« PreviousContinue »
unproductive unless you are thinking about its nature and causes so thoroughly that you will presently be able to take hold of it and control it and end it." We must do all we can, through pulpit, platform, and press, to cultivate a genuine international-mindedness—not as a substitute for American-mindedness, but as its highest expression. But a mere subjective attitude, however generous and honorable, will not suffice, unless it expresses itself in an objective order, a world policy.
As a means to that end, and for their own sake, we shall do well to cultivate friendly intercourse with neighboring peoples-exchange professorships and student scholarships, international sports, international professional organizations, and such worldwide societies as Clarté and Corda Fratres. But in. crease of intercourse means increased occasions for friction. It is by no means true that the more we see of people the more we like them. The contact of dissimilar social systems often results in mutual antipathy, ridicule, or contempt; manners and morals different from our own affect us unpleasantly, and defects in alien customs tend to become exaggerated in our memory and discourse. It is hopeless to expect that we shall be brought by commercial, professional, or personal intercourse to any widespread understanding of and sympathy for the diverse standards of foreign peoples. Moreover, at times they will do or say what is really unfair and unjust. So, very likely, shall we. Human nature being what it is, we can not expect to avoid misunderstandings and resentments. But they need not lead to war, and will not, if we have an accepted alternative means of dealing with them.
Hitherto our efforts to devise a mechanism to settle misunderstandings have been confined to arbitration treaties and the reference of disputes to the Hague Tribunal. The first arbitration-treaty of modern times was the Jay Treaty of 1794, between the United States and Great Britain; and we had the honor of being the first nation to submit a dispute to the Hague Tribunal, something over a century later. At date of writing, America is party to some thirty treaties, in which we agree that all disputes between us and these other nations, "of every nature whatsoever, to the settlement of which previous arbitration treaties or agreements do not apply in their terms or are not applied in fact, shall, when diplomatic methods of adjustment have failed, be referred for investigation and report to an international commission”; we further agree "not to declare war or to begin hostilities during such investigation and before the report is submitted."
These terms do not bind us to refrain from declaring war with these nations, as a last resort. But the required delay may be of immeasurable value in giving hot heads time in which to cool; and the report of the international commission should lift the dispute out of the realm of passion and prejudice into that of reason. This will not suffice to restrain a nation that is bent on war. But if our own people and the other peoples to whom we are thus bound are genuinely eager to maintain amicable relations, this method provides a way for us to preserve peace with selfrespect.
We may well be proud of this pioneer work in constructive statesmanship. But time has proved that we must go farther. Roosevelt pointed out with emphatic reiteration that "peace treaties and arbitration treaties unbacked by force are not merely useless but mischievous in any serious crisis. ... The policeman must be put back of the judge in international law, just as he is back of the judge in municipal law." Such a mechanism must be made operative that no nation will dare to make of a treaty a "scrap of paper" when it feels strong enough to repudiate it. The whole force of the world must stand back of international order and security. The single nation should no more have to worry about protecting itself than the private individual in a state; the family of nations should see to it that each of its members is free to live its own life undisturbed and unintimidated by any other. No nation must be allowed to act as its own advocate, judge, and inflicter of punishment. Each nation must have the fullest opportunity to present its case; but the common opinion of mankind must be the judge; and punishment-or rather, reparation-must be required only when the common opinion of mankind demands it.
Moreover, it is not merely to prevent war that we need international organization. We need it to remedy the injustices that lead to war, to guide and harmonize the increasing number of activities that are world-wide in scope. Questions of the distribution of shipping, and of raw material, the control of disease, the distribution of labor, and its status, and a hundred other matters, can no longer be settled by the nations severally. To fail to co-operate in these matters is not only to lose in efficiency, but to invite mutual hostilities.
This is not necessarily to say that the existing League of Nations is the best means to these ends. No one can foresee at the date of this writing what decision the American people will come to on this point. But it is to say that some sort of international organization must replace the older anarchy, and replace it soon. Any scheme is sure to have defects. But "if we were to postpone the setting up of any machinery for the conduct of human affairs until we were certain that it could not possibly go wrong, or even until all objections were finally and completely answered, we should never get anywhere and never do anything."
We must welcome, then, all honest criticism of the existing League, and of any other scheme that may be proposed or attempted. But beneath all the pros and cons of this discussion, we must recognize that in some way or other we must co-operate. The era of national isolations is over, we are now an integral part of the world. Far from being inconsistent with our national spirit that we should take our place in this world-order, it would be fatally inconsistent that we should refuse to do so. When we think of our own personal desires and interests, it must always be “America first." But when we think of the other peoples who need our help and co-operation, it must be "America for the world."
We must frankly admit that co-operation may involve sacrifice; sometimes material sacrifice, sometimes sacrifice of prestige or supposed "national honor." It is, however, a false conception of honor that would lead us to refuse the compromises inherent in co-operation. We must take the lead in the willingness to see the general interest of mankind prevail, if there is a conflict, over our national desires and expectations. We must be willing to abide loyally by the decision of the international tribunal, even if we feel it to be unjust or mistaken. If it falls to our lot to make a concession for the general good, we must be ready to make it. There are few precedents upon which to base decisions in international matters, there are few judges not unconsciously biased. Impartial, absolutely just and wise decisions we hope there will be; but there are bound to be some that seem, and perhaps are, one-sided, unfair to some nation, based upon an insufficient grasp of the facts, or colored by passion and prejudice. The essential thing is that we take these decisions, when they are made, as good sports; just as in baseball the game cannot go on unless both sides accept in good humor the umpire's decisions.
The federation of the world is coming. But how fast? How great a leap forward will statesmen dare now to take? And, whatever plan they try to put into operation, will it work? The answer to these questions depends upon the state of mind of the people of the nations that are to be thus federated. It is not exclusively a problem for statesmen and students of international law, though their expert services will be needed. It is in even greater degree a problem for the moralists, the educators, the editors and preach. ers, and all who can help mould the minds of men. For difficult as it is going to be to complete a just and workable system of international law and administration, that difficulty is as nothing to that of persuading the people of the component nations to give that loyal allegiance to this new authority which alone can transform it from a paper plan into a working system. It should be a matter of pride with us to be foremost in this next step in the world's progress.
There is, then, no duty more pressing than to awaken our people to the realization of the imperative need of world-organization; not merely that such an organization may be elaborated, but that it may be loyally upheld through the long period of readjustments and necessary concessions. We must not let