[ p. 82 ]
CAN there be anyone left in the world who still doubts that war is sheer madness and must eventually be abolished if civilization is not to go down in ruin? When we contemplate the awful carnage of modern warfare and weigh its appalling cost against the blessings of peace, how can we balk at paying any price within reason and honor that the future of civilization may demand?
The terrible conflict now being waged holds forth one hope which could make all the bloodshed, suffering, and destruction worth while. That hope is that out of this frightful experience the world will have learned enough to make future global wars impossible. Certainly some grounds exist for such a hope.
The political, social, and industrial machinery of all Europe and even Asia has been so thoroughly broken up and disintegrated that the victors in the present war will possess an unparalleled opportunity for world reorganization. The chance will be theirs to make a fresh start in the resettlement of the age-old problems responsible for past wars. The United Nations are confronted with the challenge to create a new world order in which the mechanisms of peace will supplant the mechanisms of war.
[ p. 83 ]
As we try to picture the period immediately following the end of the war, we know the whole world must stand appalled at the destruction that is being wrought — cities in ruins, homes destroyed, a great part of the youth of the present generation killed or maimed for life, victor and vanquished alike so heavily in debt that our children for generations to come must groan under the burden of taxes. This is the picture that we shall face. There can be but one sane conclusion: “This must never happen again.” All the world will be praying for peace.
When the war is over, it will be the old story of “those that have, and those that have not,” but this time those that have must not wrap their arms about what they have and say, “These things are ours and ours alone.” The need will be too great. We shall all be in the position of the citizens of a community that has been devastated by a cyclone. They ask one another, “What have you that I can use until I get on my feet again? And what can I give you?”
All nations are painfully aware of the extent to which they are interdependent, one upon another, for the necessities of civilized existence, for progress in civilization, for security, and for peace. The airplane, the radio, the increased knowledge of geography, the widening contacts with other peoples and races — all these will contribute to a realization that this is indeed “one world,” and that we must all [ p. 84 ] find a way to get along in it if we are to continue to exist.
Year by year, the speed with which we travel has dwarfed our world. If we may eat breakfast at home and dinner with another in his home, that person is our neighbor even though he be two thousand miles away. And we must treat him as a neighbor, not as a total stranger whom we may legitimately seek to outwit in a business deal or allow to starve while we live only for ourselves. Not alone travel, but radio, moving pictures — all modern improvements — have brought men and nations closer together. All mankind is but one large family.
Abraham Lincoln once aptly remarked that in his day the United States had reached that place where it could no longer continue “half slave and half free.” The facilities of communication, the acceleration of travel, have reached that place in the world’s history where no longer can the world go on “half slave and half free.”
But the members of any family must be possessed of a generous spirit. Toys that are not shared are often destroyed by those who have none. We have more “toys” than any other nation in the world — more automobiles and more airplanes, more radios, moving-picture machines, refrigerators, sewing machines, and vacuum cleaners. A hundred years ago we did without these things. Most parts of the world do without them still. We must manage somehow [ p. 85 ] to help these other parts of the world enjoy the same benefits of civilization that we do.
It is not a matter of giving but of trading. And that is harder than giving. We must send real experts into many countries, not to see how much money can be made, but to show all these people how to produce more goods for their own enjoyment as well as for exchange with us for the things they want and need. If we do not approach all these postwar problems in a spirit of fairness, if not altruism, we must in the end fail, and the price will be another devastating global war. We must never forget that greed, suspicion, jealousy, and hate are destructive agencies. They destroy not only their objects but those who harbor them as well.
We must never forget that this war came after a period of severe depression. When the hopes and aspirations of mankind were at low ebb, a few selfish and half-mad leaders of three nations said to the military cliques of those nations, “See! Democracy is dead. The citizens of the democratic nations are soft. They no longer believe in the doctrines of freedom and peace. Come ! We will attack them. They will be bowled over like tenpins ! Then we shall rule the world.”
Democracy was not dead; it was only sleeping. Those men now know this all too well. We have [ p. 86 ] every reason to hope that after the war is over and we can take a long, free breath again, there will be a reflowering of democratic ideas and practices such as the world has never known. France will again believe in the democratic way of life. Italy is almost sure to join in. A united China will become one of the greatest and most powerful republics the world has ever known. The Soviet Union is now moving rapidly toward democracy. It is to be hoped that this war has but burned the dross away from the democratic spirit that has always been in the hearts of English-speaking peoples the world over. If this be true, then the war will not have been waged in vain.
The victory of the United Nations will go far toward restoring the supremacy of democratic principles, international law, truth, fair dealing, and friendship. A new appreciation of the value of such things will tend to replace the cynicism that preceded this war. The world will see more need of wise co-operation to preserve them.
To America the year 1944 will be the “zero hour.” This much has been promised by our practical, straight-thinking leaders. Many a gold service star will shine on the breast of a saddened mother when 1944 is done. The whole world will long for lasting peace as it has never longed before. If only this powerful emotion can be guided into proper channels, the gains will be great. It must not be shunted off [ p. 87 ] into sentimental pacifism or self-defeating isolationism. Instead, it must be guided into realistic thinking and acting.
If a workable plan for lasting peace can be mapped out — and we believe it can — now is the time to map it. And the time for presenting it is not after the war, but now. Emery Reves states it this way (Reader’s Digest, January, 1943) : “Always in history, great revolutionary changes take place during wars. We must act now, during the present war, because no military victory can give us the guarantee that it will create a reasonable world. It was one of the great tragedies of our time that the democratic nations and the democratic governments did not grasp — and still do not grasp — the fact that a gigantic political struggle is going on, of which the military war is merely one symptom.”
We have been told that at the end of World War I, our soldiers, even though they came as conquerors, were given as cordial a welcome by the plain working people of Germany — who never really knew what the war was about anyway — as they were by the people of France. We dare believe that this was because in every American’s breast there abides a spirit of love, peace, and good will, breathed into him by the air of a free land.
This spirit is not dead today. If every smiling Yank who marches into any conquered territory, be it enemy territory or the lands of nations overrun and [ p. 88 ] enslaved by the enemy, carries in his pocket and his brain a workable plan for lasting peace, we shall have millions of missionaries for peace. This, in the end, must become a veritable crusade for peace. And if ever the world was ripe for a real crusade, it is now.
Day by day, with rising wonder and consternation, we watch the mounting costs of this war. One authority estimates that at the end of the war the total debts of the United Nations will be more than five hundred billion dollars, and that aside from the loss of life the total cost will exceed the united wealth of the Axis nations. To say five hundred billions of dollars conveys no message to us. It is too huge a sum to think of with understanding and intelligence. One thing is sure, a debt of that magnitude cannot be cut down to reasonable size in a single generation without unusual, perhaps unbearable, sacrifices by every man, woman, and child.
And this is not all. The “scorched earth” policy has aided us in defeating the enemy, but the homes, the farms, the cities that have been “scorched” are for the most part United Nations’ farms, homes, and cities. Century-old homes, very dear to their owners, have been destroyed. So too have ancient churches and cathedrals. Rare and ancient objects of art, paintings, sculptures, whole libraries, and great colleges [ p. 89 ] have gone up in smoke. Shall we see this in our own land in some later global war? God forbid ! We must have peace!
There is much encouragement in a close study of the setup of the United Nations. For your study I recommend two inexpensive volumes : The United Nations, What They Are, and The United Nations On the Way (World Citizens Association).
It may well be — indeed, it seems entirely likely — that around this organization of our United Nations will be erected our first edifice for lasting peace. Certain it is that they already have within their ranks nations powerful enough to carry through any plans for peace they choose to undertake, provided only that they remain united to the war’s end, and, more important still, after the war is over.
Russia, Great Britain, the United States, and China, four strong nations already associated with some twenty others, make a powerful array. And their ranks are swelling — will swell more and more as the enslaved peoples are freed.
The United Nations began co-operating before the United States was in the war, when Roosevelt and Churchill met to draw up the Atlantic Charter. Later they put forward the “Four Freedoms” as a sort of “International Declaration of Independence.” As against the Axis nations’ declaration for absolute despotic power over all men, they declared that every human individual has a right to: “Freedom of [ p. 90 ] speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.” These form a broad, far-reaching program. Though they include much, for the time being each individual man may interpret their meaning as he thinks best, but above all, they do mean that he is to be free.
Time has seen the bond between the United Nations immeasurably strengthened. Each conference has offered its stout strand to strengthen that bond. We have been told little about what was decided at Cairo by Churchill, Roosevelt, and Chiang Kai-shek, and even less of the decisions reached at Teheran. But we are sure that in these two conferences the bond between those nations was so strengthened that it will last till the war’s victorious end. The Axis powers know this, and tremble.
For the moment, the United Nations are pooling their resources for the gigantic struggle that lies ahead. Every furnace, every motor, every farm and mine, every ounce of power belonging to any of these nations is now the property of all, to be used on the soil of the nation that for the moment needs it most. There is no thought of “This is mine,” “That is yours,” “This you will pay for, and I shall pay for that.” More than half the population of the world has for the time being formed itself into an international organization dedicated to a common cause, the defeat of the enemies of mankind and the preservation of civilization.
[ p. 91 ]
It is very possible that these same United Nations may be considerably augmented by the nations that are beginning to see the light. They may be welded into a great machine for the preservation of the future peace. However, this depends upon several factors.
One must not forget that the world is now in the midst of a great conflagration. At such times, men, and even whole nations, may rise to great heights. We have but to recall the heroism and fortitude of the civilian population of London during their trial by bombing. War changes our psychology, but it does not stay changed. It is quite inevitable and not at all wrong that we should, to a degree at least, fall back into our former ways after the danger is past — and the way of no nation is perfect.
We must consider some of the problems involved, but first, even before our war psychology has begun to drop like scales from our eyes, we must consider the peace we are to make with our enemies.
To begin with, the peace must be just, if anyone Can be found who knows what is just. There is little we can do to make the enemy realize the futility and wickedness of war. With their cities in ruins, their sons slain, their leaders discredited, they will be reminded of all war’s horrors often enough.
Shall we ask reparations? Considering that the damage done has been more than their total wealth, [ p. 92 ] and that their own cities are in ruins, there is probably little they could do. But what they can do, they should be compelled to do, as token reparation for the great and needless devastation they have wrought upon other nations.
There should be no thought of revenge in the settlement. If the German people, especially the children, are hungry, we should feed them, and certainly should not, as in the last war, maintain our blockade for months after the end of the struggle.
For the good of all the people of the enemy nations as well as for that of the rest of the world, we should demand that their paranoid and criminal leaders appear before a just tribunal, by which they should be punished or executed in accordance with their just deserts.
When all this has been done, and when their arms have been melted into the instruments of peace and their military clique absorbed into honest occupations, we should do all in our power to see that these nations are prepared in the shortest possible time to take their rightful places in the world of commerce and industry, with but one restriction — that they live up to the rules of fair play and honest trade.
In the marking of boundaries and the forming of federations, concessions by all parties will have to be made. The small nations will not be the only ones [ p. 93 ] to make concessions. If after the war China feels that Hongkong should be given back to her in return, perhaps, for payment made to the British for their improvement of the island, Britain may be called upon to comply. If the Dutch East Indies ask to be made a republic, something will need to be done about that; and Russia may have to make some real concessions in regard to her boundary lines.
Will the large nations as well as the small accept sacrifices in the name of peace? If not, then the name United Nations must become only a memory after the war is over, and some other organization must be formed for the promotion of lasting peace.
The settlement of boundary questions and the rights of minorities and small nations must be carried out in a spirit of fairness to all but with due regard for the imperative need of stability and peace. Not every claim of every minority or nation can be allowed, since many of them conflict one with another and with the need for peace. There must be adjustment and compromise, plus a willingness on the part of all to accept some sacrifice in the interest of peace.
Quite as vital as the forming of the postwar boundaries and the regrouping of states will be the changes that must’ be made in our manner of handling trade and commerce. There are many people who believe that one important cause of these world wars has been the sharp practices indulged in by the traders and shippers of great nations.
[ p. 94 ]
All this must come to an end. There must be some peaceable arrangement for the fair division of trade and for the distribution of raw materials. If all this trading were done on a twenty-mile square tract of land by honest and peace-loving men, no insurmountable difficulties would be encountered. The handling of the commerce of the seven seas is not quite so simple as that, but it can and must be worked out by wise, clear-thinking, and honest men.
There must be an increasing measure of economic justice both within and among nations. Within nations more attention must be given to the accomplishment of better standards of living, health, and education. Doing this will remove much of the discontent that renders whole populations sympathetic with violence and war. Among nations, fairer access to the raw materials and markets of the world must be promoted. This means lowering tariff and exchange barriers and gradually eliminating obstacles to trade, whatever their source.
In the world of the future, gigantic military armaments of single nations must be slowly but surely reduced, and more and more they will have to yield precedence to armed forces belonging to the whole world, to which all nations contribute their fair quota of men and fighting machines.
All this sounds almost Utopian, but it is not impossible, and we should like to see these same United Nations that are fighting this war so magnificently [ p. 95 ] undertake the herculean task of organizing the postwar world and of maintaining peace therein. They have done such a wonderful job of sticking together and fighting side by side that we have high hopes of their succeeding in this other field — the winning of a permanent peace.
Hoover has pointed out (Problems of Lasting Peace, page 248) that “the sole possessor or possessors of military air power could stop anyone from going to war. And international action to enforce peace would be enormously simplified.” He goes on to say that nonmilitary planes are now so different in design from military types that they would not be effective in air battles.
Perhaps the assigning of military planes exclusively to our international police force dedicated to peace may in the end be the answer. For the present, however, one finds it difficult to picture Stalin, Churchill, Chiang Kai-shek, or even Roosevelt agreeing to such a revolutionary proposal; so perhaps that will have to wait. But in all these discussions we must not forget that before the war nations were spending the staggering sum of twenty billion dollars annually for national defense. In time, humanity must be relieved of this awful load, plus the five-hundred-billion-dollar global war debt, or be utterly crushed. When the order sounds, “Cease firing!” we will truly be standing at the crossroads.
[ p. 96 ]
There must be a greatly increased willingness to co-operate in the settlement of international problems. The habit of trying to settle such disagreements merely on the basis of superior force must give way to their solution by negotiation and arbitration. In other words, the ideal of international law and justice must come to prevail in the affairs of nations. The anarchy which has heretofore reigned must be replaced by the rule of law and order.
Attitudes of friendship and good will must gradually gain the ascendancy over those of suspicion, rivalry, and hate. “It is in the hearts of men that the foundations of peace must be laid,” says King Gustav of Sweden.
Very often, after war, when men’s souls have been attuned to fear and hate for years, some type of spiritual revival sweeps over a nation, or even the entire world. Some such revival may come after this war. There are indications of this even now.
Should this revival spend itself in a spontaneous outburst of religious emotion that burns out like a red flare, it will do little good. Should it, on the other hand, be definitely connected up with those high spiritual values, truth, justice, righteousness, and peace, men will have found something fine and inspiring to live for, and will gladly make the sacrifices necessary and exert the energy needed to over [ p. 97 ] come the evil forces that lead to war. Whether the old religions can supply the spiritual power which the world so badly needs depends upon whether they will take up the job of leading men rather than following them.
We have been assuming thus far that the whole setup of the United Nations may be carried over bodily into peacetime, and that it alone will be able to solve all the peacetime problems. But let us realize that the reverse may be true. It is possible that the statesmen who are doing such a fine job of conducting the war are so close to this titanic struggle that their eyes are blinded to the problems of peace. Mad vers, in his book Towards an Abiding Peace, suggests that this may have been, in part, the trouble with the peace settlement after World War I. Those who sat down at the peace table had only just left the war table. They had been constantly in contact with ofiicers whose business it was to make war, and they were unable to see clearly what the problems of peace really were.
This same thing may be true of the United Nations’ leaders. We may find it expedient to select others for this new task, or we may at least wish to bring some new faces to the peace table.
Even if all the people in all lands should have the best will in the world regarding permanent peace, we cannot have real peace without the necessary machinery to make it function. It is as if we were [ p. 98 ] starting to establish law and order in a rough Alaskan mining camp. All the people may desire law and order except a few gangsters and gamblers, but there can be no law and order until a leader has been chosen, officers of the law employed, and courts set up. The enforcement of peace will require an armed force, drawn from all participating states, and the establishment of some form of court of arbitration to settle all disputes. Even the most favorable conditions cannot avail unless they are implemented with appropriate institutions to put that will into effect.
These institutions must be grounded in reality. They cannot be artificial creations without roots in the actual lives of nations and peoples. We must start from where we are, not from where we wish we were. Let us not make the mistake of trying to reach the millenium of perfect world order in one sudden leap. We must be content to make progress slowly.
In some way or other leaders of each state must be chosen to assist in working out the rules that shall govern action. These rules should be simple in form, with, for the moment, but one purpose in mind — the establishment of permanent peace. There should be some manner of passing on each delegation. Each group should truly represent the people of its state.
The type of world order which should follow this war will not be created by pacts, treaties, pacifist [ p. 99 ] leagues, or even by the sincere efforts of vsrell-meaning idealists. It can be brought into immediate existence only by military power, and it will be made permanently strong and effective by the new and global sovereignty of international law, backed up by an international police force, which will always be mobilized, ready on an instant’s notice in case a national gangster challenges the peace of nations.
It is highly significant that in a large municipality the policemen and the sheriff are referred to as “peace officers.” When war is once brought under control of international authority, the international police forces will then be properly known as “peace armies.”
The idea of equality of armament is a military delusion. What would we think of the mayor of Chicago if he were to advocate that every criminal should carry a gun of the same caliber as that carried by the policemen? Any sane person knows that the right procedure is to arm the police with the best weapons obtainable and at the same time, as far as possible, to prevent the criminal underworld from obtaining weapons of any kind. How straight the average citizen can think about these matters of armament, war, and peace as they concern the equities of local police power 1 Why must we think so loosely and illogically about providing an international police power?
This is what it all sums up to : The only way we can prevent illegal wars — which now bring us a world [ p. 100 ] war every twenty-five years — is to be adequately prepared and ready to act instantly when it is necessary to fight a legal war — a war to prevent illegal wars of aggression.
Permanent and abiding peace will not come to this mundane sphere in a thousand years unless we get ready and stay ready to fight for it. As someone has said: “Real peace will be established on that day when the first international military force moves against some social outlaw who has dared to violate international law.”
The money cost of the international policing of the world for fifty years would be no more than the United States is spending on World War II, to say nothing of the saving in human life.
If the majority of the civilized peoples really want to abolish war, why don’t they do it? The answer is that it is not so simple as that. It might be helpful if we paused long enough to ask the question — what is war? If we look upon war as a nonlegalized outbreak of human hostility, as an expression of pent-up cumulative emotions of hate and revenge, then war will never be wholly abolished any more than civilized communities have been able wholly to do away with individual crime.
But civilized communities have very definitely outlawed crime, and by means of laws, courts, and a more or less efficient police force, they are able to minimize it — gradually to reduce it.
[ p. 101 ]
But there is another way of looking at war — at the sociology and psychology of strife between nations. When we study murder, we immediately discover that there are two views of the taking of human life. We very quickly diflferentiate between the criminal who kills a man for robbery and the sheriff who later executes this condemned murderer in obedience to a judgment of the criminal court. It is true that both the robber and the sheriff are equally guilty, from the biologic standpoint, of taking a human life, but there is a great difference in their guilt from the social and moral standpoints.
And so we must, perforce, recognize two kinds of wars. First, there are the criminal aggressions, wars that are wholly predatory and unjustified. Second, there are wars which are just and legal, which represent the defense of a well-ordered and lawabiding nation against such criminal aggressors. Again it is conceivable that a group of nations or a world league of nations might engage in war for purely peace purposes, with the sole object of preventing the waging of illegal and predatory wars by criminal or aggressor nations.
When work is begun on plans for peace institutions, every effort should be made to keep them so simple that everyone will understand them. Complex schemes must be avoided.
[ p. 102 ]
There must be complete understanding by the people who comprise the population of every nation. Russians do not think in exactly the same manner as Americans. This has been demonstrated time and again during the course of the war, yet we have gotten on very well. The people of the South American republics do not think as do the Chinese, and so on down the entire list.
There should be no haste. Wars take a long time. While we may plan for peace during war, we can patiently wait upon the execution of such plans. Time is on our side. After a great and terrible war, the most heartless warmongers could not induce the people of any nation of consequence to go to war again inside of ten years, or perhaps fifteen. We have much time before us. Let there be no “Yankee Imperialism,” or British and Russian imperialism either, at the peace table. Let every delegation be heard. Then we can be sure that we are in a position to understand and respect the institutions and ideology of every state and shall be able to help our plans take root in the very soil of their lands.
A program worked out in this manner is not likely to be so drawn up that it will result in meddling with the purely domestic affairs of any nation. And it must not! Local and national ties are too deeply rooted in men’s hearts to be lightly changed or disregarded. They will have to be taken into consideration in all our thinking and planning for peace. [ p. 103 ] National traditions, languages, and culture must be preserved. Only such institutions and habits are to be altered as lead more toward war than peace. Imperialism, absolute sovereignty, and all forms of national hatred must go.
International machinery must be founded upon and rise above these sound national institutions. Stronger organs of world government will grow as rapidly as men and nations see the benefits to be gained from them.
The world organization when it comes should have sovereignty in the field of international relations. Nations should join the organization voluntarily, but a “committee of the whole” should have power to pass on the delegates from all new member nations. The committee’s decision should not be purely an arbitrary one, and should never be based on prejudice. Its prime purpose should be to determine whether or not the delegates are true representatives of their states, and that they have not obtained their appointment by treachery or force.
A world organization to function in the interest of peace must be endowed with all the attributes of good government: a legislative, an executive, and a judicial branch; a constitution and bill of rights; independent police and taxing power, and symbols of authority, allegiance, and citizenship. Moreover, it must be democratically organized, guaranteeing fair treatment to both large and small nations.
[ p. 104 ]
The economic and political chaos resulting from the present global war makes it possible for the United Nations to make a fresh start — to substitute mechanisms of peace for those of war.
As this war ends, there can be but one attitude: “This must never happen again.” All nations must learn to be good neighbors.
While democracy slumbered, the dictators attacked. But a reborn democratic spirit will presently extend to all nations.
While the war yet rages is the time to prepare for lasting peace. Every Yankee invader should be a crusader for permanent peace. And the world is ripe for just such a crusade.
A United Nations war debt of five hundred billion dollars, together with the scorched earth and our devastated cities, cries long and loud for peace — permanent peace.
The United Nations — especially Great Britain, the United States, Russia, and China — oflfer us the greatest hope for the immediate achievement of permanent peace.
In time of war let us prepare for peace — a just, fair, and workable peace — a permanent peace.
The paranoid and criminal leaders of the aggressor nations should be brought to trial before international courts. Those adjudged guilty must be properly punished.
[ p. 105 ]
Permanent peace involves economic, political, and geographic concessions by all nations. Higher standards of living are indispensable.
Gradually national armament will be reduced as the international police force assumes jurisdiction over world-wide peace enforcement. National war budgets will be enormously reduced by the functioning of the international police force.
There are two kinds of war — legal and illegal. Preparedness to wage a legal war will doom the illegal wars of aggression.
The settlement of international problems by war must give way to settlement by negotiation and arbitration — juridicial techniques.
But what this old world needs most of all is a genuine spiritual revival — that would indeed give life to any plan for permanent peace.
Our reason for postponing the conference on permanent peace is that those who wage war are not always best suited to planning for lasting peace.
Real peace will be established on that day when .the first international military force moves against some social outlaw who has dared to violate international law.
And no plan for permanent peace is going to work unless proper machinery is provided wherewith it may function effectively.
While we plan for peace during the war, we can patiently await the full execution of such plans. [ p. 106 ] Time is required to recover from our war psychology.
We can build a practical international mechanism of permanent peace without doing any violence to racial ties or national loyalties.
Only those practices will be altered which are war breeders. Imperialism, absolute sovereignty, and all forms of national hatred must go.
Our peace structure must be erected on the foundation of the best that is to be found in all nations.
The world government will exercise sovereignty in the field of international relations. It will embrace executive, legislative, judicial, and law-enforcement agencies. It will have a constitution and be democratically organized.