIIB Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (organization)
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
AU African Union
BASIC Brazil, South Africa, India and China
BBC British Broadcasting Company
BND Bundesnachrichtendienst (Germany’s Federal Intelligence
Service)
BRICs Brazil, Russian, India and China (sometimes including South
Africa)
CEE Central Eastern European
CFE Conventional Forces in Europe (treaty)
CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy (EU)
CIS Commonwealth of Independent States
CJTF Combined Joint Task Forces
CMEA Council for Mutual Economic Assistance
CO2 Carbon dioxide
COP Conference of the Parties (of UNFCCC)
CSCE Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe
CSDP Common Security and Defence Policy (EU)
CSI Container Security Initiative
CTR Cooperative Threat Reduction
CWC Chemical Weapons Convention
DCFTA Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (EU)

xiii
xiv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EaP Eastern Partnership (EU)

EC European Community
ECB European Central Bank
ECJ European Court of Justice
ECSC European Coal and Steel Community
ECU Eurasian Customs Union
EDC European Defence Community
EEAS European External Action Service
EEC European Economic Community
EITs Economies in Transition
EMS European Monetary System
ENP European Neighbourhood Policy
EPC European Political Cooperation
ESDI European Security and Defense Identity
ESS European Security Strategy
ETS Emissions Trading System
EU European Union
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FDR Franklin Delano Roosevelt
FTA Free Trade Agreement
G2 Group of Two
G5 Group of Five
G7 Group of Seven
G8 Group of Eight
G20 Group of Twenty
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GCC Gulf Cooperation Council
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GICNT Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism
GMF German Marshall Fund
HLWG High Level Working Group (on jobs and growth)
IAI Istituto Affari Internazionali
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
ICC International Criminal Court
ICISS International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty
ICJ International Court of Justice
IISS International Institute for Strategic Studies
IMF International Monetary Fund
INDCs Intended Nationally Determined Commitments
INF Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (treaty)
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xv

IR International Relations
ISAF International Security Assistance Force
ISDS Inter-State Dispute Settlement
ISIS Islamic State in Iraq and Syria
JAP Joint Action Plan
KKE Kommunistikό Komma Elladas (Greek Communist Party)
LDCs Least developed countries
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NSA National Security Agency (USA)
NTA New Transatlantic Agenda
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OEEC Organization for European Economic Cooperation
OPCW Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons
OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
P5 + 1 Permanent (5) Members of the UN Security Council (plus
Germany)
PfP Partnership for Peace (NATO)
PNR Passenger Name Record
PSI Proliferation Security Initiative
PTA Preferential Trade Agreements
R2P Responsibility to Protect
RRF Rapid Reaction Force
RwP Responsibility while Protecting
SALT Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty
SCO Shanghai Cooperation Organization
SLG Senior Level Group
TABC Transatlantic Business Council
TACD Transatlantic Consumers Dialogue
TAD Transatlantic Declaration
TAED Transatlantic Environmental Dialogue
TALD Transatlantic Labour Dialogue
TEC Transatlantic Economic Council
TEP Transatlantic Economic Partnership
TIFAs Trade and Investment Framework Agreements
TPP Transpacific Partnership
TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNASUR Union of South American Nations
UNFCCC United National Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNSC United Nations Security Council
xvi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

UNSCR United Nations Security Council Resolution

UNSG United Nations Secretary-General
UNSMIS United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria
USA United States of America
USDoD US Department of Defense
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
WEU Western European Union
WTO World Trade Organization
WWI First World War
WWII Second World War
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Security communities vs. functional cooperation

and traditional alliances 26
Table 2.2 Scorecard of the transatlantic security community 37
Table 3.1 Western and BRIC military expenditure
(in million USD, 2014 prices) 50
Table 3.2 GDP (in million USD, 2014 prices) 50
Table 8.1 Overall economic gains of TTIP 189

xvii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Where Things Stand

and What Happens Next

John Peterson

‘May you live in interesting times’ may seem an innocuous and even
benevolent wish. The 2010s are nothing if not interesting times, given the
explosion of new technologies (think of 3-D printing and the internet of
things), path-breaking business models (such as Google or Alibaba) and
predictions of a global power shift. Yet, the ‘interesting times’ aspiration
one might offer another actually originated as a Chinese curse, used to
damn its recipient to endure uncertain and dangerous times. In Chinese
culture, which has been influenced by the enormous and painful upheavals
that have historically beset the world’s largest civilization, it is obvious why
the phrase might be a curse. That the phrase loses a great deal of meaning
in its translation to English might be viewed as a metaphor for how inter-
national relations (IR) are in transition. By one view, enormous, uncertain,
dangerous and potentially painful consequences loom for the international

I am grateful to Nathalie Tocci for valuable comments on the early drafts of this
chapter.

J. Peterson
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 1

R. Alcaro et al. (eds.), The West and the Global Power Shift,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-57486-2_1
2 J. PETERSON

order. Alternatively, changes afoot internationally could lead to a more

prosperous, interconnected and harmonious international society.
Some of the biggest questions about the differences between what has
come before and what lies ahead concern relations between the USA and
Europe. Transatlantic solidarity was a defining feature of the second half
of the twentieth century. As we finished this volume, the 70th anniversary
of the end of the Second World War (WWII) was being observed, with
special significance attached to the liberation of Nazi concentration camps.
Collective action between the USA and anti-Axis Europe during the war
made this dramatic change possible by paving the way for modern liberal
democracy in Western Europe. It also was instrumental in establishing key
institutions of global governance including the United Nations (UN) and
the Bretton Woods institutions. The post-WWII global order was tense
and dangerous given the geopolitical rivalry between the West and the
Soviet-dominated eastern part of Europe (as well as rivalry with China
in Asia). But that order eventually gave way to a new era after 1989–91
and the collapse of the Soviet bloc. The new international order featured
‘American hegemony’, an opportunity for a united Europe to export its
habits of cooperation, and the dream of ‘the end of history’ with liberal
democracy becoming the ‘final form of human government’ (Fukuyama
1992).
A quarter century on, things look very different. The US-European rela-
tionship has splintered (or, at best, stumbled) over a series of elemental
questions of IR, including climate change, the 2003 war in Iraq, the civil
war in Syria and rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and how to
cope with a muscular and nationalist Russia. Meanwhile, a group of emerg-
ing powers—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (collective known
as the BRICS)—are on the rise, not least because the gap between their and
Western growth rates has widened in the decade beginning in 2010. One
effect is to raise new questions about whether America and Europe are drift-
ing apart and are no longer a collective force in IR in an era of transition.
Contributors to this volume test the notion that the transatlantic alli-
ance is a bygone phenomenon of a bygone era. By extension, they also
investigate the extent to which the international order of the 2010s dif-
fers from the immediately earlier era in IR when the West was, or was
claimed to be, dominant. All chapters in this book confront two central,
primordial questions. First, how much has the international order really
changed over the past 25 or so years? Second, to what extent are America
 INTRODUCTION: WHERE THINGS STAND AND WHAT HAPPENS NEXT 3

and Europe still partners with collective power in IR and, crucially, the will
and capacity to use it?
A careful division of labour between our authors allows us to arrive at
a comprehensive overview of the US-European relationship. All confront
three drivers of change in contemporary IR. Specifically, all consider the
rise of new powers, the differential diffusion of power in selected policy
domains, the evolution of the international economy and what the impli-
cations of each are for the transatlantic relationship.
In many chapters, new light is shed on the West’s capacity for leader-
ship, its ability to define normative frameworks (or rules) and its poten-
tial to shape mechanisms for international governance. Each contributor
offers an appraisal of the extent to which transatlantic relations are influ-
enced by internal or external actors: that is, by the USA and the EU and
its member states themselves, or by other powers (especially but not exclu-
sively the BRICS).
In this chapter, we begin by outlining the conceptual framework that
guides analysis throughout the volume. We then consider debates about
whether the shift to a more multipolar era in IR is real or not. A third
section zeroes in on the state of contemporary global governance and the
standing of the USA and Europe within it. We then assess the veracity of
what sometimes seems a new accepted wisdom: that America and Europe,
particularly the European Union (EU), have become so internally dys-
functional that their capacity for collective action—or action of any kind—
in IR has declined, and in a way that is now irretrievable.

1 CONCEPTUALIZING US-EUROPEAN RELATIONS

This volume’s conceptual framework for understanding the US-European
relations is developed both in Chap. 2 by Thomas Risse, and Chap. 3
(by Peterson et al.) on the multipolarity debate. In any work that ranges
widely across such a broad subject, it would be constricting and unpro-
ductive to insist that each author test a highly specified and epistemologi-
cally dogmatic theory of transatlantic relations. Still, we have now seen
enough evidence1 to be able to come to a judgment about what is the
most conceptually profitable path to explain where the USA and Europe,
as well as the global order, are and where they are headed. That path com-
bines two main strands of theory.
The first has been developed primarily by Risse in numerous analyses
of European integration (see for example Risse 2009) but also transatlan-
4 J. PETERSON

tic relations (Anderson et al. 2009). This work builds on Karl Deutsch’s
1957 classic study of NATO as a ‘pluralistic security community’. As
Chap. 2 makes clear, Risse’s portrayal of the USA and Europe as a col-
lective security community is based on an institutionalist version of social
constructivism. A security community is conceptualized as a configura-
tion of interests, identities, interdependence and institutions that inter-
act with each other in ways that solve the security dilemma: that is, war
between its members becomes unthinkable. Put another way, borrowing
from Deutsch et al. 1957: 9), a security community ensures ‘dependable
expectations of peaceful change’.
Such expectations may be particularly important in an era of shifts in
material power in IR (Kupchan 2012). They may be moderated by ide-
ational and institutional factors. Thus, commonly held values, norms and
identities combine with strong, time-honoured institutions to make mem-
bers of security communities less inclined to respond to the emergence of
new powers by imposing costs on each other. Realists assume otherwise
since, for them, all alliances are expedient and temporary, and are created
to balance against common threats. For realists, just as the end of the Cold
War portended the end of NATO, new economic opportunities engen-
dered by the rise of the BRICS means the end of any special transatlantic
relationship (economic or otherwise).
Rationalist institutionalists predict far less automaticity or conflict when
power shifts. If anything, they view institutions as even more powerful mit-
igating factors than do social constructivists. But institutionalists lean more
towards the realist position that interests reflect changes in material power
configurations. Cooperation thus will be driven by material interdepen-
dence more than ideational factors. To simplify only a little, realism predicts
discord in transatlantic relations, while institutionalism predicts functional
or selective cooperation in areas where interdependence is clear and institu-
tions exist to manage it. Social constructivism is less explicitly predictive,
but also insists that collective identities and common values matter, which
may mean that the transatlantic alliance is durable.
Risse (2009: 158) cautions that ‘social constructivism does not rep-
resent a substantive theory of [European] integration’ or—it may be
assumed—of transatlantic relations. Rather, it is ‘an ontological perspec-
tive or meta-theory’. Moreover, he insists in Chap. 2 of this volume that
while earlier research including his own implied that security communities
were more stable and secure than traditional alliances, there is no theoreti-
cal reason why security communities should not become prone to crisis
 INTRODUCTION: WHERE THINGS STAND AND WHAT HAPPENS NEXT 5

if the underlying sources of their alliance start to shift. In any event, we

find plenty of reasons in the strand of theory that Risse has developed to
encourage our authors to consider the role of ideational factors in deter-
mining continuity or change in US-European relations.
The second strand of theory that underpins this volume is foreign pol-
icy analysis (FPA). It focuses on foreign policy decision-making and what
determines it. FPA may be contrasted with IR theory which, by definition,
is ‘systemic’ in that it looks to the distribution of power between states
(and, for some institutionalists, institutions) in the international system.
FPA is not unconcerned with the systemic balance of power. But it con-
siders its impact to exist mostly in the minds of those who make foreign
policy choices. More generally, foreign policy analysis is concerned with
the factors that determine such choices. The list typically includes bureau-
cratic rivalries, partisan political competition, lobbying by other states or
non-state actors and the extent to which prior decisions allocate resources
to foreign policy.
In Chap. 3, we argue that systemic IR theory is likely to fall short
in explaining the international behaviour of major powers—including the
USA and EU—that are focused mostly on profound domestic or ‘sub-
systemic’ challenges. The Eurozone crisis and sequestration in the USA
(automatic budget cuts that have been in place since 2011) are two cases
in point. Others include China’s slowing economic growth, Russia’s dras-
tically reduced energy revenues or Brazil’s Petrobras corruption scandal.2
Some of these examples (such as China’s slowdown and declining energy
prices) might seem more sourced at the structural level of IR than others.
But they all have domestic roots and impact directly on the foreign poli-
cies of powerful states jockeying for international position.
In these circumstances, IR increasingly becomes theoretically the sum
of its parts: that is, individual policy areas. The balance of economic power
in the international system has changed, with the economic growth rates
of the BRICS usually (though not always) racing ahead of those of the
USA and Europe. But in the security arena, US military power remains
unchallenged (except, perhaps, in the South China Sea). In the political-
cultural arena, we find a mixed picture: Western notions of human security
and ‘responsibility to protect’ arguably have become actionable norms in
IR, not least because the West retains the power to enforce them, even
if they must do so uni- or mini-laterally as rising powers question their
legitimacy.
6 J. PETERSON

The point is that there is no single polar structure to modern IR, analo-
gous to the bipolar order of the Cold War, since difference policy areas
reveal different polarities. One upshot is that the framework for analysis in
this book looks beyond material factors to examine also ideational ones,
and insists that what is inside the state matters in transatlantic relations and
IR more generally. Our authors uncover empirical evidence in their inves-
tigations of US-European relations in (mostly) individual policy areas.
They have been asked to consider what their evidence suggests about the
sturdiness and status of the transatlantic alliance more generally.

2 TOWARDS A MULTIPOLAR ORDER. OR NOT?

As a thought question, consider whether or when the nature of the inter-
national order has ever been subject to as much debate as it is now. By
its very nature, the question prompts debate. The end of the Cold War
prompted plenty of contention about where IR was headed: towards some
kind of Fukuyama-esque ‘end of history’ when nearly all states became
democracies and lived in harmony, or an alternative future featuring new
types of authoritarianism and the eruption of conflicts previously frozen
by the Cold War. Then, the 1990s and early 2000s featured consensus—
in retrospect, a remarkably broad one—on the emergence of American
hegemony, even if its durability or desirability were much disputed.
Subsequently, two long, costly and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq led to a sharp decline in the USA’s reputational standing and,
arguably, soft power. Limits to the utility of American hard power were
exposed as sharp.
For a time, one response was speculation that Europe’s remarkable
success in institutionalizing cooperation between its states, sharing
wealth between its economic classes, and entrenching respect (for the
most part) between its peoples would lead to a transfer of capacity to
lead in IR from Washington to Brussels (Kupchan 2002; Rifkin 2004;
Leonard 2005; McCormick 2007; Moravcsik 2010). Yet, the EU of the
2000s remained wracked by internal divisions on nearly all matters of
high politics (as well as many of low politics), especially Iraq and its rela-
tions with George W. Bush’s America. Even those who saw the transat-
lantic glass as half full, noting plenty of low-key but productive policy
cooperation on everything from homeland security to Afghanistan to
competition policy, also noted ‘a context of diminishing expectations’
in US-EU relations and ‘the absence of any truly strategic dialogue’
 INTRODUCTION: WHERE THINGS STAND AND WHAT HAPPENS NEXT 7

(Peterson et al. 2005: 5). The replacement of Bush in the White House
by an instinctive multilateralist in the form of Barack Obama yielded no
sea change in the direction of smoother transatlantic relations, even if
they seemed less hostile. Revelations of spying by the US intelligence
agencies on EU institutions, leaders and citizens in 2013 hardly squared
with the view that a transatlantic security community was holding firm
despite the rise of new challengers to the West.
Meanwhile, following our injunction to consider the evolution of the
international economy as a driver of IR, one of the most dramatic changes
(perhaps the most dramatic change) that has emerged out of the wreckage
of the post-2008 Great Recession has been a weaker economic Europe.
The recession exposed—in some ways caused—a crisis in the Eurozone,
particularly amongst southern EU states and Ireland, whose sovereign
debts became unsustainable in the teeth of a full-blown banking crisis.
From the creation of the euro, its capacity to withstand macroeconomic
and financial shocks was always both in doubt and central to the success
of the single currency (see Lane 2012). The 2012 commitment by the
European Central Bank (ECB) to do ‘whatever it takes’ to preserve the
euro calmed market speculation that one or more of its weaker mem-
bers might be forced into a chaotic exit. But economic growth rates in
Europe remained anaemic. Two broad effects have been, first, that Europe
remains internally focused and unequipped to lead in IR and, second, that
the European ‘pole’ has become perceived as one of the weakest by those
who foresee an emerging multipolar international order.
By most measures, the USA emerged in much better post-recession
economic shape than did Europe. Projected American economic growth
rates in 2015-16 that were much higher than that of the EU suggested
yet another source of divergence was emerging in the US-European rela-
tionship.3 However, behind the headlines lurked evidence of the West’s
collective decline. Around 40 % of the US firms that made up Standard
and Poor’s 500 derived significant sales from Europe, in one amongst
many indicators that the price of Europe’s economic slowdown for the
USA would be high.4 Meanwhile, America witnessed a steep and seem-
ingly unstoppable rise in economic inequality—for many, a clear indicator
of the degeneration of its economic model (Hacker and Pierson 2010;
Luce 2012; Packer 2013). Poll data also suggested that 84 % of US citi-
zens thought the economy had not improved since the recession ended and
70 % believed it had sustained permanent damage.5
8 J. PETERSON

The debate about the West’s decline is not only about the politi-
cal consequences of the rise of the BRICs. To illustrate, Walter Russell
Mead (2014: 74) argues that the USA and EU are challenged mostly
by ‘revisionist powers’—specifically China, Iran and Russia—which never
accepted the post-Cold War political settlement and now ‘seek to chip
away at the norms and relationships that sustain it’. The result is a return
to geopolitics at the worst possible time for the West. After all, Europe
must somehow cope with ‘the unmitigated disaster of the common cur-
rency’, while both Americans and Europeans have morphed into ‘post-
historical people’ who ‘are unwilling to make sacrifices, focused on the
short term, easily distracted and lacking in courage’ (Mead 2014: 77–9).
Another, less sweeping cut to the debate considers it a simpler, binary
question of whether and when China will achieve superpower status and
US hegemony will end. This view holds that these two changes will trigger
a shift to a multipolar world, or even a ‘post-American world … of de-
globalisation, rising nationalism and neomercantilism, geopolitical insta-
bility, and great power competition’ (Layne 2012: 420).
Declinists are not unchallenged. John Ikenberry (2014a, b: 80–1) cas-
tigates Mead’s ‘return of geopolitics’ as a ‘colossal misreading of modern
power realities’ and insists that ‘[a]lliances, partnerships, multilateralism,
democracy—these are the tools of US leadership, and they are winning,
not losing, the twenty-first century struggles over … the world order’.
Meanwhile, Brooks and Wohlforth (2008) refute the balance of power
realism that lies at the heart of the declinists’ argument, finding that the
concentration of aggregated power in the USA and Europe is deterring
would-be ‘balancers’ of western power such as China and Russia. Recently,
the coiner of the term BRICS has said ‘I might be tempted to call it just
‘IC”.6 His reappraisal reflects Brazil’s sharp economic slowdown, episodic
domestic violence in South Africa, and the outright contraction of the
Russian economy amidst plummeting oil prices and pressure from Western
economic sanctions following Moscow’s 2014 incursion in Ukraine. In
fact, Western solidarity in punishing Russia economically over Ukraine
not only revealed capacity for genuine transatlantic agency in IR. It also
refuted (or at least outdated) Peter Mandelson’s claim that ‘nothing
divides us’—that is, the EU—‘as much as Russia’ (quoted in Peterson and
Shackleton 2012: 3).
The multipolarity debate is an undercurrent to all chapters in this vol-
ume. But it is confronted most directly in Chap. 3, Daniel Hamilton’s
consideration in Chap. 6 on how Europe figures in ongoing debates about
 INTRODUCTION: WHERE THINGS STAND AND WHAT HAPPENS NEXT 9

US foreign policy, Jolyon Howorth’s analysis (Chap. 7) of how the USA

and Europe—individually and collectively—engage with emerging powers
and Riccardo Alcaro’s Chap. 9 on the challenges to the Western-promoted
liberal order. Most other contributions illustrate a central theme of this
book: that international power configurations differ considerably between
distinct policy domains, even if none are absent of challenges by new aspi-
rants to the top table of IR.

3 GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND TRANSATLANTIC

LEADERSHIP
The recent record of the USA and Europe in global governance is decid-
edly mixed. One upshot is debate about their capacity to lead as power
shifts to other players in IR, as well as about the nature and future of
global governance itself (Peterson and Müftüler-Baç 2014). The question
of whether the era of Western leadership is now over is taken up in Chap.
3. Peterson et al. argue that the USA and Europe retain considerable abil-
ity to lead but, increasingly, the real challenge is using it to reform multi-
lateral institutions to make them more inclusive and reflective of changing
balances of power.
Of course, rare in modern democratic politics are leaders willing to
sacrifice their built-in advantages in global institutions in order to enhance
the future legitimacy of those institutions. Accounts of Obama’s White
House illustrate the point, with multiple insiders (Nasr 2013; Gates 2014;
Panetta 2014) as well as analysts (Laïdi 2012; Mann 2012) critical of how
foreign policy seemed controlled more by political advisors than policy
experts and driven by a political campaign mentality, even though the
evidence—for instance, the Iranian nuclear deal—sometimes challenged
such claims. For its part, the EU has done little to deliver on its ‘strategic
objective’ to build an international order ‘based on effective multilateral-
ism’ as identified in its 2003 European Security Strategy (ESS) (Bouchard
et al. 2014). So much European political attention has been focused on
the Union’s internal, seemingly eternal crisis in the decade plus since the
ESS was unveiled—and the Eurozone calamity has been so politically divi-
sive—as to sap Europe of capacity to lead in reforming global governance.
Accordingly, as argued in Chap. 5, Europe’s value as an international part-
ner inevitably has been diminished in the eyes of Washington.
Still, it is worth asking if any recent era has been less hospitable to an
agenda of building or reforming multilateralism than that of the post-2008
10 J. PETERSON

Great Recession. In this political and economic context, it is revealing to

consider the two most headline-grabbing recent advances in international
cooperation: the Group of Twenty (G20) and cooperation amongst the
BRICS.
The G20 has not been short of critics. They bemoan its ‘spirit of
Westphalian assertion’ (Wade 2011), ‘the soft nature of its agreements in
the absence of sanctions or strong control mechanisms’ (Rommerskirchen
2014: 246), as well as its failure to prevent a ‘collapse of global trade’ or
a rise in ‘murky protectionism’ (Baldwin and Evenett 2009). The G20
remains a decidedly intergovernmental organization with no institutional
headquarters or even a single permanent official.
Yet, it is revealing to recall how quickly the financial crisis induced
a major shift from the Group of Eight (G8)—a thoroughly transatlantic
forum (along with Japan)—to the G20 as the locus for international macro-
economic policy coordination. Historians would also note how sharply the
Great Recession contrasted with the Great Depression of the 1930s, when
there was literally no attempt to forge collective action across national bor-
ders. The G20’s tangible accomplishments have been limited and its need for
reform seems undeniable. But it clearly played a significant role in ensuring
that the Great Recession was not even deeper or more damaging than it was
by (for example) agreeing to triple the lending capacity of the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). Cooper (2010: 755) finds that the G20 produced ‘a
striking degree of coordination […] concerning national and international
stimulus packages’ while ensuring there was ‘no return to the beggar-thy-
neighbour/autarkic ‘solutions’ of the 1930s’. Crucially, he views the lack of
any suggestion that the G20 return to its pre-recession mode of meetings
consisting exclusively of finance ministers and central bankers as creating the
potential for it to become a global steering committee capable of ‘accelerat-
ing concerted action on a much bigger set of issues’ (Cooper 2010: 756).
In comparison, it took six annual BRICS summit meetings before it
achieved its first tangible agreement: the launch of a $100 billion New
Development Bank (NDB). The clear intent was to pressure the USA and
Europe to move on stalled proposals to rebalance representation within
the IMF and World Bank: ‘We remain disappointed and seriously con-
cerned with the current non-implementation of the 2010 [IMF] reforms,
which negatively impacts on the IMF’s legitimacy, credibility and effec-
tiveness’.7 Otherwise, the BRICS summits have been talking shops that
produce long-winded communiqués, such as that of the Brazil-hosted
2014 summit which featured no fewer than 72 separate points. Reflecting
 INTRODUCTION: WHERE THINGS STAND AND WHAT HAPPENS NEXT 11

on the BRICS more generally, Sharma (2012: 4) complains that ‘[n]o idea
has done more to muddle thinking about the global economy than that
of the BRICs. Other than being the largest economies in their respective
regions, the big four emerging markets never had much in common’.8
Nevertheless, a cable sent by the top US G20 official in 2010 and
published by WikiLeaks stated: ‘It is remarkable how closely coordinated
the BASIC group of countries [Brazil, South Africa, India, China; it is
unclear where Russia fits] have become in international fora, taking turns
to impede US/EU initiatives and playing the USA and EU off against
each other’ (quoted in Wade 2011: 347). Here, the case of the Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is illustrative. Launched in 2015,
it revealed divisions amongst the West—with EU states joining in defiance
of US injunctions to stay away—and begged the question of whether it
would amount to a truly operative, alternative to the Bretton Woods insti-
tutions. Certainly, the AIIB typified the conviction of China and other
BRICS that the cards remain stacked against them in the World Bank and
IMF. Yet, the AIIB was created as a bank, not an international organiza-
tion. It also revealed a sort of non-reflective scrambling to mount alterna-
tives to the Bretton Woods institutions, with the AIIB almost certainly
competing for funding with the BRICS’ New Development Bank.
Amidst all of this churning, there might be more life left in the trans-
atlantic alliance than is often appreciated. As Howorth shows in Chap. 7,
the USA and Europe cannot be expected to interact with emerging states
as a collective, as they will frequently find that their interests differ. Clashes
of interest—as Damro shows in Chap. 8—are especially likely in the eco-
nomic arena. Yet, despite friction over divergent ‘possession goals’, the
USA and Europe have strong incentives to define and pursue collective
‘milieu goals’ for the international order, or objectives about the shape of
the future global order (Wolfers 1962).
To illustrate, Alcaro argues in Chap. 9 that the emergence of China and
Russia as more assertive military powers does not imply a deterministic
drive towards the collapse of the Western-promoted liberal order. After all,
even China and Russia have a stake in its maintenance, as they profit from
the ‘order’ that emanates from Western power even if they dislike its ‘lib-
eral’ normative core. In environmental governance, Christine Bakker and
Francesco Francioni show in Chap. 11 that no international agreement on
climate change—itself a milieu goal—is worth the paper it is written on
without tangible, measurable commitments from the West, but also China
and India. Nathalie Tocci highlights another policy area—operationalizing
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
people’s bad treatment of us, and that she must prevent her Traders
from killing us with their measles, and from telling us lies to make us
do bad conduct to Missi! If they come to us and talk as before, our
hearts are very dark and may again lead us to bad conduct to Missi.”
After this little parley, the Commodore invited us all on board,
along with the Chiefs. They saw about three hundred brave marines
ranked up on deck, and heard a great cannon discharged. For all
such efforts to impress them and open their eyes, I felt profoundly
grateful; but too clearly I knew and saw that only the grace of God
could lastingly change them!
They were soon back to their old arguments, and were heard
saying to one another, “If no punishment is inflicted on the
Erromangans for murdering the Missi there, we fear the bad conduct
of the Tannese will continue.”
No punishment was inflicted at Erromanga, and the Tannese were
soon as bold and wicked as ever. For instance, while the Man-of-war
lay in the Harbour, Nowar kept himself closely concealed; but no
sooner had she sailed than the cowardly fellow came out, laughing at
the others, and protesting that he was under no promise and was free
to act as he pleased! Yet in the hour of danger he generally proved to
be our friend; such was his vacillating character. Nor was Miaki very
seriously impressed. Mr. Mathieson shortly thereafter sent his boat
round to me, being again short of European food. On his crew
leaving her to deliver their message to me, some of Miaki’s men at
once jumped into the boat and started off round the island in search
of kava. I went to Miaki, to ask that the boat might be brought back
soon, but on seeing me he ran for his club and aimed to strike me. I
managed to seize it, and to hold on, pleading with God and talking
with Miaki, till by the interference of some friendly Natives his wrath
was assuaged a little. Returning home, I sent food overland to keep
them going till the boat returned, which she did in about eight days.
Thus light and shadow pursued each other, the light brightening for
a moment, but upon the whole the shadows deepening.
 CHAPTER X.
FAREWELL SCENES.

The War Fever.—Forced to the War Council.—A Truce among the

Chiefs.—Chiefs and People.—The Kiss of Judas.—The Death of
Ian.—The Quivering Knife.—A War of Revenge.—In the Thick
of the Battle.—Tender Mercies of the Wicked.—Escape for Life.
—The Loss of All.—Under the Tomahawk.—Jehovah is
Hearing.—The Host Turned Back.—The War against
Manuman.—Traps Laid.—House Broken Up.—War against our
Friends.—A Treacherous Murderer.—On the Chestnut Tree.—
Bargaining for Life.—Five Hours in a Canoe.—Kneeling on the
Sands.—Faimungo’s Farewell.—“Follow! Follow!”—A Race for
Life.—Ringed Round with Death.—Faint yet Pursuing.—Out of
the Lion’s Jaws.—Brothers in Distress.—Intervening Events.—
A Cannibal’s Taste.—Pillars of Cloud and of Fire.—Passing by
on the other Side.—Kapuku and the Idol Gods.—A Devil Chief.
—In Perils Oft.—Through Fire and Water.—“Sail O! Sail O!”—
Let Me Die.—In Perils on the Sea.—Tannese Visitors.—The
Devil Chief of Tanna.—Speckled and Spotted.—Their Desired
Haven.—“I am Left Alone.”—My Earthly All.—Eternal Hope.—
Australia to the Rescue.—For my Brethren’s Sake.—A New
Holy League.—The Uses of Adversity.—The Arm-Chair Critics
Again.—Concluding Note.—Prospectus of Part Second.

A time of great excitement amongst the Natives now prevailed. War,

war, nothing but war was spoken of! Preparations for war were being
made in all the villages far and near. Fear sat on every face, and
armed bands kept watching each other, as if uncertain where the war
was to begin or by whom. All work was suspended, and that war
spirit was let loose which rouses the worst passions of human nature.
Again we found ourselves the centre of conflict, one party set for
killing us or driving us away; the other wishing to retain us, while all
old bitter grievances were also dragged into their speeches.
Miaki and Nouka said, “If you will keep Missi and his Worship,
take him with you to your own land, for we will not have him to live
at the Harbour.”
Ian, the great Inland Chief, rose in wrath and said, “On whose land
does the Missi live, yours or ours? Who fight against the Worship
and all good, who are the thieves and murderers, who tell the lies,
you or we? We wish peace, but you will have war. We like Missi and
the Worship, but you hate them and say, ‘Take him to your own
land!’ It is our land on which he now lives; it is his own land which he
bought from you, but which our fathers sold Missi Turner long ago.
The land was not yours to sell; it was really ours. Your fathers stole it
from us long ago by war; but we would not have asked it back, had
you not asked us to take Missi away. Now we will defend him on it,
and he will teach us and our people in our own land!”
So meeting after meeting broke into fiery speech, and separated
with many threats.
To the next great meeting I was invited, but did not go, contenting
myself with a message pleading that they should live at peace and on
no account go to war with each other. But Ian himself came for me.
I said, “Ian, I have told you my whole heart. Go not to that
meeting. I will rather leave the island or die, than see you going to
war about me!”
He answered, “Missi, come with me, come now!”
I replied, “Ian, you are surely not taking me away to kill me? If you
are, my God will punish it.”
His only reply was, “Follow me, follow me quickly.”
I felt constrained to go.
He strode on before me till we reached the great village of his
ancestors. His followers, armed largely with muskets as well as
native weapons, filled one half the Village Square or dancing ground.
Miaki, Nouka, and their whole party sat in manifest terror upon the
other half. Marching into the centre, he stood with me by his side,
and proudly looking round, exclaimed,—
 “Missi, these are my men and your friends! We are met to defend
you and the Worship.” Then pointing across to the other side, he
cried aloud, “These are your enemies and ours! The enemies of the
Worship, the disturbers of the peace on Tanna! Missi, say the word,
and the muskets of my men will sweep all opposition away, and the
Worship will spread and we will all be strong for it on Tanna. We will
not shoot without your leave; but if you refuse they will kill you and
persecute us and our children, and banish Jehovah’s Worship from
our land.”
I said, “I love all of you alike. I am here to teach you how to turn
away from all wickedness, to worship and serve Jehovah, and to live
in peace. How can I approve of any person being killed for me or for
the Worship? My God would be angry at me and punish me, if I did!”
He replied, “Then, Missi, you will be murdered and the Worship
destroyed.”
I then stood forth in the middle before them all and cried, “You
may shoot or murder me, but I am your best friend. I am not afraid
to die. You will only send me the sooner to my Jehovah God, whom I
love and serve, and to my dear Saviour Jesus Christ, who died for me
and for you, and who sent me here to tell you all His love. If you will
only love and serve Him and give up your bad conduct, you will be
happy. But if you kill me, His messenger, rest assured that He will in
His own time and way punish you. This is my word to you all; my
love to you all!”
So saying, I turned to leave; and Ian strode sullenly away and
stood at the head of his men, crying,—
“Missi, they will kill you! they will kill us, and you will be to
blame!”
Miaki and Nouka, full of deceit, now cried out,—
“Missi’s word is good! Let us all obey it. Let us all worship.”
An old man, Sirawia, one of Ian’s under-chiefs, then said,—
“Miaki and Nouka say that the land on which Missi lives was
theirs; though they sold it to him, and he has paid them for it, they
all know that it was ours, and is yet ours by right; but if they let Missi
live on it in peace, we will all live at peace, and worship Jehovah. And
if not, we will surely claim it again.”
 Miaki and his party hereon went off to their plantations, and
brought a large present of food to Ian and his men as a peace-
offering. This they accepted; and the next day Ian and his men
brought Miaki a return present and said,—
“You know that Missi lives on our land? Take our present, be
friends, and let him live quietly and teach us all. Yesterday you said
his word was good, obey it now, else we will punish you and defend
the Missi.”
Miaki accepted the token, and gave good promises for the future.
Ian then came to the hill-top near our house, by which passed the
public path, and cried aloud in the hearing of all,—
“Abraham, tell Missi that you and he now live on our land. This
path is the march betwixt Miaki and us. We have this day bought
back the land of our fathers by a great price to prevent war. Take of
our bread-fruits and also of our cocoa-nuts what you require, for you
are our friends and living on our land, and we will protect you and
the Worship!”
For some time things moved on quietly after this. An inland war,
however, had continued for months. As many as ten men, they said,
were sometimes killed in one day and feasted on by the warriors.
Thousands had been thereby forced down from the mountains, and
sought protection under Ian and his people. All the people claiming
connection with his Tribe were called Naraimini; the people in the
Volcano district were called the Kaserumini; and the Harbour Tribes
were the Watarenmini; and so on all over the island. In such
divisions, there might be from two to twenty Chiefs and Villages
under one leader, and these stood by each other for purposes
defensive and offensive. Now Nouka and Miaki had been frustrated
in all their plans to get the Inland and the Harbour people involved
in the war, as their own followers were opposed to it. In violation of
his promises, however, Nouka invited all the men who wished to go
to the war to meet him one morning, and only one appeared! Nouka,
in great wrath, marched off to the war himself, but, as no one
followed, he grew faint-hearted, and returned to his own village. On
another morning, Miaki summoned all his fighting men; but only his
own brother and six lads could be induced to accompany him, and
with these he started off. But the enemy, hearing of his coming, had
killed two of his principal allies the night before, and Miaki, learning
this, turned and fled to his own house, and was secretly laughed at by
his tribe.
Next day, Nouka came to me professing great friendship and
pleading with me to accompany him and Miaki to talk with the
Kaserumini, and persuade them to give up the war. He was annoyed
and disappointed when I refused to go. Nowar and others informed
me, two days thereafter, that three persons had died in that district,
that others were sick, and that the Heathen there had resolved to kill
me in revenge as the cause of all. As Nouka’s wife was one of the
victims, this scheme was concocted to entrap me. I was warned on no
account to leave my house at night for a considerable time, but to
keep it locked up and to let no one in after dark. The same two men
from that district who had tried to kill Mr. Johnston and me, were
again appointed and were watching for Abraham and me, lurking
about in the evenings for that purpose. Again I saw how the Lord had
preserved me from Miaki and Nouka! Truly all are safe who are in
God’s keeping; and nothing can befall them, except for their real
good and the glory of their Lord.
Chafed at the upsetting of all their plans and full of revenge, Nouka
and Miaki and their allies declared publicly that they were now going
to kill Ian by sorcery, i.e., by Nahak, more feared by the poor
Tannese than the field of battle. Nothing but the grace of God and
the enlightenment of His Spirit through the Scriptures, has ever
raised these Natives above that paralyzing superstition. But, thank
God, there are now, while I write this (1887), about twelve thousand
in the New Hebrides who have been thus enlightened and lifted out
of their terrors, for the Gospel is still, as of old, the power of God
unto salvation! Strange to say, Ian became sick shortly after the
Sacred Men had made the declaration about their Nahak-sorcery. I
attended him, and for a time he recovered, and appeared very
grateful. But he soon fell sick again. I sent him and the Chief next
under him a blanket each; I also gave shirts and calico to a number of
his leading men. They wore them and seemed grateful and pleased.
Ian, however, gradually sank and got worse. He had every symptom
of being poisoned, a thing easily accomplished, as they know and use
many deadly poisons. His sufferings were very great, which
prevented me from ascribing his collapse to mere superstitious
terror. I did all that could be done; but all thought him dying, and of
course by sorcery. His people were angry at me for not consenting
before to their shooting of Miaki; and Miaki’s people were now
rejoicing that Ian was being killed by Nahak.
One night, his brother and a party came for me to go and see Ian,
but I declined to go till the morning for fear of the fever and ague. On
reaching his village, I saw many people about, and feared that I had
been led into a snare; but I at once entered into his house to talk and
pray with him, as he appeared to be dying. After prayer, I discovered
that I was left alone with him, and that all the people had retired
from the village; and I knew that, according to their custom, this
meant mischief. Ian said,—

“SUDDENLY HE DREW ... A LARGE BUTCHER-LIKE KNIFE.”

“Come near me, and sit by my bedside to talk with me, Missi.”
I did so, and while speaking to him he lay as if lost in a swoon of
silent meditation. Suddenly he drew from the sugar-cane leaf thatch
close to his bed, a large butcher-like knife, and instantly feeling the
edge of it with his other hand, he pointed it to within a few inches of
my heart and held it quivering there, all a-tremble with excitement. I
durst neither move nor speak, except that my heart kept praying to
the Lord to spare me, or if my time was come to take me home to
Glory with Himself. There passed a few moments of awful suspense.
My sight went and came. Not a word had been spoken, except to
Jesus; and then Ian wheeled the knife around, thrust it into the
sugar-cane leaf, and cried to me,—
“Go, go quickly!”
Next moment I was on the road. Not a living soul was to be seen
about the village. I understood then that it had been agreed that Ian
was to kill me, and that they had all withdrawn so as not to witness
it, so that when the Man-of-war came to inquire about me Ian would
be dead, and no punishment could overtake the murderer. I walked
quietly till quite free of the village, lest some hid in their houses
might observe me. Thereafter, fearing that they, finding I had
escaped, might overtake and murder me, I ran for my life a weary
four miles till I reached the Mission House, faint, yet praising God
for such a deliverance. Poor Ian died soon after, and his people
strangled one of his wives and hanged another, and took out the
three bodies together in a canoe and sank them in the sea.
Miaki was jubilant over having killed his enemy by Nahak; but the
Inland people now assembled in thousands to help Sirawia and his
brother to avenge that death on Miaki, Nouka and Karewick. These,
on the other hand, boasted that they would kill all their enemies by
Nahak-sorcery, and would call up a hurricane to destroy their
houses, fruit trees, and plantations. Miaki and a number of his men
also came to the Mission House; but, observing his sullen
countenance, I asked kindly after his wife who was about to be
confined, and gave a blanket, a piece of calico, and a bit of soap as a
present for the baby. He seemed greatly pleased, whispered
something to his men, and peaceably withdrew. Immediately after
Miaki’s threat about bringing a storm, one of their great hurricanes
actually smote that side of the island and laid everything waste. His
enemies were greatly enraged, and many of the injured people united
with them in demanding revenge on Miaki. Hitherto I had done
everything in my power to prevent war, but now it seemed inevitable,
and both parties sent word that if Abraham and I kept to the Mission
House no one would harm us. We had little faith in any of their
promises, but there was no alternative for us.
On the following Saturday, 18th January, 1862, the war began.
Musket after musket was discharged quite near us, and the bush all
round rang with the yell of their war-cry, which if once heard will
never be forgotten. It came nearer and nearer, for Miaki fled, and his
people took shelter behind and around our house. We were placed in
the heart of danger, and the balls flew thick all around us. In the
afternoon Ian’s brother and his party retired, and Miaki quickly sent
messengers and presents to the Inikahimini and Kaserumini
districts, to assemble all their people and help him “to fight Missi
and the Tannese who were friends of the Worship.” He said,—
“Let us cook his body and Abraham’s, and distribute them to every
village on this side of the island!”
Yet all the while Miaki assured me that he had sent a friendly
message. The war went on, and poor Nowar the Chief protected us,
till he had a spear broken into his right knee. The enemy would have
carried him off to feast on his body; but his young men, shouting
wildly his name and battle-cry, rushed in with great impetuosity and
carried their wounded Chief home in triumph. The Inland people
now discharged muskets at my house and beat against the walls with
their clubs. They smashed in the door and window of our store-room,
broke open boxes and casks, tore my books to pieces and scattered
them about, and carried off everything for which they cared,
including my boat, mast, oars, and sails. They broke into Abraham’s
house and plundered it; after which they made a rush at the
bedroom, into which we were locked, firing muskets, yelling, and
trying to break it in. A Chief, professing to be sorry for us called me
to the window, but on seeing me he sent a tomahawk through it,
crying,—
“Come on, let us kill him now!”
I replied, “My Jehovah God will punish you; a Man-of-war will
come and punish you, if you kill Abraham, his wife, or me.”
He retorted, “It’s all lies about a Man-of-war! They did not punish
the Erromangans. They are afraid of us. Come on, let us kill them!”
He raised his tomahawk and aimed to strike my forehead, many
muskets were uplifted as if to shoot, so I raised a revolver in my right
hand and pointed it at them. The Rev. Joseph Copeland had left it
with me on a former visit. I did not wish it, but he insisted upon
leaving it, saying that the very knowledge that I had such a weapon
might save my life. Truly, on this occasion it did so. Though it was
harmless, they fell back quickly. My immediate assailant dropped to
the ground, crying,—
“Missi has got a short musket! He will shoot you all!”
After lying flat on the ground for a little, they all got up and ran to
the nearest bush, where they continued yelling about and showing
their muskets. Towards nightfall they left, loaded with the plunder of
the store and of Abraham’s house. So God once more graciously
protected us from falling into their cruel hands.
In the evening, after they left, I went to Miaki and Nouka. They
professed great sorrow at what had taken place, and pretended to
have given them a present of food not to do us further injury. But
Nowar informed us that, on the contrary, they had hired them to
return and kill us next morning and plunder everything on the
Mission premises. Miaki, with a sneer, said,—
“Missi, where was Jehovah to-day? There was no Jehovah to-day
to protect you. It’s all lies about Jehovah. They will come and kill
you, and Abraham, and his wife, and cut your bodies into pieces to be
cooked and eaten in every village upon Tanna.”
I said, “Surely, when you had planned all this, and brought them to
kill us and steal all our property, Jehovah did protect us, or we would
not have been here!”
He replied, “There was no Jehovah to-day! We have no fear of any
Man-of-war. They dare not punish us. They durst not punish the
Erromangans for murdering the Gordons. They will talk to us and
say we must not do so again, and give us a present. That is all. We
fear nothing. The talk of all Tanna is that we will kill you and seize all
your property to-morrow.”
I warned him that the punishment of a Man-of-war can only reach
the body and the land, but that Jehovah’s punishment reached both
body and soul in Time and in Eternity.
He replied: “Who fears Jehovah? He was not here to protect you
to-day!”
 “Yes,” I said, “my Jehovah God is here now. He hears all we say,
sees all we do, and will punish the wicked and protect His own
people.”
After this, a number of the people sat down around me, and I
prayed with them. But I left with a very heavy heart, feeling that
Miaki was evidently bent on our destruction.
I sent Abraham to consult Nowar, who had defended us till
disabled by a spear in the right knee. He sent a canoe by Abraham,
advising me to take some of my goods in it to his house by night, and
he would try to protect them and us. The risk was so great, we could
only take a very little. Enemies were on every hand to cut off our
flight, and Miaki, the worst of all, whose village had to be passed in
going to Nowar’s. In the darkness of the Mission House, we durst not
light a candle for fear of some one seeing and shooting us. Not one of
Nowar’s men durst come to help us. But in the end it made no
difference, for Nowar and his men kept what was taken there as their
portion of the plunder. Abraham, his wife, and I waited anxiously for
the morning light. Miaki, the false and cruel, came to assure us that
the Heathen would not return that day. Yet, as daylight came in,
Miaki himself stood and blew a great conch not far from our house. I
ran out to see why this trumpet-shell had been blown, and found it
was the signal for a great company of howling armed savages to rush
down the hill on the other side of the bay and make straight for the
Mission House. We had not a moment to lose. To have remained
would have been certain death to us all, and also to Matthew, a
Teacher just arrived from Mr. Mathieson’s Station. Though I am by
conviction a strong Calvinist, I am no Fatalist. I held on while one
gleam of hope remained. Escape for life was now the only path of
duty. I called the Teachers, locked the door, and made quickly for
Nowar’s village. There was not a moment left to carry anything with
us. In the issue, Abraham, his wife, and I lost all our earthly goods,
and all our clothing except what we had on. My Bible, the few
translations which I had made into Tannese, and a light pair of
blankets I carried with me.
To me the loss was bitter, but as God had so ordered it, I tried to
bow with resignation. All my deceased wife’s costly outfit, her piano,
silver, cutlery, books, etc., with which her dear parents had provided
her, besides all that I had in the world; also a box worth £56, lately
arrived, full of men’s clothing and medicine, the gift of my dear
friends, Samuel Wilson, Esq., and Mrs. Wilson, of Geelong. The
Sandal-wood Traders bought all the stolen property for tobacco,
powder, balls, caps, and shot. One Trader gathered together a
number of my books in a sadly torn and wasted condition and took
them to Aneityum, demanding £10 from Dr. Geddie for his trouble.
He had to pay him £7 10s., which I repaid to him on my second
return to the Islands. This, by way of digression, only to show how
white and black Heathenism meet together.
Let us return to the morning of our flight. We could not take the
usual path along the beach, for there our enemies would have quickly
overtaken us. We entered the bush in the hope of getting away
unobserved. But a cousin of Miaki, evidently secreted to watch us,
sprang from behind a bread-fruit tree, and swinging his tomahawk,
aimed it at my brow with a fiendish look. Avoiding it, I turned upon
him and said in a firm bold voice,—
“If you dare to strike me, my Jehovah God will punish you. He is
here to defend me now!”
The man, trembling, looked all round as if to see the God who was
my defender, and the tomahawk gradually lowered at his side. With
my eye fixed upon him, I gradually moved backwards in the track of
the Teachers, and God mercifully restrained him from following me.
On reaching Nowar’s village unobserved, we found the people
terror-stricken, crying, rushing about in despair at such a host of
armed savages approaching. I urged them to ply their axes, cut down
trees, and blockade the path. For a little they wrought vigorously at
this; but when, so far as eye could reach, they saw the shore covered
with armed men rushing on towards their village, they were
overwhelmed with fear, they threw away their axes and weapons of
war, they cast themselves headlong on the ground, and they knocked
themselves against the trees as if to court death before it came. They
cried,—
“Missi, it’s of no use! We will all be killed and eaten to-day! See
what a host are coming against us.”
Mothers snatched up little children and ran to hide in the bush.
Others waded as far as they could into the sea with them, holding
their heads above the water. The whole village collapsed in a
condition of indescribable terror. Nowar, lame with his wounded
knee, got a canoe turned upside-down and sat upon it where he could
see the whole approaching multitude. He said,—
“Missi, sit down beside me, and pray to our Jehovah God, for if He
does not send deliverance now, we are all dead men. They will kill us
all on your account, and that quickly. Pray, and I will watch!”
They had gone to the Mission House and broken in the door, and
finding that we had escaped, they rushed on to Nowar’s village. For,
as they began to plunder the bedroom, Nouka said,—
“Leave everything. Missi will come back for his valuable things at
night, and then we will get them and him also!”
So he nailed up the door, and they all marched for Nowar’s. We
prayed as one can only pray when in the jaws of death and on the
brink of Eternity. We felt that God was near, and omnipotent to do
what seemed best in His sight. When the savages were about three
hundred yards off, at the foot of a hill leading up to the village,
Nowar touched my knee, saying,—
“Missi, Jehovah is hearing! They are all standing still.”
Had they come on they would have met with no opposition, for the
people were scattered in terror. On gazing shorewards, and round
the Harbour, as far as we could see, was a dense host of warriors, but
all were standing still, and apparently absolute silence prevailed. We
saw a messenger or herald running along the approaching multitude,
delivering some tidings as he passed, and then disappearing in the
bush. To our amazement, the host began to turn, and slowly marched
back in great silence, and entered the remote bush at the head of the
Harbour. Nowar and his people were in ecstasies, crying out,—
“Jehovah has heard Missi’s prayer! Jehovah has protected us and
turned them away back.”
We were on that day His trusting and defenceless children; would
you not, had you been one of our circle, have joined with us in
praising the Lord God for deliverance from the jaws of death? I know
not why they turned back; but I have no doubt it was the doing of
God to save our lives.
We learned that they all assembled in a cleared part of the bush
and there held a great wrangling palaver. Nouka and Miaki advised
them first to fight Manuman and his people. They said,—
 “His brother, the Sacred Man Kanini, killed Ian by Nahak. He is a
friend of Missi and of the Worship. He also sent the hurricane to
destroy us. They have plenty of yams and pigs. Let us fight and
plunder them, and when they are out of the way, we will be strong to
destroy Missi and the Worship.”
On this the whole mass went and attacked Manuman’s first village,
where they murdered two of his men, two women, and two children.
The inhabitants fled, and all the sick, the feeble, and the children
who fell into their hands were reported to us to be murdered, cooked,
and eaten. Led on by Miaki, they plundered and burned seven
villages.
About mid-day, Nouka and Miaki sent their cousin Jonas, who had
always been friendly to me, to say that I might return to my house in
safety, as they were now carrying the war inland. Jonas had spent
some years on Samoa, and been much with Traders in Sydney, and
spoke English well; but we felt they were deceiving us. That night,
Abraham ventured to creep near the Mission House, to test whether
we might return, and save some valuable things, and get a change of
clothing. The house appeared to stand as when they nailed up the
door. But a large party of Miaki’s allies at once enclosed Abraham,
and, after asking many questions about me, they let him go since I
was not there. Had I gone there, they would certainly that night have
killed me. Again, at midnight, Abraham and his wife and Matthew
went to the Mission House, and found Nouka, Miaki, and Karewick
near by, concealed in the bush among the reeds. Once more they
enclosed them, thinking I was there too, but Nouka, finding that I
was not, cried out,—
“Don’t kill them just now! Wait till Missi comes.”
Hearing this, Matthew slipped into the bush and escaped.
Abraham’s wife waded into the sea, and they allowed her to get away.
Abraham was allowed to go to the Mission House, but he too crept
into the bush, and after an anxious waiting they all came back to me
in safety. We now gave up all hope of recovering anything from the
house.
Towards morning, when Miaki and his men saw that I was not
coming back to deliver myself into their hands, they broke up my
house and stole all they could carry away. They tore my books, and
scattered them about. They took away the type of my printing-press,
to be made into bullets for their muskets. For similar uses they
melted down the zinc lining of my boxes, and everything else that
could be melted. What they could not take away, they destroyed. I lay
on the ground all night, concealed in an outhouse of Nowar’s, but it
was a sleepless and anxious night, not only to me and my
Aneityumese, but also to Nowar and his people.
Next day, the attack was renewed by the three Chiefs on the
district of my dear friend Manuman. His people fled; the villages
were burned; all who came in their way were killed, and all food and
property carried away. At night they returned to keep watch over
Nowar and me. When darkness was setting in, Miaki sent for me to
go and speak with him, but Nowar and the Aneityumese were all so
opposed to it that I did not go. Messages were sent to Nowar,
threatening to kill him and his people for protecting me, and great
excitement prevailed.
Another incident added horror to the memories of this day. A
savage from Erromanga, living with Nowar, had gone to the war that
day. He got near a village unobserved, climbed into a tree, and
remained there watching. After mid-day, Kamkali, a true friend of
mine, the Chief of his village, came home wearied from the war, got
his blanket, stealthily crept into a quiet place in the bush, rolled
himself up, and lay down to sleep; for, according to their custom, the
leading warriors in times of conflict seldom sleep in their own
houses, and seldom twice in the same place even in the bush, for fear
of personal danger. The Erromangan, having watched till he was
sound asleep, crept to where he lay, raised his club and smashed in
his skull. He told, when he came home, how the blood ran from nose,
mouth, and ears, with a gurgling sound in his throat, and after a few
convulsive struggles all was over! And the people around Nowar
praised him for his deed. Cocoa-nuts were brought for him to drink,
and food was presented before him in large quantities, as to one who
had done something noble. For safety, he was put into the same
house where I had to sit, and even Nowar honoured him. I watched
for the workings of a natural man’s conscience under the guilt of
murder. When left alone, he shook every now and then with
agitation, and started round with a terrified gaze. He looked the
picture of a man who felt that he had done to his neighbour what he
would not have liked another to do to him. I wonder if that
consciousness ever dies out, in the lowest and worst, that last voice of
God in the soul?
That very night, Nowar declared that I must leave his village before
morning, else he and his people would be killed for protecting me.
He advised me, as the sea was good, to try for Mr. Mathieson’s
Station; but he objected to my taking away any of my property—he
would soon follow with it himself! But how to sail? Miaki had stolen
my boat, mast, sails, and oars, as also an excellent canoe made for
me and paid for by me on Aneityum; and he had threatened to shoot
any person that assisted me to launch either the one or the other.
The danger, however, was so great that Nowar said,—
“You cannot remain longer in my house! My son will guide you to
the large chestnut tree in my plantation in the bush. Climb up into it,
and remain there till the moon rises.”
Being entirely at the mercy of such doubtful and vacillating
friends, I, though perplexed, felt it best to obey. I climbed into the
tree, and was left there alone in the bush. The hours I spent there live
all before me as if it were but of yesterday. I heard the frequent
discharging of muskets, and the yells of the savages. Yet I sat there
among the branches, as safe in the arms of Jesus! Never, in all my
sorrows, did my Lord draw nearer to me, and speak more soothingly
in my soul, than when the moonlight flickered among these chestnut
leaves, and the night air played on my throbbing brow, as I told all
my heart to Jesus. Alone, yet not alone! If it be to glorify my God, I
will not grudge to spend many nights alone in such a tree, to feel
again my Saviour’s spiritual presence, to enjoy His consoling
fellowship. If thus thrown back upon your own soul, alone, all, all
alone, in the midnight, in the bush, in the very embrace of death
itself, have you a Friend that will not fail you then?
Gladly would I have lingered there for one night of comparative
peace! But, about midnight, Nowar sent his son to call me down from
the tree, and to guide me to the shore where he himself was, as it was
now time to take to sea in the canoe. Pleading for my Lord’s
continuing presence, I had to obey. My life and the lives of my
Aneityumese now hung upon a very slender thread, and was almost
equally at risk from our friends so-called, and from our enemies. Had
I been a stranger to Jesus and to prayer, my reason would verily have
given way, but my comfort and joy sprang up out of these: “I will
never leave thee, nor forsake thee; lo, I am with you alway!” Pleading
these promises, I followed my guide. We reached the beach, just
inside the Harbour, at a beautiful white sandy bay on Nowar’s
ground, from which our canoe was to start. A good number of the
Natives had assembled there to see us off. Arkurat, having got a large
roll of calico from me for the loan of his canoe, hid it away, and then
refused the canoe, saying that if he had to escape with his family he
would require it. He demanded, for the loan of his canoe, an axe, a
sail for his canoe, and a pair of blankets. As Karis had the axe and
another had the quilt, I gave the quilt to him for a sail, and the axe
and blankets for the canoe. In fact, these few relics of our earthly all
at Nowar’s were coveted by the savages and endangered our lives,
and it was as well to get rid of them altogether. He cruelly proposed a
small canoe for two; but I had hired the canoe for five, and insisted
upon getting it, as he had been well paid for it. As he only laughed
and mocked us, I prepared to start and travel overland to Mr.
Mathieson’s Station. He then said,—
“My wrath is over! You may take it and go.”
We launched it, but now he refused to let us go till daylight. He
had always been one of my best friends, but now appeared bent on a
quarrel, so I had to exercise much patience with him and them.
Having launched it, he said I had hired the canoe but not the
paddles. I protested,—
“Surely you know we hired the paddles too. What could we do
without paddles?”
But Arkurat lay down and pretended to have fallen asleep, snoring
on the sand, and could not be awaked. I appealed to Nowar, who only
said—
“That is his conduct, Missi, our conduct!”
I replied, “As he has got the blankets which I saved to keep me
from ague and fever, and I have nothing left now but the clothes I
have on, surely you will give me paddles.”
Nowar gave me one. Returning to the village, friends gave me one
each till I got other three. Now Arkurat started up, and refused to let
us go. A Chief and one of his men, who lived on the other side of the
island near to where we were going, and who was hired by me to go
with us and help in paddling the canoe, drew back also and refused
to go. Again I offered to leave the canoe, and walk overland if
possible, when Faimungo, the Chief who had refused to go with us,
came forward and said,—
“Missi, they are all deceiving you! The sea is so rough, you cannot
go by it; and if you should get round the weather point, Miaki has
men appointed to shoot you as you pass the Black Rocks, while by
land all the paths are guarded by armed men. I tell you the truth,
having heard all their talk. Miaki and Karewick say they hate the
Worship, and will kill you. They killed your goats, and stole all your
property yesterday. Farewell!”
The Teachers, the boy, and I now resolved to enter the canoe and
attempt it, as the only gleam of hope left to us. After Faimungo came,
the man to whom the canoe belonged had withdrawn from us, it
having transpired that Miaki would not attack us that night, as other
game had attracted his savage eyes. My party of five now embarked
in our frail canoe; Abraham first, I next, Matthew after me, the boy at
the steering paddle, and Abraham’s wife sitting in the bottom, where
she might hold on while it continued to float. For a mile or more we
got away nicely under the lee of the island, but when we turned to go
south for Mr. Mathieson’s Station, we met the full force of wind and
sea, every wave breaking over and almost swamping our canoe. The
Native lad at the helm paddle stood up crying,—
“Missi, this is the conduct of the sea! It swallows up all who seek
its help.”
I answered, “We do not seek help from it but from Jehovah Jesus.”
Our danger became very great, as the sea broke over and lashed
around us. My faithful Aneityumese, overcome with terror, threw
down their paddles, and Abraham said,—
“Missi, we are all drowned now! We are food for the sharks. We
might as well be eaten by the Tannese as by fishes; but God will give
us life with Jesus in heaven!”
I seized the paddle nearest me; I ordered Abraham to seize another
within his reach; I enjoined Matthew to bail the canoe for life, and
the lad to keep firm in his seat, and I cried,—
“Stand to your post, and let us return! Abraham, where is now
your faith in Jesus? Remember, He is Ruler on sea as on land.
Abraham, pray and ply your paddle! Keep up stroke for stroke with
me, as our lives depend on it. Our God can protect us. Matthew, bail
with all your might. Don’t look round on the sea and fear. Let us pray
to God and ply our paddles, and He will save us yet!”
Dear old Abraham said,—
“Thank you for that, Missi. I will be strong. I pray to God and ply
my paddle. God will save us!”
With much labour, and amid deadly perils, we got the canoe
turned; and after four hours of a terrible struggle, we succeeded,
towards daylight as the tide turned, in again reaching smooth water.
With God’s blessing we at last reached the shore, exactly where we
had left it five hours ago!
Now drenched and weary, with the skin of our hands sticking to
the paddles, we left the canoe on the reef and waded ashore. Many
Natives were there, and looked sullen and disappointed at our
return. Katasian, the lad who had been with us, instantly fled for his
own land; and the Natives reported that he was murdered soon after.
Utterly exhausted, I lay down on the sand and instantly fell into a
deep sleep. By-and-by I felt some one pulling from under my head
the native bag in which I carried my Bible and the Tannese
translations—the all that had been saved by me from the wreck!
Grasping the bag, I sprang to my feet, and the man ran away. My
Teachers had also a hedging knife, a useless revolver, and a fowling-
piece, the sight of which, though they had been under the salt water
for hours, God used to restrain the savages. Calling my Aneityumese
near, we now in united prayer and kneeling on the sands committed
each other unto the Lord God, being prepared for the last and worst.
As I sat meditating on the issues, Faimungo, the friendly Inland
Chief, again appeared to warn us of our danger, now very greatly
increased by our being driven back from the sea. All Nowar’s men
had fled, and were hid in the bush and in rocks along the shore;
while Miaki was holding a meeting not half a mile away, and
preparing to fall upon us. Faimungo said,—
“Farewell, Missi, I am going home. I don’t wish to see the work and
the murders of this morning.”
He was Nowar’s son-in-law. He had always been truthful and
kindly with me. His home was about half-way across the island, on
the road that we wanted to go, and under sudden impulse I said,—
 “Faimungo, will you let us follow you? Will you show us the path?
When the Mission Ship arrives, I will give you three good axes,
blankets, knives, fish-hooks, and many things you prize.”
The late hurricanes had so destroyed and altered the paths, that
only Natives who knew them well could follow them. He trembled
much and said,—
“Missi, you will be killed. Miaki and Karewick will shoot you. I
dare not let you follow. I have only about twenty men, and your
following might endanger us all.”
I urged him to leave at once, and we would follow of our own
accord. I would not ask him to protect us; but if he betrayed us and
helped the enemy to kill us, I assured him that our God would punish
him. If he spared us, he would be rewarded well; and if killed against
his wishes, God would not be angry at him. He said,—
“Seven men are with me now, and thirteen are to follow. I will not
now send for them. They are with Miaki and Nouka. I will go; but if
you follow, you will be killed on the way. You may follow me as far as
you can!”
Off he started to Nowar’s, and got a large load of my stolen
property, blankets, sheets, etc., which had fallen to his lot. He called
his seven men, who had also shared in the plunder, and, to avoid
Miaki’s men, they ran away under a large cocoa-nut grove skirting
the shore, calling,—
“Be quick! Follow and keep as near to us as you can.”
Though Nowar had got a box of my rice and appropriated many
things from the plunder of the Mission House besides the goods
entrusted to his care, and got two of my goats killed and cooked for
himself and his people, yet now he would not give a particle of food
to my starving Aneityumese or myself, but hurried us off, saying,—
“I will eat all your rice and keep all that has been left with me in
payment for my lame knee and for my people fighting for you!”
My three Aneityumese and I started after Faimungo and his men.
We could place no confidence in any of them; but, feeling that we
were in the Lord’s hands, it appeared to be our only hope of escaping
instant death. We got away unobserved by the enemies. We met
several small parties of friends in the Harbour, apparently glad to see
us trying to get away. But about four miles on our way, we met a