[ p. 107 ]
WE COME now to consideration in more detail of institutions in the past that have made for peace and those that now appear to be shaping up for the future. We shall endeavor to discover, if we can, why former plans have, in part at least, failed. We shall want to know, if know we can, what chances there are for the future.
After the first World War the League of Nations was formed. Under its banner many nations united, hopeful of obtaining world peace. This League had a long, elaborate plan, but the only manner in which it could enforce its decisions was by applying sanctions. That is, if a member nation committed an unwarranted act of aggression, other nations could refuse to supply her with food, arms and other munitions of war, or perhaps to trade with her at all.
When Italy marched into Ethiopia on her way to world conquest, severe sanctions were applied, but this merely angered the Italian dictator and made him more determined than ever to establish his New Roman Empire.
Had the League of Nations been possessed at this critical moment of a well-armed force of fifty thousand men, and had it been possessed of the unity and [ p. 108 ] courage required to place these men in the path of Mussolini’s marching legions, doubtless the “New Roman Empire” would not have come into being. That same force could perhaps have stopped Hitler’s first tentative move for greater power. The League, using only sanctions, failed.
Organization of the League of Nations was not all in vain. In some respects it pointed the way. What we now propose is that after the present war is won, an organization of all peace-loving nations shall be formed. These nations will unite in a solemn covenant to insure lasting peace, whatever the cost. Furthermore, we propose that each nation shall contribute its quota of men to an armed force strong enough to enforce peace all over the world.
Many shadows hung over the League of Nations from the start. At the end of the present war we must try to get out from beneath any such shadows. One of these was the fact that although a League of Nations in various forms had been conceived by the leaders of many nations — the United States, Britain, France, and even Germany — until the conference that brought it into being was called together, no common agreement had been reached. Delegates came to the conference with all manner of ideas, and some with private grievances. “The French proposed an international police, the Italians [ p. 109 ] an international legislature and an economic commission to supervise the supply of food and raw materials. The United States and Great Britain joined in opposition to these ideas. Some delegates urged compulsory arbitration, others would have none of it. Wilson wanted the Germans admitted at once, the French refused. The Japanese, rankling over the exclusion of their nationals from immigration to the United States and British Dominions, pressed for a declaration of racial equality and were defeated by Anglo-American resistance.” (Post-War Worlds, P. E. Corbett, page 13.)
It is little wonder that a covenant entered upon under such conditions was imperfect. To include everything that was wanted by some and that could be agreed upon by all made the covenant too long, and yet left out much that should have been included.
The League was born amid the haste and confusion of the Peace Conference. Everyone was in a hurry. War was over: Hurry! Throw away your rifle! Grab a plow handle! Get your family together! Let’s settle down, get back to business, forget the war! This was the spirit of the times. Who could think clearly and with unbiased judgment at such a time? No one! And no one did. Here we find reason enough for our leaving a breathing spell between the day on which the war ends and the one on which we enter upon the greatest task man has ever undertaken — establishing permanent peace.
[ p. 110 ]
At President Wilson’s insistence, the Covenant of the League of Nations was tied up with the peace treaties. Since the settlement was viewed by many as unjust, the League was certain to be looked upon by many with suspicion.
Yet in spite of all this — the League got on well enough for a considerable time. It helped settle boundary disputes between Finland and Sweden, and another between Greece and Bulgaria. It assisted in settling many minor boundary quarrels in the Balkans and helped prevent hostilities between Poland and her neighbors. It kept a watchful eye on the mandated islands, and arranged for loans to Austria and Hungary when they were in financial straits.
Besides all this, the League went in for social reforms. It broke up international “dope” rings, checked the white-slave trade, and assisted in labor reforms. But this was all small stuff, accomplished during the years of plenty that followed the war. Worse was to come. And how was the League to meet these crises?
When two Italians working on the boundary between Albania and Greece were murdered, Italy demanded unreasonable amends. Greece agreed to submit the matter to arbitration by the League, and Italy responded by bombarding the city of Corfu, killing fifteen citizens, and then occupied the town with a military force.
[ p. 111 ]
Italy was not penalized for this breach of peace, and in the end, the entire case was settled in her favor. In this, the League showed the weakness of its hand. The Covenant gave the League the privilege of advising as to the desirability of member nations sending armed forces to stop an aggressor, but had no force at hand to do the job. In such a situation the League was helpless.
In 1935 the League was given an opportunity to retrieve lost ground. On the flimsy pretense of a dispute over boundaries, Italy launched an attack on Ethiopia. The Assembly of the League condemned this as an act of aggression. Fifty-one nations joined in applying sanctions, but unfortunately, the nations that were in the best position to make the sanctions effective — France and Great Britain — were reluctant to participate. In her fear of Germany, France had made a deal with Mussolini whereby France agreed to wink at his exaggerated claims against Haile Selassie provided he would exert his influence to keep Hitler in hand. So France was lax in applying sanctions.
Mussolini shook his armed fist at Great Britain. British statesmen were unwilling to be drawn into a fight at that time. Canada joined in, refusing to apply sanctions on shipments of oil, and so, with very little interference, Mussolini got his New Roman Empire, and as a force for preventing war, the League ceased to count.
[ p. 112 ]
The truth is that the League was badly launched. With one large power — the United States — never in the organization, and two others — Germany and Russia — now in and now out of the League, it had little chance of success.
At present, as someone has said, “the league is in a state of suspended animation.” After this war ends, shall we pull the League down from the clouds? This seems hardly worth the effort. A new assembly of nations with a simpler pact, administered by a real organization and backed by force of arms, will give us far greater assurance that the job of keeping peace among the nations will be done.
It has been proposed that all English-speaking states be joined into an Anglo-American Federal Union. This would include the United States, Great Britain, Eire, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.
This proposed union would mean a central government with sufficient power to control military and international affairs. Other democratic states would be invited to join, but for the time being at least the union would be comprised of the AngloAmerican nations.
There is much to be said for such a union. Certainly the English-speaking nations have a great deal more in common than have any other group of nations [ p. 113 ] that could be brought together. They are united by language, religion, history, culture, political institutions, and a common interest in international law and order. Together they control the world’s sea lanes, which are so important to the preservation of the peace. And they are also likely to control most of the world’s air lanes following the war. All these common interests provide a very substantial basis for the organization of the coming peace.
A union of the English-speaking countries would perpetuate the combination of military and naval strength that is proving so invincible in war. Such a preponderance of power under one control could go a long way toward preserving peace and preventing war, especially if it were always employed in the interest of international justice.
However, the plan has many serious drawbacks which have to be considered. In the first place, while it is true that this group of nations have many things in common, they also have many important differences which tend to offset all the advantages. Great Britain is a monarchy, whereas the United States has no place in its traditions for kings and hereditary nobility. Moreover, there are psychological differences which stand in the way of the complete merging of interests that would be necessary to hold the nations together in years of peace.
A serious handicap also exists in the tremendous distances that separate the various members of this [ p. 114 ] group. Although modern means of travel and communication go a long way toward overcoming this handicap, the fact still is and will long remain that nations so widely scattered have great difficulty in acting as a political unit. The problems of government alone would raise tremendous difficulties, as the peacetime efforts at a centralized government of the British Commonwealth of Nations amply prove.
Related to this objection is the fact that a union of the widely scattered English-speaking nations would ignore the paramount importance of geographical and economic regions. From a regional point of view Great Britain has more in common with the nations of Europe than with the United States. A similar statement might be made about all the other nations with the exception of the United States and Canada. A union of the Anglo-American countries would cut across regional lines and to a very considerable degree contradict the facts of geography. It may be seriously doubted whether any organization which did that would have much chance of permanent success.
But the most serious objection of all is that as a step toward lasting peace such a union would almost certainly defeat its purpose. The existence of so powerful a combination of states, no matter how pacific its purpose, would prove a constant source of anxiety and distrust to other large nations, such as Russia, China, Germany, and the countries of [ p. 115 ] Latin America. Sooner or later these other nations would be drawn together in a rival combination designed to offset the power of the first combination. There would thus be created anew all the conditions that make for war. In such a conflict our side would be at a tremendous disadvantage because of our scattered situation.
Everything considered therefore, the plan to bring the English-speaking countries into a federal union can hardly be regarded as a serious proposal for world peace. It might indeed avert war for a considerable number of years, but only until the other nations of the world accumulated sufficient occasions for jealousy and resentment and succeeded in organizing a rival combination powerful enough to challenge our united existence.
In a previous chapter we have briefly discussed the advisability of continuing the organization known as the United Nations as an organ of peace after the war.
At present the United Nations are held together by an iron band, the necessity of winning the war. The instant peace is declared, that band may fall apart. We should then have no organization and perhaps no inclination on the part of these nations to stick together. This would mean that a fresh start would have to be made.
[ p. 116 ]
During the war we should most certainly do all in our power to pave the way for permanent peace, and the powerful combination of the United Nations can do much in this direction. While this close bond continues, questions regarding boundaries after the war should, as far as possible, be settled. We should enter into agreement with other nations regarding our right to the use of air bases all over the world. Some agreement might be reached regarding the use of sea lanes when the war is over. After the war we shall have from twenty to forty million tons of merchant shipping available. Let us make full use of it. What will Great Britain think of this? Well, let her tell us what she is going to think and let us get the whole business settled while the present strong bond exists.
As for swinging a wartime United Nations directly into a peacetime United Nations, only time can tell whether or not this is to be our best move toward lasting peace. Above all, let us make sure of that “cooling off” spell that will allow the inflated bubble of pride over victory to shrink and permit all the natural relations of nation to nation to drop back into their proper places before we decide whether the United Nations shall go forward to greater heights or shall receive an honorable discharge and a cross of great honor for a task well done.
That there is a definite movement toward unity amongst nations, no one can doubt. The Atlantic [ p. 117 ] Charter, the Pan American Union, the Moscow Declaration, and the Teheran Agreement all point toward unity, and to a greater or less degree, are aimed at the years after the war as well as the present hour.
The Atlantic Charter has been criticized because it seems too broad in outlook, and offers few suggestions as to how all these aims are to be attained. But that is as it should be. First we must have aims. If they are at all worth while, means for reaching these ideals will present themselves as time goes on.
The Atlantic Charter came at a time when things were going badly for the United Nations, when our enemies were accusing us of being unrealistic. We needed high aims, and we got them. Perhaps in the future, our blatant realists who believe in the motto “get what you want and get it however you can,” will discover that their realism is not half so real as they believe it to be. It is possible to make the mistake of being “penny wise and pound foolish.”
The Pan American Union definitely points the way. In this union the nations of the New World have agreed to maintain a common defense against aggressors. No aggression from without has yet been encountered. At present such attack appears remote. Yet this union has aided greatly in our war against the Axis.
[ p. 118 ]
During the “cooling off” period following the war it may be possible to expand the activities of the Pan American Union so that they will include mutual aid in settling threats of war inside a state or between neighboring states.
If this is accomplished, we shall have a model regional organization and will be in a position to explore the possibility of establishing similar organizations in other regions. There is nothing very new about this plan. Germany began as a union of small, warring states. To organize a regional union embracing all of Europe or all of Asia would not seem such a tremendous step.
Culbertson has made some valuable suggestions regarding the organization of the nations of the world into regional groups that would correspond in principle to the Pan American Union. There is much food for thought in his proposals.
There is little reason to suppose that these regional governments, once organized, would turn upon one another. It is difficult to imagine all the nations of Europe entering into a war of conquest and subjugation against the New World. It is, of course, easier to imagine interregional conflict between Europe and Asia, but even this seems quite remote.
When our regional governments have been organized and working long enough to guarantee their stability, the task of uniting them into one world [ p. 119 ] state should be a fairly simple one. It will take time, but the eventual goal is a world order in which all men will be citizens of one government — Mankind Government. Only when that end has been reached will wars disappear and peace finally prevail. This is something to be attained by stages, not at a single bound. We must allow the government of mankind to evolve slowly.
Mankind Government must be based upon the principle of popular representation. When the time is ripe, something corresponding to a constitutional convention should take place at which all co-operating nations should be represented. Besides the usual statesmen and legal experts, this convention should include certain of the world’s outstanding political scientists, historians, geographers, educators, economists, sociologists, and psychiatrists.
This convention would work out the structure ©f the new Mankind Government and draft a constitution for it, including a declaration of rights of individuals and nations. This new government should be as democratic in conception and operation as the world situation would permit and should be so designed as to promote the growth of democracy throughout the world.
It would be granted only the powers necessary to enable it to function in the sphere of international [ p. 120 ] relations, with the primary purpose of preserving peace. All powers not related to that sphere and that end should be reserved to the individual nations, thus guaranteeing their continued existence and domestic sovereignty. Scores of these racial and national groups can enjoy a large measure of selfgovernment, and there is no reason in the world why they should not exercise a limited sovereignty in accordance with President Wilson’s idea of self-determination, if they are wholly deprived of three warbreeding, peace-destroying powers:
In every other respect let all these peoples enjoy full powers of self-government and proper representation in the international legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the regional governments, the forerunners of an ultimate Global Government.
The structure of this world government should consist of a representative assembly, an executive, a judiciary, and a police force. The basis for representation in this assembly can be worked out in a manner fair to all. Larger nations will have more representatives than the smaller ones. This is right. The states of our nation are represented in the House of Representatives according to their population. This has never worked a hardship and will not in the World Assembly.
[ p. 121 ]
When the Assembly has been called together, it should elect a chairman. The chairman should in turn select from among the delegates outstanding men to join him in his Council. This list should be given to the Assembly for ratification and suggested changes.
There should be nothing arbitrary about the number of the Council, but when the number and names are decided upon, the members of this Council should have individual duties similar to those of our President’s cabinet. In a speech by Harold E. Stassen, then governor of Minnesota, in January, 1943, it was suggested that the Council should consist of seven members, each with his own specific duties to perform.
First member: To establish temporary governments over the Axis nations.
Second member: To administer the international airports and airways of the future.
Third member: To administer the gateways of the seven seas.
Fourth member: To increase trade between the peoples of the world.
Fifth member: To increase the literacy of the people of all member nations.
Sixth member : To establish a world code of justice.
Seventh member: To establish a United Nations Legion — in other words, a world police force.
[ p. 122 ]
These are merely suggestions. There are many who might wish to drop some of these ministries as not being vital to the establishment of lasting world peace. Others might wish to add some Council members with added duties.
Every ten years the International Legislature could, by secret and two-thirds majority ballot, elect a Chief Executive, who would thereby become commander in chief of the international police force — the peace army of the Mankind Government. The election of the Chief Executive should be ratified by the action of the International Supreme Court.
Someone has very wisely suggested that the Chief Executive of the Mankind Government should not be called king, emperor, or president, or even chief. He should be looked upon as something like a supreme parent — international father — personification of mankind — father of nations — mankind guide. The fact is, it would be far better to provide some new word in the international language which would serve to designate the international father.
Certainly no one will dispute the necessity for the establishment of a code of international justice and a court to administer it. We know all too well how hopeless has been the task of enforcing, during the present war, the code which until now has been known as international law. Every provision of this [ p. 123 ] code has been violated by one Axis nation or another. Prisoners have been starved, bayoneted, beaten, and enslaved; aviators bailing out shot down from the sky; lifeboats riddled by machine-gun fire; hospitals bombed ; women and children massacred without cause. It is little wonder that many of us have come to believe that international law no longer exists. But, with a wise council to establish a just international code, with a court appointed perhaps by the supreme courts of the leading nations, and with an armed force to stand behind this code, the world would be well on its way back from stark barbarism.
Our new world government must recognize the rights of human beings both as individuals and as citizens of their various states. A man must be made to feel that he is a citizen not alone of the state of Vermont, or of the United States, but of the Mankind Government. He should have some part in bringing this new government into being, and should become increasingly proud of it.
As Stassen puts it: “This new level of government must emphasize human rights rather than nations’ rights. The cornerstone of the United Nations’ government must be a deep respect for the fundamental dignity of man, of every race and color and creed.” It must be so devised that it will represent and bind individuals as well as nations, and regional groups of nations.
[ p. 124 ]
All this suggests that other institutions should be brought into being. All too often serious misunderstandings arise between nations simply because means of communication are inadequate or are badly handled. Witness the furore that arose when certain news agencies of Great Britain and Russia were given scoops in matters regarding the Cairo and Teheran conferences.
Because of this, Mankind Government should have its own exclusive means of communication. It should maintain three or four powerful radio stations through which all its doings and the discussions of its Supreme Court should be broadcast simultaneously to the world. These messages could be relayed from station to station in code before being broadcast.
For the same reason Mankind Government should have its own postal service and its own planes to carry messages swiftly and without alteration to all parts of the world. In this manner not only can all the doings of the council be dispatched in absolutely accurate language to all the people of all nations, but all the decisions of the lower world courts will be known by all the world in the shortest possible time. The more the doings of Mankind Government are in the news, the surer will be its success, for the people of every nation will be interested in, and proud of, the great government to which they belong.
[ p. 125 ]
An international currency would do much to facilitate and speed up trade between nations. Any one who has done import and export business at all realizes what a fund of information he must carry in his head if he is to accept payments in marks, francs, pounds, gourdes, and so on. An international currency, backed perhaps by a World Bank, would help immensely. Such currency would be for use in international trade only and would not be accepted for any other purpose.
And if the world is to prosper, trade must be increased. This will not be done by raising tariffs. Tariffs should be lowered as rapidly as possible. Neither will it be increased by continuing monopolies and international cartels. Certain of our steamship lines have a virtual monopoly on shipping between our country and South America. This condition should be speedily corrected. Before the war Great Britain had a monopoly on trade in rubber and tin. Prices were abnormally high. Now, when she has lost her source of supply, is the right time for a change. The same thing is true regarding the exporting of spices by Holland.
It has been suggested that Mankind Government should take over the control of all colonies. At first thought this appears to suggest great injustices to certain empires. But let us look at it for a moment. [ p. 126 ] Take the Far East as an example. Of course, no one would suggest that Mankind Government should take over Australia. It is a power in its own right. India and the Philippines have been promised the same status after the war is over.
But what of Burma, the Malay Peninsula, French Indo-China, and the Dutch East Indies? A very little study will convince us that something must be done in these regions if we are not to have a racial war on our hands in the next twenty-five years — Asia against the white man’s world. And what agency could be better fitted for this task than Mankind Government?
France, Holland, and Great Britain have lost many of their Pacific colonies. If they are to be wrested from the Japs, it is practically certain that three fourths of the fighting will be done by Yank soldiers. It will cost us billions of dollars and thousands of men to rescue these people from the hands of the Japs. And when they have been rescued they are going to turn to their friendly deliverers and say: “What next?”
We shall find that much needs to be done. Schools must be established for all these people. Their standards of living must be improved. They must be given a real start toward self-government and prepared little by little for greater responsibility. They must be given a fair share of the profits made in their lands.
[ p. 127 ]
Who shall do all this? Perhaps, while we have legions of soldiers on the ground, we of the United States will start it Probably the awakened empires will join in, and perhaps also Mankind Government will take a hand in finishing the task. This, we believe, is the sort of thing that must go on all over the world, wherever colonies and subject people are found. All mandated islands, too, should be supervised by Mankind Government.
The Council of Mankind Government should maintain close supervision over the airfields and airways as well as the sea lanes of the world. For where ships and planes go, there goes commerce. Already, back of the scenes, quiet struggles for supremacy in these fields are going forward.
Equitable settlement of all conflicts regarding air travel and shipping must be assured if we are to keep the peace. And indeed, all the foregoing functions of Mankind Government are contributory to our main objective, the banishing of war from our world. When nations deal justly with one another, when backward and subject peoples are given a fair share of the profits from their labor, when children are being educated, and when all men are given an ever-increasing share in the decisions made by their national governments, then there will be an increase in happiness and a decrease in disputes.
[ p. 128 ]
The great overall purpose of Mankind Government will always be the prevention of war. In this respect the world may be likened to Isle Royale in Lake Superior. A few years ago it was owned in small tracts by many individuals. These owners were unorganized and so were not prepared to fight fires. A small fire started by lightning broke out. It spread. Soon it threatened the whole forty-mile-long island. Sixteen hundred men had to be sent from the mainland to put the fire out. Even so, a quarter of the island was burned over.
A short time later our government bought all the land and made it a national park. Now a force of about fifteen men, some watching from fire-towers, others ready to race away in fast boats to any point where smoke appears, watch over the island. There are occasional fires, but always they are out in twenty-four hours or less, and little damage is done.
It is much the same with the world. A small war broke out. We did not stop it or insist on arbitration. It spread all over the world, and now it requires fifty million men to stop it.
The Council and legion of fighting men of Mankind Government are like the fifteen fire fighters on Isle Royale as it is today. If trouble threatens in any corner of the world, they must speed there at once. Arbitration may settle the dispute. If this fails, and if a small war starts, all the force of Mankind Government should be thrown in to stop it. In [ p. 129 ] this case, of course, Mankind Government will for a short time be fighting a war. But it will be waging what might be called a legal war, for the good of all mankind.
The United Nations should guarantee that every nation in the world will be left free to choose its own form of government, provided it is a legitimate government. What are the earmarks, the characteristics, of a legitimate government? I think the Italian historian Ferrero gives the most simple answer to this question. He designates the essentials of a legitimate government as:
This presents the story in a nutshell, and that is what the United Nations should strive to bring about in every country : a government of its own choosing, a statehood adapted to its needs, and one in which opposition is not smothered.
No government will be regarded as being legitimate unless it assures to its people freedom of speech, press, and pulpit, the right of assembly, and protection of the voting franchise — the guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
[ p. 130 ]
Some objections to the establishment of a World Government have been raised. It has been said that, while the democratic nations will understand and welcome such a government, nations existing under other forms of government will not understand it, will fear it, and will refuse to join. Well, you cannot very well force nations to join, and suppose they do refuse. We manage to trade with nations other than republics; we enter into all manner of transactions with them; and there is no reason why the International Government should not wisely create such conditions of international relationship as will eventually induce all “hold out” nations to recognize the advantages of joining the majority “line-up.”
If they cannot at first be persuaded to come in, then those of us who are for it — and we shall be a strong company — must go on by ourselves, at least for a time. Certainly all of those nations that have been crushed by the Axis tyrants will look to us for guidance and will gladly accept our plan for a new and better world.
There are many who say that even the democracies, and most of all the people of our own nation, are not ready to give up a part of their national sovereignty to an international organization. If this is true, and if our World Government were voted down in an open referendum, then there would be nothing we could do but go on as we are, vainly [ p. 131 ] hoping we would not be drawn into more wars, but being drawn in just the same. But before this comes to pass, there is much that we as individuals can do. This will be taken up later.
If, then, after we have done our very best to bring a nation into Mankind Government, that nation refuses to join, what shall be done? The answer is: It will have to obey the rules, even though it does not join, because the good of all the world demands it. After all, we have many men in our land who have not taken out citizenship papers, but they must obey the law all the same. All of life must be so organized that the greatest good may be done to the largest number. We must make the entire plan so simple that the plainest people can understand it. Then at long last we must insist that they obey the laws of the World Government, whether they choose to join or not. If we are always charitable, fair and just, we shall not need to pursue this arbitrary course for long.
If the League of Nations had had fifty thousand men, it could have stopped both Mussolini and Hitler.
Absence of unanimity among the founders doomed the League to failure. Almost every nation had a separate plan.
Italy flouted the League; one nation after the other deserted; today it is moribund.
[ p. 132 ]
Co-operation between the United States and Britain is essential to world peace, but an English-speaking alliance is fraught with many dangers.
The United Nations could very properly launch the proposed international plan for permanent peace.
Many of our problems respecting air bases, shipping, and international trade should be threshed out while the war still goes bn. And there must be a long “cooling off” period following the war’s end.
The whole world longs for peace, and there is no real reason why we cannot have it. The Atlantic Charter promises peace.
The Pan-American Union points the way towards the formation of regional federations preliminary to the later International Government of Mankind.
Mankind Government must be representative, democratic. It will have a constitution and will embrace executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
The Executive Council should have numerous departments devoted to the practical working of the supergovernment.
Every ten years a Chief Executive should be chosen by the legislature or otherwise, and he should be regarded as an international father.
We must have international law and a Supreme Court backed up by police forces adequate to enforce the law effectively.
The new government must emphasize human rights rather than national rights.
[ p. 133 ]
Mankind Government will have its own powerful radio stations, postal service, and currency. It will regulate the distribution of raw materials.
The delicate and intricate problems of colonies and backward peoples will fall in the province of Mankind Government.
Schools must be established among retarded nations — much as we introduced education to the Filipinos.
The complex trade relations of the nations will be supervised and facilitated by the Supreme Council of the Mankind Government.
But the one great business of the International Government is to prevent war and to insure permanent peace.
The member nations of this over-all government should have “legitimate” political regimes. They should at least guarantee the opportunity for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Not for long could any nation forego the advantages of belonging to the Mankind Government. But whether or not they join, they must comply with its laws.