LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must be accompanied b'4 the *tame and address of the author, which will be treated as confidential.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR]
TOWARDS A NEW INTERNATIONAL ORDER
Snt,—Since the restoration of some kind of international order, after Germany has been defeated, is one of our war aims, it is well that there should be a continuous and vigorous dis- cussion of the general principles which should underlie that order, provided that we are not led astray into mere Utopia- building. But some of those who have, up to the present, taken part in the discussion seem scarcely to have learnt the lessons of the international experiments of the last twenty years. An understanding of the political systems and ideals of other countries is a condition precedent to the drafting of any new plan for international co-operation.
The advocates of Federal Union have realised that one important cause of the League's collapse was its failure to enforce a satisfactory international economic order. Since the League had no power to modify the autonomous economic policies worked out by its member States, the political principles for which it stood became wholly inconsistent with the economic ends which its members were free to pursue, and this contradiction led to disaster. If in a period of general depression, such as that of 5930-2, a country with a strategically strong economic position is free to defend itself from the effects of the depression by local measures which increase substantially the difficulties of others, the economically weaker States feel themselves justified in taking political action of an aggressive character for the purpose of over- coming their economic distress. These States can argue with some show of plausibility, when resorting to aggressive measures, that moral indignation on the part of the countries which have successfully defended themselves from depression at the expense of the rest of the world is misplaced and hypocritical. This contention is not easy to refute.
The plan for the establishment of a Federal State, however, if realistic in its emphasis on economics, is unsatisfactory for other reasons. It is generally agreed that a Federal Union could be formed only of like-minded Powers, notably the democracies. However democracy may be defined, this conception of a Federal State means that its scope would be narrowly limited. The probable result of the formation of such a Federation would be to drive countries which were beyond the democratic pale, and so found themselves excluded from the Union, into establishing rival blocs.
The proposal raises another serious difficulty. Federal Union implies a frontal attack on the principle of national sovereignty. It is conceivable that countries like Great Britain and France, with a long history as independent nations, may be prepared to surrender some part of their administrative independence to a Federal State in which they would have a large influence. But many countries have just emerged, or are just emerging, from a position of subordination to other Powers. In such countries the greatest emphasis is placed on the assertion of their individuality, and they would be exceedingly reluctant to surrender any of their independence, especially as they may fear that their national life would again pass under the influence of countries from whose control they have just freed themselves.
It may be suggested, then, that in attempting to create a new international order we should, first, apply the principle of inclusiveness, so as to avoid the establishment of rival blocs of Powers, and that, secondly, we should refrain from any overt attack on the principle of national sovereignty, since that would arouse resentment and suspicion. A reconstituted League is probably the best agency for promoting the one and avoiding the other. Its main positive purpose should be not to make a deliberate attack on national sovereignty, but to undermine gradually the basis of that sovereignty by encouraging the widespread adoption of devices and policies which increase international economic co-operation ; that is to say, by bringing within the sphere of international law many matters which now lie outside it. This end could be secured by Treaties which, though signed by sovereign States, would in effect limit the power of those States to follow self- regarding policies. Thus, the League should aim at re- establishing an international monetary system, adherence to which in itself limits the ability of States to pursue autonomous economic policies. It should try to ensure that legal limita- tions are placed on the administrative interferences with international trade, such as characterise our present quota- ridden era. It should assert again the old prescription of kisser-passer for persons and capital. Since in both demo- cratic and non-democratic countries peoples have become disillusioned with the results of restrictionism and autarky (except for war purposes), its policies might from the outset enjoy a considerable measure of public support. The sanctions clauses would certainly have to be removed from the League's constitution, because the fear of the application of even economic sanctions might make many countries reluctant to abandon autarkical policies.
Apart from these efforts to bring economic policy within the scope of international law, the League's tasks at first should be mainly educative. It should provide a medium by which peoples can be informed about the political ideals, purposes and grievances of each other. In the last resort we can have a stable international order only if nations can find a common set of moral ideas to which they will give allegiance. At present this is lacking. But we must proceed on the assumption, not that non-democratic countries are, as such, incapable of co-operating peacefully with us, but that there is in most political systems some constituent which, if fostered, can be made to form the basis of an international order.
Our aim should be to encourage the elements in the non- democratic regimes most favourable to that order, rather than to treat those regimes with cold hostility. Hence we need to create in ourselves a frame of mind sympathetic towaads political systems other than our own, without abandoning our integrity of democratic purpose. This sympathy must depend on understanding, and understanding demands intellectual effort as well as emotional fervour. What is surely of utmost importance is that the new international political machinery should be appropriate to the diverse national political systems and ideals, and that modifications in that machinery should always correspond to developments in the national systems and purposes which it attempts to reconcile.—I am, Sir, &c.,
G. C. ALLEN.
ri Monks' Way, West Kirby, Cheshire.
Previous page
