[ p. 156 ]
The question uppermost in the minds of thousands of thinking Americans today regarding the future is, “What is to be our part in all this work of building for a lasting world peace?” There can be but one answer. Our part must be nothing short of tremendous. We have gone all out for the war — men, money, airplanes, guns, tanks, supplies, everything. We shall have to go all out for the peace with everything left to us after the war. We dare not fail. We should attempt to discover in advance, if we can, just what it will mean to go all out for peace.
Let us see what the line-up of nations is to be before we prepare to get into the fight for postwar peace. There will be great changes in the relative strength of the great powers. Germany must in some manner or other be rendered harmless. We are being told that even now she is preparing for the next war. She is seeking future trade and alliances with the small nations of Europe and South America. She is training thousands of young Nazis in the art of sabotage in order that they may be prepared to so hamper any peaceable democratic government set [ p. 157 ] up in Germany after the war that it will be unable to operate successfully. This must not be allowed to happen. Japan, too, must be reduced in power until she is no longer a menace to world peace.
China, with her four hundred and fifty millions of people, has been awakened to a national consciousness and has achieved a solidarity heretofore unknown. Her soldiers, among the best in the world once they are properly armed and drilled, will not be disbanded after the war, but will stand ready to maintain the unity of all China and to claim for her her rightful place as the strongest power in Asia.
A recent broadcaster truthfully remarked : “After centuries of ignorant and dull compliance, hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe and Asia have opened the books. Old fears no longer frighten them. They are no longer willing to be Eastern slaves for Western profits. They now know that men’s welfare throughout the world is interdependent.”
Russia, beyond a doubt, will be the greatest land power in the world. However, with her peace record of the past and her plans for the future, she should ofifer few problems. Will she be prepared to do her full share in the establishment of lasting peace, or will she do as we have too often done, draw back within herself, fortify her borders, and live for Russia alone?
Great Britain’s place in the world will present startling changes. She will doubtless still hold a [ p. 158 ] dominant position in western Europe. There is some indication that she may join in a confederation of the Scandinavian countries, and perhaps with Holland, Belgium, and Denmark. Her future relation to France is still not clear. In Eastern Europe she is certain to be overshadowed by Russia. On the sea and in the air, shuffle the cards as she may, she will find herself definitely second-class as compared with the United States. Our fighting power and our carrying strength will be immense.
Whereas in the past we looked to Great Britain to help us protect our eastern seaboard from attack, it may well be that in the future Great Britain will look to us for protection and support. In truth, only a short time ago she did depend upon us to retrieve the Gilbert Islands for her, and is now hoping that our sea power will contribute greatly to the recapture of the rich Malay Peninsula and Burma as well. Her dependence upon us may be a strong factor in shaping history.
But our strength is not all on the sea. No other nation in the world could have produced the number of tanks, trucks, airplanes, and guns that we have rolled off our assembly lines in the last two years. Those assembly lines are still moving, and will be for years to come. If the devastated European countries are to be given a fresh start, and if the Orient [ p. 159 ] is to rise like a giant from his sleep, they will need friends. It is to America they will look first and often, for we have the power.
We are fortunate in our location. We are close to both Europe and Asia, yet not too close. We are at the center of the air lanes that run from continent to continent and all around the world. Situated in the heart of a continent, with friendly neighbors on both north and south, we are reasonably safe from attack and so may feel free to dispatch our fighting ships to any spot where they are most needed.
Probably the surest proof that ours is the power and the duty to lead in this great crusade against war is the fact that, as Wendell Willkie puts it, we have a “reservoir of good will and friendship” greater than any nation in this world. If this is true, it should make us humble, but happy.
Says Madame Chiang Kai-shek: “The hundred and sixty years of traditional friendship between our two great peoples, China and America, which has never been marred by misunderstandings, is unsurpassed in the annals of the world. I can also assure you that China is eager and ready to co-operate with you and other peoples to lay a true and lasting foundation for a sane and progressive world society which would make it impossible for an arrogant or predatory neighbor to plunge future generations into another orgy of blood.” (Mother America, by Carlos P. Romulo, pages 119-20.)
[ p. 160 ]
How did we come by this good will? American schools, hospitals and missions have done much to foster it. All the world admires the work of our engineers. Harbors, factories, irrigation dams, and railways that have been brought into being before their eyes by these engineers caused people in every land to exclaim, “Ah! There are men who perform great tasks speedily and well 1”
The whole world realizes that we went into the present war to save the world from disaster and to retain our own right to live in peace, and for no other purpose. When peace was made after World War I, we asked neither colonies nor reparation money, and the world believes that we will ask no more when the present war is won. They have no fear of us and they trust us.
For the teeming millions of the Far East, one fact stands out above all others. We made a success of the Philippines. We took these island possessions from Spain over the protest of the Filipinos who wished at once to be free. Having fought the Spaniards, they turned and fought us. Even after they gave up the fight they looked upon us with hatred and distrust. But we were determined to make this venture a success for both the natives and ourselves.
We sent over a thousand teachers. They taught English and the theory of government. We doubled [ p. 161 ] the pay of all natives on the island, gave them better homes, encouraged industry and thrift, improved sanitation, and in general, made the islands a better place in which to live.
We did not play Santa Claus, either. The money made by our nationals on gold mines, trade, and industry more than repaid the money spent by our government. Let us ask a native Filipino to tell us about that. “Americans in the Philippines profited in business, gold mining, export and import of all kinds. Big business was practically all in American hands. All American products entered the Philippines duty-free, and Philippine products were sent to America duty-free. Every American-developed need of the modernized Filipino — from automobiles to chewing gum — entered our country dutyfree. Steamship travel, clipper service, American Express, banks, and oil companies were American.” (Mother America, by Carlos P. Romulo, page 135.)
And how did we get on with the natives? Ask in the foxholes of Bataan where Americans and Filipinos lay side by side in death. The Filipinos joined us in the fight because they had learned to love and trust us as brothers. Every native in the Far East knows that story and looks to us for a solution of postwar problems and the problems of permanent peace. We must not let them down. What folly to pay such a tremendous price to win the war and then spurn the peace!
[ p. 162 ]
Yes, today we have the nations of the world with us, but it will be easy to lose that advantage. It is said that Americans talk too much. Justly proud of our country, we sometimes seem to boast. We must not disappoint our millions of friends by promising more than we can deliver. Already there has been much discontent because our lend-lease goods would not reach round the world in a steadily increasing stream. It is said that, when we landed on Italy’s soil, the Italians took up their rifles to help us, but that now many are laying them down. One of the reasons for this undoubtedly is our inability to provide food in abundance to all behind our lines. Demands after the war will be tremendous. Let us promise little but do as much as we can.
All that we have said adds up to the certainty that after the war we shall be the strongest nation in the world, and that we shall have the good will of millions of people who will be ready to back us in any action that promises to bring peace and justice to a war-torn world. If any man doubts this, let him listen to Admiral E. S. Land, who predicts that after the war we shall have from twenty to forty million tons of shipping; and to Admiral Nimitz, who recently told us that in our operation against the Marshall Islands we employed the largest fleet ever assembled in any naval engagement in history. Pause [ p. 163 ] to consider: We are now producing more than a hundred thousand planes a year.
Yes, we shall be a tremendously powerful nation, and there lies the danger. Strong men often use their strength to oppress those weaker than themselves. So too do strong nations. We may be tempted to claim lands we have recaptured from the Japs, and to persuade small nations to join us and so build up an empire the like of which the world has never known.
“That’s just what we should do,” many a selfstyled realist will tell us. “Power,” he will insist, “brings peace. Besides,” he will add, “how else shall we ever pay our gigantic national debt? Look what we have!” he will exclaim. “Air bases all over the world ; half a million planes, with pilots to man them; fifteen thousand cargo ships, and the most powerful fleet on the seas. In Africa, Asia, all over the world we will take over small nations and badly managed colonies. We shall make these colonies a success as we did the Philippines. From each we will take a little in revenue, just as a rich farmer improves run down farms to his ultimate advantage. Power and peace. That’s it.” But we sincerely believe that wiser counsel will prevail.
“Of course,” he will admit, “Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler failed, but all these were harsh and greedy. America could never be like that.” Will the majority of our people agree? We hope not. [ p. 164 ] For this, we believe, is not the way of peace. And after all, lasting world peace should be our aim.
“Peace?” another may say. “Yes, let us have peace. Melt your tanks, guns, and ships into automobiles, farm tractors, electric refrigerators, and sewing machines. Throw away your rifles. Let’s have peace.”
Yes, the pacifist and the isolationist will be with us again. Their arguments will be much the same, a slight disagreement on the amount of armament at home will be the only difference. The isolationist will want our shores well fortified, our national air force kept intact, and our air bases constantly improved. As for maintaining our great navy and immense fleet of cargo ships, this he will argue, can only result in great expense and national bankruptcy.
As for our relations with the other nations of the world, our isolationist will expand his chest as he asks us to observe what a magnanimous thing we did when we gave billions of dollars and millions of men to help them win the war. “And what did we get for it?” he will ask. “Only the right to live in peace. Now we have that peace. Let us enjoy it, and let the rest of the world go by.”
That is about what we did after World War I, and what we got in the end was another war far more terrible than the first.
[ p. 165 ]
The isolationists will have many followers. The country will be war-weary. Those who get their sons back will be tempted to say, “No more of this global struggle, son. Now you are free to remain in America and live your life as we have lived ours before you, in peace and plenty.”
Recalling the vast prosperity that followed World War I, millions will loosen their belts, take a quick glance about them, and plunge into what they hope will be the “greatest ten years of prosperity the United States has ever known.” If you suggest that we still owe a debt to the people of all the world, they will think only of the millions more that must be spent to make the world free from future wars, and will refuse to consider any world program proposed.
The backward drag will be terrific, but if our vast sea and air armadas are not to rust into useless scrap, and if we are not to lose our world-wide reservoir of good will, we must choose a sterner, but in the end, a safer course.
Several years ago President Roosevelt said: “America has a rendezvous with destiny.” That moment of destiny appears to be fast approaching. Shall we rise to this momentous occasion, or shall we go silently along the old pathway of “business as usual,” and let is pass. We have faith to believe that [ p. 166 ] the American people will accept the challenge of the vast multitude and offer to lead in the great crusade for universal and lasting peace.
If we do this, and if we are successful in that great undertaking, we shall escape both the fool’s paradise of inflation and the cellar room among the rats of depression that otherwise is sure to be our lot And we shall, beyond a shadow of a doubt, establish ourselves firmly in the position of the world’s greatest and most honest trader, and shall fully merit the trust that the world’s millions have so generously bestowed upon us.
Before we accept leadership in this great undertaking, we must seriously ask ourselves, what are our qualifications? We are forced to admit that we have more than once avoided an opportunity to learn from experience. After the first World War we were urged by certain European nations to take a part in world affairs. We politely declined. Perhaps we did not wish to be mixed up in the doubtful game of power politics, but most of all we felt quite self-sufficient and preferred to be let alone. It was only after France had fallen and it looked very much as though the democracies would lose the present war that we became interested in a real way in our neighbors in that hemisphere, and then only in the interest of common defense.
Yes, we do lack experience in world affairs. However, this is not all loss, for while we have not accumulated [ p. 167 ] useful experience, neither have we accumulated many long-standing enmities and resentments among other peoples of the world. Failures in great tasks attempted and attempts at usurping power leave their scars. On our record are no black marks that time has not erased. There are, instead, many bright spots that shine forth from our past history.
From the start down to the present time we have stood before the world as the champion of justice and freedom. As a people we have never failed to sympathize with the victims of tyranny and oppression. All through her many hard years of struggle toward a constitutional form of government, we stood at the side of our sister republic, France. Time and again when Spain’s colonies in South America were struggling for their freedom, we went to their aid. Our Good Neighbor policy of recent years has gone far toward assuring our southern neighbors that our friendly interest in them reaches deeper than trade measured in dollars. So w may begin this fresh undertaking with a well-established reputation for liberalism and fair play in our dealings with other nations.
But just what are our credentials for this unsought leadership which is about to be thrust upon us?
The future world order for which we strive must be grounded in democracy and will thrive on the ever-widening growth of democratic institutions. No democracy has excelled our own in efficiency, general success, and long life. The war has been hard on democracies, and for a time it seemed that they must pass from the scene. France fell under the weight of the war, internal division, and German intrigue. Great Britain is still democratic in principle but has been obliged to give up general elections for the duration. We go ahead with our elections and every function of a democratic government in spite of the war. Indeed, the war has done much [ p. 169 ] to Strengthen our solidarity. No nation in history has ever been so united in the work of bringing a single effort to a satisfactory culmination as has the United States in its prosecution of this war. And yet, we have kept our democratic setup. There have been strikes, just as in peacetime, but the moment they really threatened to interfere with the prosecution of the war, they have been dropped. There have been bitter debates in Congress, but always the war has held first place in the nation’s mind.
America is the most democratic country in the world. By the very nature of things this must be true, for America is the melting pot of the world. No other form of government could succeed here. And, since the democratic form of government is the one which offers the greatest opportunity to small and backward nations, America is duty bound to lead the way.
One of the most important tasks of Mankind Government will be that of raising the standards of education in colonies and among small nations. When we are told that, with a population of seventy millions, the Dutch East Indies have only three million and a half who can read and write, we realize its importance. No nation is so well equipped as we are for this task of educating the millions. Perhaps our greatest contribution to the Filipinos was the education we gave them. American schoolteachers did far more for the Filipinos than did American soldiers.
[ p. 170 ]
It is quite true, as a recent writer has said, that “America feels itself to be humanity in miniature. When in this crucial time the international leadership passes to America, the great reason for hope is that this country has a national experience of uniting racial and cultural diversities — and a national theory, if not a consistent practice, of freedom and equality for all.” (An American Dilemma, Gunnar Myrdal, Harpers, 1944.)
Ours is a federal government. Mankind Government must also take this form. Just how close this federation of nations can be drawn remains to be answered in the future. Ours is a federation that has stood the test of time. It is true that there came a rift during the Civil War. But this war, it would seem, was necessary to rid us of an evil inherited from other days. And when the struggle was over, it was not long before we were more solidly united than ever. At the present time we are barely conscious of state borders. This would seem to be one more reason why we should succeed as a leader in this new and vastly greater federation of peoples and nations.
It is true that Russia has recently granted new powers to the republics that make up her whole. But these powers are new and untried. It is all in an experimental stage and the other nations would scarcely wish to entrust the lead in a great undertaking to an experimenter.
[ p. 171 ]
There will be a vast amount of administrational work to be done in the setup of Mankind Government. Are we qualified for this part of the task? It would seem that we must be for, on the whole, the affairs of our nation have been well handled. For we have left private industry to work out its own problems. But during this war, when units of private industry have proved slow or inefficient, our government has not hesitated to take them over for a time and, as far as has been revealed, has done a fairly good job. During the first World War Uncle Sam took over the railroads and ran them efficiently. It is quite possible that in times of emergency Mankind Government may be obliged to take the extreme measure of entering the domain of a nation and taking over its affairs of state until a stable and peaceable government has been established. We should find ourselves well qualified to take a leading part in such an undertaking.
Of course, we cannot do the whole job alone, nor will the rest of the world allow us to. We must provide leadership but not attempt domination. We shall need the co-operation of all nations, both small and great, for, in the first place, the moment we give evidence of our desire to dominate, we shall be suspected of having imperialistic designs, and that will be fatal. The task is too great for us. We shall need not only the advice of other nations but their material [ p. 172 ] aid as well. There are small nations close to Russia that can best be advised and assisted by Russia. The same is true of Great Britain. We probably have more real influence in matters relating to Latin America than either Russia or Great Britain. No small nation can be neglected. From them we shall expect contributions of fighting men for the world police force and, within their means, supplies as well. There should be no taxation without representation. They must be consulted always in matters relating to their corners of the world.
With proper leadership we can count on the cooperation of other nations, but that leadership must be truly great. One of the reasons for the outstanding successes of the United Nations has been the fact that, when a great emergency arose, the top ranking men — Churchill, Stalin, Chiang Kai-shek, and Roosevelt — at the risk of their lives, crossed sea, air, and land to meet in conference. Of course, in peacetime we cannot expect the heads of governments to participate often in the aflfairs of Mankind Government, but leaders of high standing should always be at the forefront in this vast undertaking.
In the affairs of the League of Nations, small governments always showed great interest. They hoped that here was leadership and protection. They will be just as much interested in Mankind Government and, once they are sure that we can offer them real leadership and protection, will contribute much. [ p. 173 ] China is sure to join us. Our repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act and our voluntary relinquishment of extraterritorial privileges have removed the last barrier to her co-operation. When we have delivered her from the Japanese terror, the ties between us will have been vastly strengthened.
Throughout the past 125 years our national interests have come to be more and more intimately connected with those of Great Britain. We have worked side by side in two great wars, each giving all available goods and services without pausing to count the cost.
We cannot very well ignore the fact that there is in our land a large and vociferous minority of Anglophobes, whose desire to defeat Germany and Japan is little stronger than their hope of seeing Great Britain’s position as a major power destroyed. Add to these that other minority that is out and out in its sympathies for both Germany and Japan, and we have a real problem. Fortunately, there is a very large majority who, should the matter come to a vote, would favor close Anglo-American friendship, or even an alliance for the purpose of establishing a permanent world peace. The bond of common interest between these English-speaking nations far outweighs any arguments that may be brought forward by the Anglophobes. In this country we have learned to get along with people of many races, and we should learn to work with men of many nations.
[ p. 174 ]
Great Britain herself may not be particularly well qualified to undertake leadership in this movement, but, together with her dominions and her still formidable navy, she will make a strong ally and one that will fight hard for world peace. We shall prove ourselves to be woefully inept if we allow the foolish fears and ignorant prejudices of a small minority of our citizens to weaken the bonds of friendship that exist between the two countries. Beyond a doubt one of the most hopeful factors in the world situation today is the unbroken record of friendship between us that stretches over a century and a quarter. This friendship should provide the best nucleus we have for a world organization for lasting peace.
Disagreements that come up between the United States and Britain are like quarrels between members of the same family. They may be sharp and bitter quarrels, but no one can separate us. We shall somehow always get on together. Indeed, for the good of all the world, we must.
Britain’s twenty-year alliance with Russia need not be a hindrance in our relations with her. We anticipate no quarrel with Russia. Since after the war our position on the sea and in the air will be better than that of Great Britain, and since much of her revenue comes from trade with far-off lands, she will find it to her advantage to co-operate with [ p. 175 ] us in every way. The combined air and sea power of the United States and Great Britain will be a mighty source of strength in preserving peace for the world.
The voice of Russia will be heard in all future world movements, for she will emerge from this war a very powerful nation. We must not conclude that because in the last twenty years, like our own nation, she has been largely preoccupied with her own affairs, she will go once more into retirement after the war.
She has been engaged in the gigantic task of changing her form of government. That is about completed now, and she will beyond a doubt begin to take a look about her.
If any one doubts this, let him consider Russia’s history. It was Russia that furnished the manpower that in the end destroyed Napoleon’s dream of empire, and it was Russia’s great shadow that hung over the Congress of European Nations in Vienna. It was a Russian czar who founded the Holy Alliance which dominated the affairs of Europe for forty-three years. The Hague Tribunal was largely due to work and planning done by Russia.
By all this we must come to realize that Russia has been both world-minded and peace-minded. She is sure to demand a large place at the peace table [ p. 176 ] after the war is won, and she will beyond a doubt take as large a place in our plans for a Mankind Government. We have co-operated well with Russia during the war and shall continue to do so after the war is won. She is big, blunt, frank, and honest. So, too, are we. As long as the general outlines of plans for permanent peace meet with her approval, it seems certain that she will gladly follow our lead. Indeed, in many ways she has already shown her willingness to co-operate. When the Comintern became a point of contention, she dissolved it. When we expressed our belief that men everywhere should be allowed to worship God as they chose, she restored the rights of the Orthodox Church. She gladly joined with us in the Moscow Declaration and the Teheran Conference. Russia will continue to stand at our side in peace as in war.
There is little question that with Germany and Japan out of the picture, the four great nations — Great Britain, Russia, China and the United States — can dominate the world. But this we must not do. Without the hearty co-operation of the other members of the British Empire — Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and Australia — and without the help of the smaller nations, we might possibly fail. The population of all these small states adds up to an imposing total. That is not all. Two quarreling [ p. 177 ] small nations may precipitate a great and terrible war. World War I was set off by just such a quarrel.
In our dealings we must listen much to the small nations as well as to the great, for the problems of each nation differ from those of every other. We must lead, not dominate. We must above all else try to understand them. After the war Americans by the thousands must be found in every land building for a better future. Today our government is educating thousands of young men for tasks in lands far from our own. They are learning new languages and studying the customs, manners, habits, and temperaments of the nations they are to serve. This movement should spread to every university.
Shall we accept the task of leadership when it is offered to us? Can we afford to accept? The answer is, “better than any other nation.” When the war is over, it is to be hoped that our nation will be fully intact as it is today, that not a bomb or a shell shall have marred its usefulness and beauty. With our power to produce, in both factory and field, we surpass all other countries. We have much to give, and conversely, if the movement for permanent world peace fails, we have much to lose. In peace as in war let us keep these three words continually coursing through our minds — “No more war! No more “war!” If we do this we shall sooner or later find ourselves saying, “We must have permanent world peace, whatever the cost.”
[ p. 178 ]
It begins to look as though Uncle Sam means to accept the challenge of world leadership in behalf of Permanent Peace. Under date of March 21, 1944, Secretary Hull issued the following statement of American Foreign Policy:
Our Fundamental National Interests
In determining our foreign policy we must first see clearly what our true national interests are.
At the present time, the paramount aim of our foreign policy is to defeat our enemies as quickly as possible.
Beyond final victory, our fundamental national interests are the assuring of our national security and the fostering of the economic and social wellbeing of our people.
International Co-operation
Co-operation between nations in the spirit of good neighbors, founded on the principles of liberty, equality, justice, morality, and law, is the most effective method of safeguarding and promoting the political, the economic, the social, and cultural well-being of our nation and of all nations.
International Organization Backed by Force
Some international agency must be created which can — by force, if necessary — keep the peace among nations in the future.
[ p. 179 ]
A system of organized international co-operation for the maintenance of peace must be based upon the willingness of the co-operating nations to use force, if necessary, to keep peace. There must be certainty that adequate and appropriate means are available and will be used for this purpose.
Political Differences
Political differences which present a threat to the peace of the world should be submitted to agencies which would use the remedies of discussion, negotiation, conciliation, and good offices.
International Court of Justice
Disputes of a legal character which present a threat to the peace of the world should be adjudicated by an international court of justice whose decisions would be based upon application of principles of law.
Reduction of Arms
International co-operative action must include eventual adjustment of national armaments in such a manner that the rule of law cannot be successfully challenged, that the burden of armaments may be reduced to a minimum.
Moscow Four-Nation Declaration
Through this declaration, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the United States, and China have laid the foundation for co-operative effort in the [ p. 180 ] postwar world toward enabling all peace-loving nations, large and small, to live in peace and security, to preserve the liberties and rights of civilized existence, and to enjoy expanded opportunities and facilities for economic, social, and spiritual progress.
Spheres of Influence and Alliances
As the provisions of the four-nation declaration are carried into effect, there will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power, or any other of the special arrangements through which, in the unhappy past, the nations strove to safeguard their security or to promote their interests.
Surveillance Over Aggressor Nations
In the process of re-establishing international order, the United Nations must exercise surveillance over aggressor nations until such time as the latter demonstrate their willingness and ability to live at peace with other nations. How long such surveillance will need to continue must depend upon the rapidity with which the peoples of Germany, Japan, Italy, and their satellites give convincing proof that they have repudiated and abandoned the monstrous philosophy of superior race and conquest by force and have embraced loyally the basic principles of peaceful processes.
[ p. 181 ]
International Trade Barriers
Excessive trade barriers of the many different kinds must be reduced, and practices which impose injuries on others and divert trade from its natural and economic course must be avoided.
International Finance
Equally plain is the need for making national currencies once more freely exchangeable for each other at stable rates of exchange; for a system of financial relations so devised that materials can be produced and ways may be found of moving them where there are markets created by human need; for machinery through which capital may — for the development of the world’s resources and for the stabilization of economic activity — move on equitable terms from financially stronger to financially weaker countries.
Atlantic Charter Reciprocal Obligations
We are pledged by the Atlantic Charter to a system which will give every nation, large or small, a greater assurance of stable peace, greater opportunity for the realization of its aspirations to freedom, and greater facilities for material advancement. But that pledge implies an obligation for each nation to demonstrate its capacity for stable and progressive government, to fulfill scrupulously its established duties to other nations, to settle its [ p. 182 ] international differences and disputes by none but peaceful methods, and to make its full contribution to the maintenance of enduring peace.
Sovereign Equality of Nations
Each sovereign nation, large or small, is in law and under law the equal of every other nation.
The principle of sovereign equality of all peaceloving states, irrespective of size and strength, as parmers in a future system of general security will be the foundation stone upon which the future international organization will be constructed.
Form of Government
Each nation should be free to decide for itself the forms and details of its governmental organization — so long as it conducts its affairs in such a way as not to menace the peace and security of other nations.
Nonintervention
All nations, large and small, which respect the rights of others, are entitled to freedom from outside interference in their internal affairs.
Liberty
There is no surer way for men and for nations to show themselves worthy of liberty than to fight for its preservation, in any way that is open to them, against those who would destroy it for all. [ p. 183 ] Never did a plainer duty to fight against its foes devolve upon all peoples who prize liberty and all who aspire to it.
All peoples who, with “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” have qualified themselves to assume and to discharge the responsibilities of liberty, are entitled to its enjoyment.
Dependent Peoples
There rests upon the independent nations a responsibility in relation to dependent peoples who aspire to liberty. It should be the duty of nations having political ties with such peoples to help them to develop materially and educationally and to prepare themselves for the duties and responsibilities of self-government and for the attainment of liberty. An excellent example of what can be achieved is afforded in the record of our relationship with the Philippines.
Uncle Sam has gone all out for war — he must go all out for peace.
Our first postwar job is properly to control Germany and Japan for the next generation. We must also strive to preserve the United Nations.
In the postwar world America will be preponderant. In general, the nations of the world are friendly toward us.
[ p. 184 ]
Our experience with the Philippines points the way for dealing with numerous other dependent and backward peoples.
Postwar America will be the strongest single nation in the world. Will we use this tremendous power selfishly or altruistically?
As the war ends, the pacifist and the isolationist will again begin to function. They do not seem to profit from experience.
To a war-weary America, the backward drag of isolationism will be great. Can Uncle Sam maintain his forward look?
“America has a rendezvous with destiny.” Will she make good in trade, education, economics, and the establishment of permanent peace?
While Uncle Sam has shunned international power politics in the past, he has likewise avoided the hates and animosities of these interminable international squabbles.
America has always stood as the champion of liberty and justice. We have of late tried to be a good neighbor to South America.
Uncle Sam has the requisites for international leadership — power, prestige, technicians, materials, and the spirit of the Good Samaritan.
Americans must become evangels of democracy — crusaders for permanent peace. We must remain united in peace as we have been in war.
Mankind Government must raise the standard [ p. 185 ] of education among the backward peoples and promote the growth of democracy.
In this country we have had experience in uniting and co-ordinating all races and cultures. The United States is a melting pot of nations.
If peaceful methods will not at first maintain universal tranquility, then Mankind Government will not hesitate to use force.
But Uncle Sam is only a leader — we will have the rest of the world to help us in this maintenance of permanent peace.
The international police force will be drawn from all member nations. Every nation must contribute leadership to the Government of Mankind.
Anglo-American co-operation will continue after the war — notwithstanding the Anglophobes. The two navies will act as one.
Russia will emerge from the war the second most powerful nation. Her voice will be very influential at the peace conference.
Uncle Sam has always been on good terms with Russia in the past. The prospects are good for continuing these amicable relations.
But the small nations must have their part in Mankind Government. The quarrel of two little countries can start a world war.
Will Uncle Sam accept the challenge? Will America grasp international leadership — accept the hegemony of permanent peace?
[ p. 186 ]
The recent statement of American foreign policy indicates that Uncle Sam intends to accept the challenge of world leadership in the establishment and maintenance of permanent peace.