[ p. 59 ]
Experience is the best teacher in all the affairs of men — of nations as well as of individuals. We have all watched with keen regret the slow disintegration of some business organization we have come to respect and admire. Before our very eyes, a vast mercantile establishment, a well-known manufacturing concern, or a bank which we had believed to be as strong as the Egyptian pyramids has suddenly collapsed and gone out of business. The reason for such failures is usually the inability of those in charge to profit by experience in the conduct of their affairs. They fail to adapt their practices to changing conditions and eventually find themselves left behind.
Time changes much in the affairs of nations just as it does in those of business organizations. Scarcely more than a century and a half have elapsed since the thirteen original colonies gained their independence, yet in that short span conditions have so changed that it would be easier today to move an army of fifty thousand men from New York to any spot on the globe than it would have been for Washington in 1776 to transport his small army from New York to southern Georgia. Such changes as these call for tremendous changes in national policy.
[ p. 60 ]
It is high time people began observing the same practical common sense in their national affairs as they are accustomed to observing in their business affairs, and not persist blindly in making again and again the same mistakes that have always led to wars in the past.
We have the knowledge of what not to do if we will only agree to use it. But it means re-examining all our old ideas and policies and discarding those which experience has proved to be failures in past history. This requires an open mind and a willingness to think out our problems afresh without the hampering fears of old prejudices and suspicions. A business that sought to carry on today with ideas and prejudices derived from the last century would have small chance of success. The time has come to recognize that this is true for nations also. To conduct international affairs today according to nineteenth-century ideas and prejudices is bound to be just as disastrous. Today’s problems call for modern solutions. We must eliminate practices that have outlived their usefulness.
It would be unfair to say that the scholars and statesmen of modern times have failed entirely to realize the importance of the changes that have come over the world. They have tried in several ways to bring about improvements which they hoped would contribute to a better world and make for universal peace.
[ p. 61 ]
Soon after the end of the first disastrous World War a conference of nations took place at which they all agreed to disarm down to a point where their armies and navies were little stronger than a metropolitan police force. Considerable disarming took place. How did it work? The present war is the answer.
Disarmament failed for two reasons. First, some of the large nations did not enter into it honestly. Japan never thought of disarming. She was determined not to disarm. At the very time she agreed to do so she was making plans, to conquer first China, then the Malay Peninsula and the East Indies. After that she meant to grab India and all of eastern Russia. Disarmament was no part of her purpose. Perhaps in the far distant future disarmament may come ; but if so, it will be as a result rather than as a cause of universal peace. For the world as it is now, organized disarmament is not a practicable solution to the problems of war.
Long before disarmament was tried as a means to peace, powerful nations time and again tried imperialism. The thought was, “If we can but overrun and conquer the greater part of the earth, then we shall have peace because we can enforce it.” The Romans tried it, and so did Napoleon. Each nearly [ p. 62 ] succeeded but eventually failed. Hitler too succumbed to imperialistic dreams for Europe. “Let me be your ruler,” he said, “and I will give you peace, a New Order in Europe.” For a time he got his way; but when at last the other nations began to resist. Hitler abandoned all pretense of peace and began his course of pillage and murder. Imperialism failed because nations will never willingly submit to the rule by force of other nations.
Imperialism makes for war in several ways. First, by generating discontent and rebellion among the subject peoples. This creates situations which tempt rival nations to intervene and thus precipitate war. The existence of one empire arouses competing nations to engage in imperial careers of their own.
One of the forms imperialism takes is economic exploitation of backward or helpless peoples. This can occur without actual military or political conquest, but usually leads to that in the final outcome.
Imperialism often masks under the innocent guise of national defense. Thus Germany began its invasions of the little countries of Europe and even of Russia, on the trumped-up necessity of self-defense. In the same spirit certain Americans now demand far-flung bases for our national defense.
Pacifism and isolationism have been advocated by many as the way to peace; both have proved to be [ p. 63 ] worse than futile. Twice they have nearly brought our nation to the verge of destruction.
Pacifism is for those weak souls who are willing to sacrifice everything for an empty peace. On the surface of a stagnant pool is peace of a sort, but when a great man was once asked to describe his idea of peace, he took the questioner to a rushing, roaring cataract and, pointing to a tiny bird reposing on a branch not three feet above the brink, said : “There — that is my idea of peace.”
Pacifism puts too high a value upon the mere absence of war. There are other values equally essential to civilization : truth, justice, liberty, love, kindness, righteousness. Lasting peace is obtainable only in a world where these higher values are secure. They cannot be secure in a world which permits nations, just because they are strong, to trample upon their weaker neighbors. Pacifism is self-defeating because, in making an absolute of peace, it weakens the devotion which men have for the other values without which peace cannot endure. To enjoy genuine, lasting peace the world must find a way to guarantee the security of these other values as well.
China is perhaps the most outstanding example of the fallacy of pacifism. She is one of the largest nations in the world; her population numbers into the hundreds of millions. The desire of her people for centuries has been to cultivate their crops, to rear their children, and to honor their ancestors.
[ p. 64 ]
When Japan attacked, China resembled a great, flabby, potentially powerful man being attacked by a muscular little bully trained to the highest degree. General Stilwell says the Chinese soldier makes a very formidable fighter when he is armed and trained. He is not a coward. But China believed in pacifism. Had it not been for the chain of events that brought England and the United States into the war as her allies, all of China must eventually have been overrun and conquered. Her pacifism rendered her defenseless against a small but aggressive enemy. If anyone wishes to know the fate that the Japs had in store for China, let him read Secret Agent of Japan by Amleto Vespa.
The Japs went into the territory which they were to rename Manchukuo with the avowed purpose of defending innocent citizens against Chinese bandits and Russian outlaws. What they really did was to hire hordes of these bandits and outlaws to do their secret bidding. Their purpose was pillage, corruption, and finally absolute conquest.
The greater part of the Japs living in Manchukuo were of the worst type. They were cutthroats and robbers, keepers of opium dens, houses of prostitution, and gambling joints. Since there were not enough of these people in the province to carry out the diabolical plan of the Japs to render Manchukuo powerless by corruption, more were imported from Japan.
[ p. 65 ]
There were many rich and powerful men in Manchukuo, some Europeans, some Jews, and some Chinese. These must be “reduced.” For this purpose the Japs hired outlaws and bandits to kidnap these men and their sons and hold them for ransom. The kidnapers were always Chinese or Russian, never Japanese, but of the millions of dollars collected in this manner more than half went into the Japanese treasury, for after all “Japan was poor.”
When this state of affairs had gone on for some time, the Lytton Commission of the League of Nations visited Manchukuo and sought to investigate. Vast preparations were made for their coming. More than a thousand persons were arrested because it was thought by the Japs that they might try to tell the whole truth to the Commission.
Bandits and secret agents were posted everywhere. When the Commission arrived, a great show was put on by a “happy people.” The dozen or so honest citizens who tried to get near the Commission to present their side of the story were quickly seized, whisked away, and executed. In spite of all this, the Commission did learn much of the truth, but nothing came of it. The Japs are still in Manchukuo. We can only imagine what life there is like today.
This is the story of a people that chose pacifism as the way to peace. What happened to them is a sample of what every people must expect if it trusts too blindly in the peaceful intentions of its neighbors.
[ p. 66 ]
Another of the national policies that has failed to prevent war is isolationism. Before we entered the present war, millions who believed that we should have no part in the war said: “We are nearly selfsufficient. Goods we must import form only a small fraction of our real needs. Arm? Yes! But let’s stay at home. Let whoever wants to attack us come to America.”
But life is not lived that way. None of the original thirteen colonies could have taken that attitude. No more can we. The world is too small. Sooner or later we should be undermined from within or overwhelmed by a combination of hostile enemies from without.
It is not good that man should live alone. No more is it good or possible for a nation to live alone. With this plan we might have a national peace, but never a world peace. And such a national peace would be dubious and short-lived.
It takes only two nations to start a war. To make and maintain a lasting peace all the nations of the world must co-operate. In the century and a half of its existence, our nation has been drawn into every major war that has occurred anywhere on the globe. This was not because we wanted to go to war. We did not. It was because to stay out of the war was impossible without the sacrifice of certain of our vital interests. Among these interests vital to our [ p. 67 ] own continued safety were the security of those ideals of truth, freedom, justice, righteousness, and all the other virtues in which our civilization is grounded. For us to stand cravenly back and let these civilized values be trampled underfoot anywhere would have been to prepare the seeds of our own eventual destruction as a free and civilized people. In a world as interdependently constituted as ours peace cannot be safe anywhere unless and until it is safe everywhere. To imagine that we can remain an island of peace in a world at war is to imitate the proverbial ostrich. Our own national experience conclusively brands such a policy as utterly fallacious.
The world can no longer afford to treat the problems of war and peace as of minor concern, second in importance to the separate interests of individual nations. That was possible in the past because wars were comparatively limited in their over-all effect. At most they involved the destruction of defeated nations only. Today, war has grown so far-reaching and devastating that it threatens the destruction of civilization itself. To continue playing with the question of war and peace is as dangerous as playing with dynamite. It must be faced seriously and courageously.
Ever since Christ came into the world preaching the gospel of universal peace, that vision has been one of the ideals ever shining before men. But today universal peace is more than a shining ideal. It is a [ p. 68 ] practical necessity. Without it civilization cannot long endure. Peace is the indispensable condition of every other good — economic, political, cultural, or spiritual. We must win the peace this time, for if we do not we may never have another apportunity. Such is the seriousness of our situation.
We must therefore be willing and able to pay the price which lasting peace is going to demand of us. That is the first and most essential lesson we should have learned. Peace is not to be won for the mere asking nor kept for the mere wishing. It can only be had for a price. The price is high, but not too high when weighed against the terrible cost of future wars.
Much is being said and written these days about the sovereignty of nations. Many people are prone to magnify the degree of sovereignty which nations really possess. Not one is completely sovereign. The United States, Great Britain, and Russia are the most powerful nations in the world. But they are not completely masters of their own destinies, as is proved by the fact that they have all been compelled against their own wishes to lay aside the pursuits of peace and to engage in an all-out war. Germany and Japan set out to assert their unlimited sovereignty within their respective spheres. The illusoriness of such a goal is now fully apparent even to them. It should be equally evident to other nations, including our [ p. 69 ] own, whose citizens mistakenly adhere to the outworn concept of unlimited sovereignty.
In the earlier days of the emergence of democratic government, the original idea was to take sovereignty away from one man — king or emperor — and to transfer it to all men — the nation. So far the idea was good, but presently the concept became a mere political dogma. Presently the politicians began to take sovereignty away from the people and wield it very much as had their predecessors, the kings and emperors, and now this fetish of “sovereignty” has become a democratic political religion.
When we give a citizen of a democracy his personal liberty, it is not unqualified. He does not have the right to use it in a way that deprives his fellow citizens of any of their liberties. Some day nations must recognize that their so-called sovereignty does not give them any license to subjugate other people and rob them of their independence.
Individuals in a community are not allowed to live their lives independent of law and order, and no longer can the nations of the earth hope to enjoy a prosperous existence while maintaining this delusion of unlimited sovereignty. In the case of either an individual or a nation, all attempts to live above law can only end in the employment of brute force — in the case of nations, war.
The idea that any nation can enjoy unqualified sovereignty is a political delusion. The manner in [ p. 70 ] which nations are organized, the way men live and carry on at the present time, make it utterly impossible for any nation, no matter how great and strong, to go on entertaining the delusion that it can do just as it pleases and enjoy perfect liberty without recognizing its international obligations, without submitting to the limitations and restrictions of international law.
National sovereignty can be secured only in so far as all nations agree to respect and defend the equal sovereignty of all other nations. No nation, not even our own, can hope to become or remain powerful enough to maintain its own sovereignty without the assistance of other friendly powers. We cannot reasonably expect such assistance for ourselves unless we are willing to extend like assistance to them. That means voluntarily accepting certain limits upon our own national sovereignty. But, since wars such as we are now engaged in impose far greater restrictions upon our sovereignty, we stand to gain more than we lose in the end. Just as individuals gain greater freedom for themselves by voluntarily accepting the necessary restraints of society, so may nations possess greater sovereignty — and possess it more securely — through voluntary association with other peace-loving nations.
A delusion closely related to unlimited sovereignty is extreme nationalism. By this term is meant the [ p. 71 ] tendency to exalt one’s own nation without regard for the rights and well-being of other nations. It asserts itself in such callous utterances as ; “Our nation, may she ever be right — but our nation, right or wrong!” It takes concrete form in policies of national self-sufficiency, high protective tariffs, nonco-operation in matters of international commerce and finance, intolerance of foreign people and their ideas.
A healthy concern for the genuine interests of one’s own nation is one of man’s noblest attributes and every nation is fully justified in nourishing such concern among its citizens by every legitimate means at its disposal. But for any nation — as in the case of Germany and Japan — or any group of individuals — as in the case of certain jingo elements in our own country — to put their own national interests ahead of every consideration of international decency and fairness is not only to dishonor their nation’s reputation for fair play and thereby make enemies, but also to plant the seeds of retaliation and conflict throughout the world. Such a course can lead only to war, not to peace. It has been a cause of war in the past and it will continue to cause war so long as nations persist in pursuing their own interests without due regard for the equal interests of all other nations and peoples.
The conception of nationalism has undergone a great change. It has become a political fetish. A [ p. 72 ] statesman must be possessed of rare courage to stand up and publicly denounce these long-entrenched concepts of nationalism. But that is what more and more of our politicians and statesmen must do before there can be much real progress toward a lasting peace. If a man proclaims himself to be the greatest person on earth, we either ridicule him or lock him up in a state institution; but if this same citizen becomes patriotically intoxicated and goes about shouting that we are the greatest nation on earth, then we applaud him and may even proceed to elect him to high and honored public office.
This false brand of nationalism persists largely because it has never been sensibly attacked. True, the Christian churches on the one hand and numerous labor organizations on the other have sought to promote better international relations, but those efforts have hitherto failed. Today men are confused and heartsick because they do not know how to escape the clutches of entrenched nationalism in their efforts to bring about more satisfactory international relations.
Nationalism, or sovereignty, has really become a sort of pagan god to many peoples. While the fortyeight American states talk about “state sovereignty,” they know it is only in a limited sense that they are sovereign, since these forty-eight states are subordinate in many matters to the Federal government. In this same way must the nations of this world ultimately [ p. 73 ] unite and associate themselves in a global government.
For generations political freedom and human liberty have been safeguarded by the philosophy of democracy and the doctrine of Christianity, but during the past half of a century both of these influences have been diminishing as controlling factors in national behavior and international relations. Political liberalism tended to become political dogma, and Christianity became more and more formalized and institutionalized. For a generation democracy has been sickly; it has not been growing; it has not kept up with the industrial development and mechanical progress of the materialistic world. Referring to this decline of vigilance on the part of libertyloving people, someone has truly said that for two decades “self-government has been slowly committing suicide.”
No longer may the citizens of a democracy stand by complacently while the enemies of democracy openly proclaim their intention to overthrow its machinery and destroy its institutions.
The recent ascendancy of the dictators, from Japan to Germany and Italy, does not in any way presage the downfall of the democracies, but it may very well indicate that the democracies have grown careless of freedom and indifferent to liberty. This international [ p. 74 ] ascendancy of political gangsters does very definitely prove that the democracies have been so preoccupied with their supposed pursuits of peace that they have been unwilling to fight for the preservation of democratic freedom.
Citizens of the democracies have forgotten that democracy is a way of life for which their fathers fought and died in order that they might establish and bequeath it to them. Even too many Americans have failed to recognize that our American way of life is something which had to be established by the sacrifice and devotion of our national fathers; and we must awaken anew to the realization that the citizens of a democracy must ever be on the alert to defend it against attacks from the inside by subversive minorities and from the outside by aggressive conquerors.
We shall have a great many good people against us at the start. These we must convert to our cause by sound reasoning. This has been called the age of reason. Therefore, in this matter we must be guided by reason rather than by our emotions.
We shall also be opposed by many selfish people. More people than we would believe possible are getting a grand time out of the war. Thousands who have earned “big money” during the war will want to go right on. “Why bother with the peace?” they will say. “Let’s build a million homes, manufacture five million cars, have a big financial spree. Give [ p. 75 ] us five years. That’s all we ask. Let us laugh and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” Nothing can be done about these people. They are beyond help.
We shall also be opposed by hordes of selfish politicians loath to give up any part of their powers. Such men as these should never have been elected. Our government will never become permanently effective until it ceases to put ignorant and incompetent individuals in high political offices. Among the earlier health commissioners of Chicago was a livery stable proprietor, but today no man could be health commissioner of this city unless he were a licensed M.D., qualified to practice medicine. Judges are members of the bar ; ministers are in general qualified graduates of theological seminaries; engineers are trained in technological institutions. But our public officials, big and little, are chosen with little regard for their essential qualifications. The time must come, and let us hope it will be soon, when no one will be allowed to take public office who has not been trained in a school of statemanship and administration.
Another of the ideas calling for re-examination is that of self-determination. When the war has been won and men begin to rearrange the map of the world, what factors shall guide them in determining the number of states or nations to be allotted space on that map?
[ p. 76 ]
Previous to World War I the position of small states, such as Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland, was fairly secure. In settling the political and economic problems of the continents, they were largely ignored. In case of war they were considered to be neutrals.
The first World War changed all that. At the very beginning Germany violated the neutrality of Belgium. Belgium with her tiny army fought back and helped save Paris. Later Greece was invaded. Other small countries were induced to take sides in that war. Now no one expects the small states to remain neutral unless they choose to do so. Everyone knows how difficult it has been for Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, and Turkey to maintain their neutrality in this war.
After World War I peace was made, and President Wilson had a great deal to do with that. He began with the declaration that “Every people has a right to choose the sovereignty under which they shall live.” (Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson: The New Democracy, page 187.)
What Wilson apparently meant was that a group of people speaking a common language and having common customs might say: “We wish to be independent.” If they did say this, he held that they should be allowed to form an independent state.
Wilson did not know that in Eastern Europe the matter of a common tongue and common customs did [ p. 77 ] not entirely determine the natural boundaries of a state. Indeed, quite the opposite. Yet he and his associates made the boundaries fit the language which populations spoke, so much so that a contemporary historian called the new political frontiers of Europe “Wilsonian,” So carefully drawn were these frontiers that, of the total population of the continent, only three per cent lived under alien rule. In the view of this historian, no previous European frontiers had been so satisfactory, judged by the test of self-determination.
(It is almost tragic to contemplate how President Wilson so blundered in this matter of self-determination when he well knew that the civil war had been waged in his own country for the express purpose of denying self-determination to the states of the Southern Confederacy. Every state in the American Union has been finally and forever denied the right of self-determination.)
But by the test of time and experience, those frontiers have not been satisfactory. Hitler of course exaggerated his account of conditions when he attacked small nations on the ground that they were unfair to his German minorities within their borders. Still there are far too many small states. They are ignored economically, are unable to protect themselves, and in time of war become pawns for large nations to push about. In the interests of world peace the number of small nations must be reduced.
[ p. 78 ]
Wilson appears to have erred in his premises, for as Carr points out (Conditions of Peace, page 50) “There can be no absolute right of self-determination any more than there can be an absolute right to do as one pleases in a democracy.”
There was a time when England, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland were all independent states. And many wars were the result. Now a Scotchman remains a Scotchman, a Welshman a Welshman, and an Englishman an Englishman, but they all have the same king and fight under the same flag. They have gained much and lost little by uniting.
As Carr says, “Men may determine themselves into larger as readily as into smaller units.” (Conditions of Peace, page 63. ) It seems probable that when the war is over and peace is being made, the peace council will this time endeavor to persuade the smaller nations either to regroup themselves into larger states or join themselves to larger states already formed.
There can be no lasting peace so long as unlimited sovereignty, extreme nationalism, imperialism, and unrealistic ideas of self-determination continue to govern the foreign policies of nations. Some better basis for international relations must be instituted if there is to be an end to war.
As in many other matters, it seems probable that much of the groundwork for these changes can be done by the personal representatives of Great Britain, [ p. 79 ] Russia, and the United States, even before the final complete victory is won.
Experience is the best teacher, provided men and nations are willing to adapt their practices to an everchanging world.
Disarmament will not prevent war. The relative disarmament following the first World War proves that effective disarmament in the future will be a result of peace rather than a cause.
Imperialism failed to bring peace. No people ever willingly submit to being ruled by other nations. Equality of armament is a delusion.
Pacifism failed to bring peace. There are other supreme values besides peace, such as truth, justice, liberty, and righteousness. There can be no lasting peace that does not also guarantee these other values.
China illustrates the fate of a truly pacifist nation. She was helpless against Japanese military aggression. The horrible fate of Manchukuo testifies eloquently to the folly of depending on peaceful intentions.
Isolationism also failed to prevent war. From the first World War to the second, America was predominantly isolationist. Nevertheless, we are in this war. It takes only two nations to start a war. To make and maintain a lasting peace all nations must cooperate.
[ p. 80 ]
The global wars of today threaten the very existence of civilization. Peace is no longer just an ideal, it has become a necessity if civilization is to endure.
The idea of unlimited sovereignty is a delusion. All nations are more or less interdependent. No citizen of a democracy has unqualified liberty. He must equally respect the liberties of all other citizens.
The individual cannot live his life independent of law and order. Neither can nations go on forever ignoring the demands of international law and order. National sovereignty is secure only in so far as all nations agree to respect and defend the equal sovereignty of all other nations.
Extreme nationalism must give way to the recognition of the equal rights of other nations, and to international good will and co-operation. Nationalism has become a political fetish. As the forty-eight so-called sovereign states delegate certain powers to the Federal government, so must the nations of earth delegate certain powers to the international government.
Democracy and Christianity have failed to safeguard political freedom and human liberty. Christianity has become institutionalized, and for two decades self-government has been slowly but certainly committing suicide.
The ascendancy of dictators proves that the democracies have been so preoccupied with the pursuit of peace that they have been unwilling to fight for the preservation of freedom.
[ p. 81 ]
The plans for permanent peace will be opposed by greedy profiteers and selfish politicians, and many good people who are wholly ignorant of what democracy has cost.
The political officeholders of the future should be graduates of schools of statesmanship.
Self-determination is a fallacy when applied to every tiny nation on the face of the earth. The mistakes along this line made at the end of World War I must not be repeated.
There can be no lasting peace so long as unlimited sovereignty, extreme nationalism, imperialism, and unrealistic ideas of self-determination continue to govern the foreign policies of nations.