A Third Foreign Policy ?
Sta,—Your interesting discussion of foreign policy recalls some remarks made by William Temple in his Christianity and World Order about the difference between the conservative and radical tempera- ments. " The conservative temperament," he says, " tends to dwell on what is indispensable, that this may be safeguarded. The radical temperament tends to dwell most on the higher ends of life, that these may be facilitated." Temple, however, recognises the insufficiency of each alternative on its own. "The world needs both," he goes on. " But wisdom consists in the union of the two . . . [We must] grasp the vital importance of safeguarding what is indispensable while we fulfil the obligations of reaching out towards the higher end as yet imperfectly attained."
What the late Archbishop stated in principle about the two temperaments and their defects can be easily illustrated in the field of foreign affairs. The League of Nations was an expression of the radical temperament which sought to impose an ideal on the world but inevitably failed. As Harold Nicolson says in his biography of George V, the " magnificent theory " underlying the League of Nations " assumed a degree of unanimity and unselfishness among the nations of the world which, if it had really existed, would have rendered the whole apparatus of Geneva unnecessary." On the other hand, the conservative temperament has found expression in the realist theory of the Balance of Poirer, with its various corollaries. While the Balance of Power has been a greater influence for peace, in the long run, than the League of Nations, it also is far from being a perfect solution. It lessens the ' possibility of war, but it cannot prevent it absolutely. Archbishop Temple recognised in principle the need to synthesise practical and ideal solutions in all walks of life; the problem that faces statesmen today is how in practice this synthesis is to be made in the field of foreign affairs. It is a hopeful sign that the new Secretary- General of the United Nations is evidently following just such an idealist- realist trend of thought. When he took office Mr. Hammarskjold made a brief speech from which one may deduce that he discounts both the purely idealist policy that we should work for " the abolition of war " by setting up some form of " world government " and the purely realist policy that we must simply attempt to restore the Balance of Power. Instead, he proposed that the nations of the world should work towards a new conception of war and peace according to which, for example, unconditional surrender would not be demanded of a defeated enemy. As to methods, Mr. Hammarskjold seemed to favour what a Briton (with memories of Burke, Baldwin and biology) might term the " controlled organic growth " of a world society; at any rate, the Secretary-General compared the success of the somewhat amorphous British Commonwealth with the relative failure of more carefully planned associations.
Mr. Hammarskjold is evidently going to have a considerable influence on world affairs, both on account of his position and also because of his acute mind. Could he not be persuaded to elaborate on his
Previous page
