Evening star., 1933-02-12


bound to result. And the friction Is
much more dangerous because each Of
the national governments has armed
forces under its orders.
Must We then abolish national
sovereignty If we are to preserve peace?
! Must we aim at the immediate estab-
hshment of supreme super-state, or
world federation, under which ma
| tional governments will be reduced to
state county councils, or at least to
the status CT the governments of the
| separate states in such a country as
| the United States? Ultimately, I be-
| lieve world federation must come as
the life of the world becomes essen
| TALLY international and as more and
more of our activities take world
range. This does not, of course, mean
| that even then there will not be ma
| tional governments or that we shall
cease to think of ourselves as Ameri-
| cans and Englishmen. But it does
mean that national governments would
be supreme only in defined limits of
action; in others the world federal
government would be sovereign.
And it also means, if 1t is to be Sc
curely established, that men of diff
ferent countries must think of them
selves primarily as citizens of the world
men, Just as a man living in London
now thinks of himself more as an
Englishman than as a Londoner. This
second condition, however, shows how
difficult it would be to make such a
change of government-and how long
it will take.
Whatever be the final goal, though,
cannot we establish a sure basis of
peace with a less drastic reform? I
believe we can. A form of world gov
ernment much more restricted in ex-
tent and much more modern in nature
would, I think, relieve us from both
the loss and the danger involved in
independent national sovereignty.
Dangerous in Two Spheres.
1t is in only two spheres that con-
f1icting national action involves serious
loss or real danger; economic and
financial policy, on the one hand, and
foreign policy with the military prepa-
rations that are a counterpart of it,
on the other. We therefore can con-
centrate our attention on tariffs and
ornaments. And even here we need
not contemplate anything so drastic as
the abolition either of tariffs or arma-
ments; or the substitution of an ex-
ternal world authority to settle what
these shall be- 1t will be enough If
national governments will, in both
cases, voluntarily restrict the exercise
of their Independent right of action by
durable agreements.
We can, for example, imagine tariff
convention under which all countries
would agree that for a specified and
substantial period they will limit their
duties on the various categories of
goods to defined amounts; that they
will not increase them without notice
and consultation, and that they will
gradually and equally proceed with
co-ordinated policy designed to reduce
the impediments to world trade.
So, too, as regards armament. If the
different countries would agree upon a
convention which would restore national
armaments and military forces to a
level at which they no longer caMse ap-
prehension, and make it certain that
they would not be increased again
above that level, we should similarly,
without abolition of national sovereignty,
escape the greater part of the economic
loss and nearly all the dangers now In
volved in competitive armaments.
To some this policy may seem Uto-
plan; to others, too timorous. I be-
lieve it is a practicable course between
an unlicensed and unregulated nation
alism, which must lead to war, and
premature attempt at the suppression
of national sovereignty, which must lead
to failure. Whatever may be the ulti-
mate ideal, believe-now-not In abol-
ishing national frontiers but in taking
the poison from them by voluntary
agreements.
I believe that we should work out
the agreements through committees or
conferences of national representatives.
BY this method we can go just as far
as the state of public opinion in each
country allows us without the certain
result of destructive reaction. This
Is the fundamental principle of the
League of Nations, of which the gov
erning authorities, the Assembly and
the Council, consist of the national rep
resentatives of the governments of the
different member states.
Any other way of trying to make a
world government would, in present
circumstances, be both impracticable
and useless. We could not, If we wished,
set up some new external world au-
thority with power to override national
governments, and if we could set it up
it would certainly break down.
1t is essential, therefore, that the
organs of world government, such as
the Assembly and Council of the League,
ollOdlo SOlhoAot Va PSoPAS WAN ASPA SoSAAt
national governments, who can within
the limits of more or less elastic del
egated authority negotiate with other
countries and, when they agree, can
secure that their national governments
act in accordance with their agree
mentS.
Resolutions the Only Result.
1t is very important to realize this.
Many progressive people, impatient with
the slow progress of existing govern
ments, have advocated that the Assem-
bly, of the League of Nations should, as
they say, represent the peoples and not
the governments of the world. If they
got their way, and if the Assembly were,
in fact, composed each year OF people
not representing but more progressive
than the national governments, what
would be the result? We should get
think very much better than the resolu-
tions we are now getting, but they
would be subject to the fatal defect
that they would begin and end as res
olutionS They would not compel ac-
ton. We have to face the plain fact
that if we want particular kind OF
policy pursued We must in our own
countries elect the kind of government
which will support it.
1ou may say, no"eVef, II all Iiie
League does is to secure that national
governments consult together while
! leaving each of them with its full and
independent sovereign power as before,
what has been done? Governments
have always consulted together, either
by conferences or diplomatic communi-
cations, on matters which were of COM
mon concern. What, then, is the mean
ing of saying that the League represents
the beginning Of a real world govern
ment?" Let me- in reply, sum up the
differences between the League method
and the old method of diplomatic COM
munications and special conferences.
In the first place, under the League
system, governments now meet at reg
ular periods and under a regular pro-
cedure This regularity of meeting
links the governments as no series of