“The United States has lost its leadership in world affairs...” – New York Times.
In its classic editorial “America’s Aloofness” from which the above is quoted, the New York Times on November 30, 1937, added that, to the fact that we have lost our leadership in world affairs, largely can be attributed the impotence of the Nine Power Treaty Conference in Brussels. “The reason for this loss of influence is plain,” the editorial continued, for “treaty-breaking Governments and dictators have become convinced that for no cause short of actual invasion will the United States initiate or join in any effective movement to assure world peace.” Considering the influence for good which the United States might extend over the world, troubled as it is in these days, our failure to take our proper place in world affairs is more striking. We not only have lost our leadership in world affairs, but we are failing to live up to the responsibilities which have fallen upon us due to our exceptional position in the family of nations.
Whether we choose to refer to the parties as the haves and have-nots, or as the fascist and communistic states, there must be general agreement with the statement that the world is divided into two fairly well-defined parts depending on the economic, cultural, and territorial strengths of the various countries making up these parts. Apart from these stand certain of the democratic nations, but in a class by itself is the United States, of the world and yet, in an emergency, fairly independent of the world. Our position is unique and through that very character our strength as a power in world affairs is enhanced. Because of that position and because of the influence which we can put forth, our responsibilities are increased a thousandfold. Until we realize those responsibilities and accept them with the moral obligations which they entail, we have not recognized the part which our inherent resources have assigned to us. For us to remain aloof from the world is to shun our responsibilities as a sovereign and exceptionally- situated power. It is not necessary that we resort to such hackneyed phrases as “to make the world safe for democracy,” but we should carefully and thoroughly review our own position in the light of world events and endeavor to determine our responsibilites. It is not claimed that any degree of thoroughness can be expected within the compass of a single essay but certain features of the question will be treated in the succeeding paragraphs of this discussion.
The United States, by its involvement in the “war to end wars” which came to such an unsatisfactory conclusion in the Versailles Treaty, entered into the arena of world affairs to a greater extent than had been foreseen by the nation’s leaders. Natural growth as a nation had, however, as great an influence upon our entry as arose from the more concrete action which was taken when we furnished troops and materials to the nations which were at war in Europe. We cannot expect to procure the benefits of international intercourse and avoid the obligations which necessarily follow in the wake. There are those who would say that we should be content to remain apart in all things.
That might be possible but our progress as a nation would be impeded by such a course. The very fact that we must import certain of our required materials makes it vital that we have some form of intercourse, no matter how slight. Since that intercourse, regardless of its meagerness, is necessary to our well-being, it behooves us to make the most of it. It is said that our export trade is but 10 per cent of our total trade and yet that margin spells Profit and prosperity to our industries and without it we should not be able to maintain the standard to which we have grown accustomed.
If one remarks that the United States ls not logical in its attitude toward foreign affairs it need not be taken as criticism of any individual or organization. We are young in our thoughts regarding foreign affairs but it is time we grew up to full Maturity in this respect. We can only do so if we look at the situation clearly and without being blinded by the somewhat pernicious and certainly ill-considered beliefs of the sentimentalists who dictate much of our public discussion of world events. It may be well that we do not rush into foreign affairs with the hysteria which ls so commonplace in many of the actions of the American people but lethargy may be just as ill-advised. We are not a warlike People and the world need have no fear of any dreams of empire on our part. However, it was Ruskin, I believe, who said that peace is not conducive to finer art. It does not necessarily follow that nations must engage in war to obtain the finer things of life but the ability and readiness to fight for one’s dearest possessions gives man a character for which there is no substitute. Those nations which have remained peaceful through the world’s troubles and have stoically borne the insults and abuses of more belligerent powers are to be admired and probably have had a certain stabilizing influence but they have missed something greater, something finer, and are not the recipients of the admiration which their characters might otherwise demand. God forbid that the United States should be classed with them albeit our aims should not be warlike, and our influence should be entirely for peace in the world.
Let us attempt to reconcile some of our national policies. As a nation, we are dedicated to the breaking down of world trade barriers and to the good-neighbor policy. And yet we are also determined to avoid entanglement in international differences. Can these policies be reconciled? It was considered necessary for the Maritime Commission to discuss the effect of our Merchant Marine policy on the trade agreements program. It has been stated that the two conflicted. Our neutrality act also presents certain important factors to be considered in the light of our shipping policy and, in a broader sense, our entire foreign policy.1 It seems that we wish to be a part of the world and yet retain our isolationist policy. The two cannot go hand-in-hand. We have continually been enthusiastic proponents of the Open Door in China and the Nine Power Treaty gave concrete evidence of our desire to maintain equality of opportunity in that area. And yet when, after prolonged discussion, it was decided to call a conference of the signatory powers to that treaty, the United States attempted to disclaim responsibility. Why? If, in 1921, we were prepared to propose and to agree to the commitments of that treaty, our responsibilities under it could not have been lessened in the 16 years intervening. It would seem that, as we have mentioned before, we desire to be of the world and yet apart from it. While we may still desire our influence in the world to be felt, we do not care to accept the responsibilities which should rightfully accompany the benefits of our association. As the Times states, we have “lost our leadership in world affairs.” Because of the weight of our influence, it behooves us to regain it with all possible speed.
Prior to the decision to assemble the signatories to the Nine Power Treaty at Brussels, former Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson, in an excellent summary of the events leading up to the Far Eastern crisis of 1937 which he addressed to the New York Times, opened his letter with this statement:
Americans are shocked and outraged at what is taking place in the Far East. But to many of them it presents merely a confused picture of distant horrors with which they think we have no necessary connection and to which they can close their eyes and turn their backs in the belief that we owe no duty to the situation except to keep out of it and forget it.2
Would that we might close our eyes and turn our backs on the troubles of the world, but we have grown up as a nation and by that very growth have taken upon ourselves the responsibilities of maturity. We cannot avoid the accompaniments of those responsibilities.
As a sovereign power we sat down beside the other sovereign powers of the world with interests in the Far East and signed the Nine Power Treaty in the course of which it is agreed:
(2) To provide the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunity to China to develop and maintain for herself an effective and stable government.
How well have we lived up to the spirit of the obligation which we took upon ourselves when our delegates affixed their signatures to that treaty? In less than 16 years another signatory has on two occasions invaded the territory of China, has set up puppet states to do its bidding, and has, by mass murder and rapine in the extreme, destroyed what the government of China had been able to accomplish toward the stabilization and development of the country. Can we be surprised if China’s faith in her champions, and especially the United States, has waned materially? Mr. Stimson remarked that the Nine Power Treaty “correctly represented the personal attitude of the American people themselves toward China and our sympathy with and interest in her growth and future.” What has so changed our attitude in the intervening years that we are satisfied to stand by and watch the ruthless ruin of the country whose cause we championed such a short while back? The answer to that question would be of value in determining our right to continue as a powerful influence in the world’s affairs. There are those who will lay the blame at the feet of a changed political administration but I do not believe that any political party, no matter how strong, is capable of altering public opinion to that extent. It is a more deep- seated cause. There has been a more deadly force at work carrying out its subtle yet telling function of robbing the nation of its very vitality.
Those who are sometimes referred to as the “militarists” of the United States have often compared the armed forces of the nation to a city’s police force. And yet, while the police force is in duty bound to prevent crime and to apprehend the offenders against the civil laws, the policy-determining powers in the United States are content to sit by and watch a friendly nation ravaged by another power in which, as Mr. Stimson says, “militarism has consolidated its hold upon the Government partly by a campaign of terrorism, which involved the assassination of the more moderate Japanese statesmen.” The United States seeks no territory for its own uses and we desire to live in peace and to see the world do likewise but if the greed of other nations prevents the achievement of our ideal, may it not be that we have a responsibility to the other nations of the earth to enforce peace? Because we sit apart from the other nations, our motives cannot be looked upon as self- promoting. That is what gives us the unique position which holds such promise for the future peace and prosperity of the world.
The United States has been satisfied to calmly accept the conquest of Ethiopia (although not admitting it officially), and to observe the complete negation of the treaty which brought the World War to an end, a war in which we were participants with the victors who dictated the terms of peace. The terrible calamity of Spain with its violations of treaty obligations and indefensible aggressions may seem more removed from our sphere of interest but is an added indication of the need for a stabilizing influence in the world. Making due allowances for partisan bias, it is well to recall the actual words of Mr. Stimson in his letter to which we have previously referred. He said:
In Britain and America, usually in the van of matters of international morality, the people nave seemingly been smitten by a temporary seizure of nervous “jitters.” This has been excusable in Britain, faced as she has been and now is with an extremely perilous European condition within range of her home cities. But in America, occupying the most safe and defensible Position in the world, there has been no excuse except faulty reasoning for the wave of ostrich-like isolationism which has swept over us and by its erroneous form of neutrality legislation has threatened to bring upon us in the future the very dangers of war which we now are seeking to avoid.
Japan, in violation of her solemn obligations to respect the territorial integrity of China, has destroyed equality of opportunity in those portions of China which are now under her complete domination. Because we failed to act in 1932, we must now pay the penalty for our inertia. As a result of Italy’s conquest of Ethiopia, we determined to close our diplomatic and consular establishments in Addis Ababa. There is no government to which our diplomatic representative might be accredited, and the possibility of developing trade for the United States is so meager that the maintenance of a consulate seems unnecessary. To the United States, the conquest of Ethiopia is of minor importance, materially, but morally the crime of unwarranted invasion and conquest in this instance is just as important to us and to the future of world peace as is the rape of China. With the destruction of our Chinese markets, our material interest in that violation is greater and more far- reaching. Instead of abhorring these violations with every power at our disposal, it is lamentable, but true, that we actively assist the violators by virtue of a shortsighted foreign policy which has developed in no unimportant degree by virtue of the unrestricted employment of the forces which have sapped our national vitality and encouraged our lethargy. Is the condition of our statesmanship indeed so pitifully inadequate that we cannot devise such simple means of co-operation between the nations as would stop these international crimes?3 It is feared that we have placed peace above righteousness and in so doing “we have thereby gone far toward killing the influence of our country in the progress of the world.”3
If we are to limit our action to that demanded by actual invasion, how can we expect to progress as a nation and to maintain the peace for which we strive and upon which depends the progress of the world? Secretary of State Hull has said that “the attainment of durable peace is still a matter of desire and hope rather than a reality.”4 In the Panay incident, we advised Japan:
The essential facts are that these American vessels were in the Yangtze River by uncontested and incontestable right; that they were flying the American flag; that they were engaged in their legitimate and appropriate business....5
The failure of any government to protect the legitimate business pursuits of its citizens in foreign countries must nullify any governmental efforts looking to the extension of a nation’s foreign trade. What good can come of our reciprocal trade agreements unless we are prepared to support the increased business which may result from their negotiation? We cannot be non-isolationist on the one hand, and keep ourselves apart from the rest of the world on the other. Unless we are prepared to shut ourselves off from the world and remain a hermit nation (with all that such an existence entails), we must take our proper place in the family of nations, assuming thereby the obligations and risks which international intercourse involves.
The New York Times in its editorial of November 30, 1937, after stating that “treaty-breaking Governments and dictators have become convinced that for no cause short of actual invasion will the United States initiate or join any effective movements to assure world peace,” continues:
For this conviction on the part of these treaty- breakers the “isolationists” and “pacifists” in Congress and their vociferous supporters in the country are chiefly responsible. These groups include persons who believe that we can stay out of any world conflict. They attribute our entrance into the last international war to British propaganda and the schemes of bankers to enrich themselves. . . .
In the advertisement of a recently published book entitled England Expects Every American To Do His Duty, by Quincy Howe, Harry Elmer Barnes remarks:
Should be the Bible of every American mother not raising her boy to be a soldier—or a marine.
Boake Carter adds:
It names names, dates, and places and reveals the old allied propaganda machine firing again on all twelve cylinders.
Now no one wishes to deny that the “allied propaganda machine” was a powerful influence in the last war but the people of the United States should recognize how powerful such a machine can be. We are not children to be told tales of the “big, bad wolf” and have implicit faith in such tales. We have reached the age of judgment and should be fitted to sift facts from sensational propaganda. The “old allied propaganda machine” is not the only one at work these days. Every newspaper and magazine in the country is overflowing with propaganda of some sort and, because we have been such a fertile field in the past, international affairs are a pet subject for the manufactured stories which we read daily and, all too frequently, believe. Some are less clumsy than others and therefore more telling but we know that the majority of the information which comes from foreign countries is colored to some extent. Modern means of communications have enhanced the facility with which the stories are “got across.” Knowing all this we should be more constantly on our guard against the influence, conscious or subconscious, which such propaganda (if you will) may have upon us. While we must co-operate with those nations whose motives are akin to our own, we should, nevertheless, do our own thinking and determine our decisions in the light of past experience. That we have been fooled once (if we were) should not prevent our putting forth our best efforts in the future if the stake is as valuable as the maintenance of world peace must be.
It is true that our innate hatred of war coupled with a semblance of fear for the same state, supported by vociferous voices within the country, conceived the ill- advised Neutrality Act of 1936. The New York Times states that by this act
The world was put on notice that the United States was out to save its own skin from immediate dangers; and the dictators were informed that the American group controlling policy was prepared to see the world remade on fascist lines without interference and apparently without understanding that this would mean anything dangerous to us at all.6
With regard to the Ludlow Resolution requiring a referendum before war may be declared, a correspondent of the same Paper remarked that “no more fantastic proposal has ever had serious consideration in Congress.”7 “When war comes,” writes Mr. David L. Cohn in the Atlantic Monthly, “the country will decree by law that emotional man is to be unemotional; distressed man is to be calm; hungry man ls to be satiated; hot-blooded man is to be cold-blooded; biased man unbiased; self-seeking man selfless. That is a task at which even the gods have failed.”8 To attempt to stem wars by decree, to seek to legislate international peace, to attempt to tame man who is untamable when provoked, is to attempt the impossible. Wars have been fought since there were men to fight them and they will continue, no doubt, so long as men remain upon the earth, but to put other nations on notice that we, the United States, will not defend our inalienable rights is to invite the insults and violations which have provoked War in the past. How long would the individual be left in peace if he gave notice that he would not defend himself against affront? Nations are but communities of individuals.
Priding ourselves for the heights to which we have risen in cultural development, we still fail to recognize realities. After the signing of the Locarno Pact, Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler wrote:
The conference on security held at Locarno, Switzerland, October 5-16, 1925, was one of the shortest, most important and most far-reaching international conferences in history. ... A new era has opened for Europe and the world and the understandings that have now been arrived at and the conventions that have now been made will do all that in human power can at present be done to pave the way to an international cooperation in Europe which will be the stoutest possible barrier against future international war.
On January 22, 1936, Anthony Eden put on public record that Great Britain had received guarantees of armed support from France, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey, in event of attack by Italy and had given such guarantees in return specifically to Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey, and implicitly to France. On March 7, 1936, German troops occupied the Rhineland. Following the Saar Plebiscite on January 13, 1935, Germany had already given notice that it intended to scrap the Versailles Treaty. The “new era” referred to by Dr. Butler was short-lived. The International Yearbook for 1935 states:
The resurgence of German military power had profound repercussions upon the diplomatic alignment of Europe. It was the principal factor behind the Franco-Italian rapprochement of January 7, 1935, the establishment of a united front against Germany by Britain, France, and Italy at the Stresa Conference on April 11-14, the Franco-Soviet mutual assistance pact signed May 2 and . . . the conclusion of a similar pact between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union.
In the face of such facts as have been recited, the people of the United States still cling to the pathetic illusion that we can be in the world and not of it; that events abroad are of little interest to us; and that the destruction of other nations will leave us free to pursue our own course. Has the pacifistic spirit obtained such a hold that we will not fight in defense of our rights? Have the seeds spread throughout our educational institutions grown into spineless, useless weeds of men to whom patriotism means nothing any longer? If mere patriotism for one’s own land is of no account in the minds of those whose souls have been poisoned by the false teachings of those who go among us in these days, the spirit of “internationalism” which is such a popular theme of the present time should indicate the necessity for positive action against the destroyers of civilization.
To the information that pacifism was still the American mood, transmitted to the Japanese representative at Brussels as the conference held there recently was about to convene, may be attributed in large part the determination on the part of Japan to resist intervention on the part of the powers gathered there. The Brussels Conference convened in a spirit of pessimism and was foredoomed to speedy failure. It is appropriate, however, to quote from the opening address by the American delegate to that conference. Mr. Davis said in the course of his address that.
International trade and financial relations, which are indispensable to human welfare, immediately suffer from the disorganizing effects of resort to armed force. . . . Once mutually beneficial international economic relations are impaired or break down, nations are forced into varying degrees of reliance upon their own resources and, consequently, into a further lowering of their living standards.
But our pacifism and our illusions have not prevented wars and the disorganizing effects which follow in their wake. What might have been the result if we had been prepared and ready to throw our weight as a peacemaker, by force, if necessary, into the arena of the world’s events? As Mr. Stimson wrote, “possibly because the total American fleet was held united at Hawaii on the flank of the Japanese aggression, Japan in a few months withdrew her forces from Shanghai with her objective unattained” (in 1932). Solely because of our peculiar position as a comparatively isolated power without thoughts of empire, our potential means of offense can be used as a weapon for the maintenance of peace in the world. Our God-given position would seem to demand that we do use it as such when the peace of the world is threatened by the aggression of other powers.
It could only be a very wise man who would attempt to predict world events in the immediate future. The set-up of nations varies almost daily and every event brings some change in the understanding of the course which the nations will follow. While Italy in 1923 issued a 24-hour ultimatum to Greece because of the killing of four Italians on Greek soil, and used a similar pretext for its conquest of Ethiopia, the death of an Italian on the Panay was attributed to an “accident.” This reversal of attitude is due, of course, to the Italo- German-Japanese anti-communist pact and similar reversals of attitude may be expected from other nations if their policies deem them expedient.
We know today that Italy, Germany, and Japan are bound together in a common front against communism while France and Russia have concluded the mutual assistance pact and that Czechoslovakia is similarly bound to the Soviet Union. However, the united front against Germany which Great Britain, France, and Italy agreed to at the Stresa Conference in 1935 is already a dead issue. Great Britain stands alone in Europe although leaning toward the Soviet by virtue of its understandings with France, allied as the latter is to the Soviet by its mutual assistance agreement. Spain is the scene of conflict between the communist and fascist theories. The outcome of that conflict will have an important influence on the future of Europe and the world has not seen the end of foreign intervention on either side. It may be that the peace of greater Europe will be determined on the battlefields of Spain. Many observers feel it will be, but whether Insurgents or Loyalists are victorious, the backers of the winners will then be free to proceed with their future plans. Another fascist state on the Mediterranean will further complicate Britain’s life line to and from the East. A victorious communist state will be the source of perpetual fear. So, the pendulum swings back and forth while the world waits in suspense to see where it will stop. Germany’s economic pressure from within demands that she expand. Where? The nations which received her former colonies into their keeping are not anxious to return them to complete the eradication of the basis of the peace concluded at Versailles. Does Austria offer sufficient possibilities to warrant its absorption by Germany? The Nazi eye has been cast southward ever since the inauguration of that form of government in Germany. There are other possibilities. The Netherlands are rich in colonial possessions. The vast territories of Poland and Russia are tempting. But where Germany will strike, where fascist power will become dominant and communist influence be imbedded, is of less concern than that these disturbing dements are present in the world and there is crying need for a stabilizing influence free of the greed and economic necessity which drives nations to violation and conquest. The only power sufficiently well concentrated within itself to undertake such a venture is the United States assisted, actively or passively, by Great Britain which, within narrower confines, may exert supplemental support to our campaign for peace in the world.
Within our own hemisphere there is need for guidance. The good-neighbor policies which have received such widespread assent in the recent past are idealistic but worthy of commendation. However, we have a graver duty and one which we alone may fulfill. The spread of alien doctrines within this Western world must raise the danger of bringing to our shores the very elements which are so disturbing to Europe’s peace. It seems paradoxical that in August, 1937, we should have proposed the lease of destroyers to Brazil and that when, in November, a corporate state was established there, the President of that country stated that “the national [Government] . . . does not have at its disposal defense means within legal limits and is thus forced to fall back upon exceptional methods. . . .”9 One wonders what part our destroyers would have played in the establishment of the corporate state had Congress given its assent to the lease. The events in the Dominican Republic and Haiti raise the question of our responsibility toward those two nations. Both have been the scene in the past of occupation by American armed forces. It may appear contradictory to suggest that our duty to the peace of the Western Hemisphere requires our active intervention in the internal affairs of the nations of that area while denying the right of other nations to intervene in other regions. However, it is our peculiar position which could be the only excuse for such intervention. Since we seek no new territory and wish merely to extend the benefits of our civilization to the countries which may require them, we cannot possibly be classified with those nations who, by expressed intentions, seek new lands and the eradication of the barriers to their expansion. In the territories which we have occupied in the past, we have left behind upon our evacuation a more stable government, greater economic prosperity, and a higher standard of living. Those are the returns we have made and the countries have been made richer by our interest.
That astute student of national affairs, David Lawrence, writing in the New York Sun for December 14, 1937, said:
Does it do American moral force and diplomatic influence any good to have members of Congress and peace organizations crying out for the withdrawal of protection from American citizens in the Far East? Isn’t that tantamount to saying to Japan that, no matter what happens, the United States will not insist upon respect for treaty rights where American citizens are concerned? . . . Mr. Roosevelt’s hands are virtually tied by the non-resistant public opinion that has been built up during the last two or three years.
As we have said earlier, the failure to protect our citizens’ legitimate business pursuits in foreign countries must nullify governmental efforts directed toward the extension of our foreign trade. Our municipalities war against the racketeers who destroy legitimate business and we have the same duty, as a nation, to war against those who wantonly destroy our foreign markets. The 10 per cent margin which is accounted for by our foreign trade is the dividing line between normal business and depression. If we fail to act against one offending nation, we say, in effect, that we shall not act against others who offend in a similar manner. Gradually but steadily our foreign business can be ruined in its entirety, economic pressure at home increases, the bread lines get longer, and the relief rolls expand to the point where the national income cannot support them. With stoppage of relief the animal instincts of men gain control. Whether fascism or communism follow, democracy as we know it will be destroyed. Are the pacifistic groups which preach isolation prompted by the knowledge of the result which must follow the practice of their theories?
While the United States remains passive, the rest of the world rushes forward in its desire to arm. The League of Nations Armaments Year Book states that the world’s expenditures on armaments in 1937 will total $11,857,000,000 or nearly three times as much as in 1913, the year before the World War began. Europe, which accounted for 30 per cent of the total expenditures in 1932, spent 63.4 per cent of the world’s armament costs in 1937. Italy, meanwhile, has joined the nations which have withdrawn from the League of Nations. The dreams of peace and the settlement of disputes by peaceful means daily grow less promising. Those who still believe in dreams feel that Italy’s withdrawal frees the democratic and peaceful states from the obstructionist tactics of the last of the fascist powers at Geneva, and gives them an opportunity to make the League a stronger instrument of international action.10 The inefficacy of the League in past disputes has been adequately shown. The official absence of the United States at its council table has not prevented our co-operating to the extent which our dillydallying tactics permitted. Would pacifism have permitted any stronger action had we been members of the League? It is doubtful and even if it had, the lack of force behind its decisions leaves the League powerless in its condemnation of violation and aggression. The human element which enters into the League’s deliberations, the envy and greed of certain of its members, and the inability of large bodies of delegates to come to a common understanding on any phase of international intercourse all tend to confirm that the basis of peace must lie in the active participation of one nation dedicated to the preservation of peace throughout the world. Great Britain is in a position to qualify for this duty only in certain respects. The United States alone is capable of exerting unbiased and untrammeled influence for the good of the rest of the world. If peace is to be more than an idle dream, it is our duty to exert the strength which has been granted us.
How idle are the dreams of peace in present world circumstances was brought out forcibly in a discussion recently in the American Mercury in the course of which it was shown that in the past 20 years “hardly a season, and never a year, has passed without violent military episodes in some quarter of the world.”11 While the world has been waging war, although what we call “the last war” was concluded 20 years ago, the nations have engaged in peace pacts; we have outlawed war with a stroke of the diplomat’s pen; and have been parties to treaties for the limitation of naval armaments. How futile these gestures have been is evident from the bloodstained map of the world. China, India, the Near East, South America, Europe, all have seen war since that “war to end war,” and while we fought “to make the world safe for democracy” there were growing in strength the “isms” which desire the destruction of democracy. How idle, indeed, have been our dreams; how Prudent should be our future actions.
The fascist states have confronted Great Britain with their combined powers. In the Mediterranean, Italy threatens vital communications; Germany remains as a problem in northern Europe; and Japan is in a position to proceed against Hongkong and Singapore. Whether any one of the three states could be successful individually is doubtful, but any one of them with support from either of the other two would press Great Britain hard to maintain her existing position. A threat against the only other world power which can be relied upon to exert democratic influence for the good of the world must be of primary concern to the United States. It is important that we align ourselves with the other democracies with a view to the preservation of peace if not, indeed, of civilization itself. We must stand together and the old adage “by dividing we fall” contained in “The Liberty Song” may well be taken as our watchword. We are in a position to act alone, when necessary, and to throw our weight to the side which reasoned consideration determines is the one most favorable to the preservation of Peace. So long as Great Britain is confronted with the problems she faces today, we would not be far off in our decision to stand by her. And the accusation of “Anglophile” need not be made for it is common sense that the two great English-speaking countries should stand shoulder to shoulder. Our independence of thought and action need not be surrendered by our decision to co-operate with the nation whose aims are so akin to our own. We may be deadly rivals in trade, but we have the common purpose of desiring to preserve the markets from which both may profit if they exist, but from which neither can hope to obtain business if they are in the possession of and controlled by nations with alien and nondemocratic points of view. Whether it is advisable for the two nations to agree publicly to co-operate for their mutual benefit and in the common cause of world peace must be left to others to decide, but the determination to relieve England of some of the burden which now rests upon her would be a forceful deterrent to the peace-breakers. Were we to agree to police the Pacific while England increases her strength in European waters and actually did build up our strength to bind the agreement, tacit or expressed as the case might be, it is firmly believed that many of the expansive policies which now disturb the world would be buried in the brains of the conceivers. Does not the future well-being of the world demand such a course?
The economic pressure which the two leading powers of the world could exert on the balance of the family of nations would undoubtedly make force unnecessary but idle gestures will not succeed in these troubled times and, no matter what peaceful course may be decided upon to coerce the treaty-breakers and dictators, that course must be supported by adequate military and naval power. We have seen the ineffectual efforts of the League of Nations and how they were ineffectual merely because of the lack of strength to back them up. We have had enough of peaceful persuasion and if we are to accomplish the duty which our singular position has placed upon us, we must be prepared to support our threats with the only known effectual means, force. We fought the War of 1812 and the Spanish-American War because our sovereign rights had been offended. We demanded satisfaction from a revolution-torn Mexican government for insult to our flag in 1914. Are recent insults less important to our national well-being? By all means let us settle disputes amicably but let there be a limit to our patience and, above all, let other nations know that there is such a limit. To achieve the ability to warn others, however, we must first overcome the pernicious and perfidious preachings of those who would convert us into a spineless and imperfect nation. When such a distinguished soldier as Major General William C. Rivers comes out in favor of the Ludlow Resolution, there is cause for anxiety concerning our ability to cope with our responsibilities.12 If the quiescent attitude of the press following the Panay incident is indicative of calm consideration and a determination to avoid appeals to the emotions, it is to be commended, but if it is a sign of lethargy on the part of our people, the efforts of the peace groups and propagandists have succeeded beyond all expectation. If the destruction of both public and private vessels and the killing of their crews is to be taken “lying down” and without obtaining full restitution, the country is, indeed, in a weak and parlous condition. If the risk of some munitions maker obtaining profit as a result of our endeavors to obtain satisfaction for the killing of our naval personnel engaged in the pursuit of their duties, deters the seeking of that satisfaction, the sacrifices of those men who faced danger and have died are certainly in vain.
The United States has long been in need of a sound and fully expressed foreign policy. This policy, when formulated, must be consistent with our rank as a world power. We have shown, it is hoped, the full extent of our capabilities as an influence for peace and the well-being of the world. The world must be made to understand that we are prepared to give voice to our disapproval of actions which endanger the peace and progress of the nations whose friends we are and from whom we desire no territory and no greater opportunities than are given to others. We must be ready as well to give material support to our spoken word if, in the folly of self-assertion, the offending nations fail to abide by our warnings. It is confidently believed that by this means we can reestablish our lost leadership in international affairs and indicate to the violators of small and weak nations and to the enemies of democracy that this nation retains the strength and the capabilities upon which it was founded and which have brought it to the outstanding position which today gives it the right to act as mediator in the troubles which may arise among the other nations of the world. The glorious records of the men who fought and died to preserve the rights which we treat so lightly today must not have been in vain. In our infancy we fought for our rights but now there is a larger scope for our democratic principles. The enemies of democracy have so increased in strength that the preservation of those principles is a more vital need. The President said in his speech at Chicago on October 5, 1937:
It is because the people of the United States under modern conditions must, for the sake of their own future, give thought to the rest of the world, that I, as the responsible head of the nation, have chosen this . . . occasion to speak to you on a subject of definite national importance. . . . The high aspirations expressed in the Briand- Kellogg Peace Pact . . . have given way to a haunting fear of calamity. The present reign of terror and international lawlessness . . . began through unjustified interference in the internal affairs of other nations or the invasion of alien territory in violation of treaties, and has now reached a stage where the very foundations of civilization are seriously threatened.
It would be wise if every American would read and re-read the President’s thoughts on this subject which is, as he says, of “definite national importance.” We can no longer be in the world and yet not of it. Every move that is made in the chancelleries of Europe and the rest of the world is of importance to our future. It is probably difficult for the citizen who is not directly concerned with foreign intercourse to appreciate this fact but he must be educated to that view for, whether we adopt that most “fantastic proposal,” the Ludlow Resolution, or not, the voice of the ordinary citizen may one day soon be required to give support to a national policy which will recall the days of 1917-18. God forbid that the necessity will arise but we cannot stand by peacefully while “the very foundations of civilization are seriously threatened,” and expect to continue our uninterrupted course of progress made Possible, heretofore, by the bountiful goodness of nature.
...our salvation, like the salvation of other Peoples, lies not in staying out of wars once they have started, but in preventing wars from starting. And it must be remembered that we have stamped out contagious diseases, such as smallpox, not by hiding in cellars until the epidemic has passed, but by forcibly (if necessary) vaccinating the people before they became infected.13
Li that quotation, it is felt, lies the solution the world’s problems and, as we have endeavored to point out in the course of this discussion, the United States must be the world’s public health service and do the vaccinating. No other nation is sufficiently untrammeled to meet the requirements. And in proposing that the United States act as the world’s doctor it is not with any high degree of altruism for it is only with peace and stability in the world that we can be assured of markets for our products of farm and factory. With assured employment for our workers we need have no fear of the bugaboo of communism and fascism.
To carry out the duties which must devolve upon us in the years ahead we must develop the strongest possible State, War, and Navy Departments. It has always seemed a strange coincidence, if coincidence it was, that originally brought those three departments together in one building in Washington. They have separated now but their common purposes remain binding the three together into what should be an indivisible whole. They are our protection against war and, if we are wise, they can be made equally vital to the peace of the world.
Epilogue
Since the above was written America’s better appreciation of its position has been shown in the President’s telegram to former Governor Landon in which he said:
I believe that the overwhelming majority of our countrymen . . . have desired to pursue the even tenor of their way at peace with all nations . . . but throughout our long history we Americans have rejected every suggestion that ultimate security can be assured by closing our eyes to the fact that whether we like it or not we are a part of a large world of other nations and peoples. As such we owe some measure of co-operation and even leadership in maintaining standards of conduct helpful to the ultimate goal of general peace.
Further evidence of our readiness to cooperate is contained in Anthony Eden’s speech in the British House of Commons on December 21, in which he concluded:
Most important of all is the relation of the British Commonwealth of Nations with the United States. There is not and cannot be any question of a treaty or entanglements, but there is a true community of outlook, and it is that which can prove an invaluable asset in the maintenance of peace, which is the first and greatest desire of the British Commonwealth and the people of the United States alike.
These statements, made, as they were, almost simultaneously with the report of our intention to request congressional authorization to further strengthen our defenses, are enheartening signs and, it is hoped, indicative of a fuller realization of our duties toward the world.
*This article was submitted in the Prize Essay Contest, 1938.
1[A] Economic Survey of the American Merchant Marine, United States Maritime Commission, 1937.
2[A] Letter of Henry L. Stimson to the New York Times October 7, 1937.
3Partially quoted from letter of Henry L. Stimson to the New York Times, October 7, 1937.
4New York Times, December 19, 1937.
5Text of American note to Japan, December 14, 1937.
6New York Times, November 30, 1937.
7Arthur Krock in the New York Times, December 14, 1937.
8“We Fight No More,” Atlantic Monthly, November, 1937
9[A] Radio address of President Vargas, November 10, 1937.
10[A] New York Times, December 13, 1937.
11[A] John W. Thomason, Jr., “The Art of Prophecy,” the American Mercury, November, 1937.
12 Letter to New York Times, December 19, 1937.
13 [A] David L. Cohn, “We Fight No More,” Atlantic Monthly, November, 1937.