Askov American., 1942-06-11
War Aims Are Peace Aims
By Louise L. Wright.

Chairman Foreign Policy Depart
ment, National League of Women
Voters
When the United States defeats
Germany, Italy and Japan, it will
have done more than win the war.
It will have Won another opportun-
ity to make good the promises given
the generation of the first World
war. The young men of twenty-four
years ago believed they were fight
ing the war to end war. They won
the war; their parents lost the peace.
The nation was unprepared with
military equipment at the beginning
of the war in 1917; so was it un-
prepared for the peace at the end
of the war in 1918.
This time it must be different.
And it will be different. Today we
are better prepared for this war
than we were for the last; we are
also better prepared for the peace.
We have knowledge of the inter-
dependence of nations and the nee
SSSlty LII lldNhlS SOlllC Ao1CS VI SOll-
duct observed by all nations, which
we have accumulated during the
past twenty years. We also have
the practical experience of interna-
tional organizations which have
functioned during the past twenty
years. These agencies have evolved
techniques, assembled data, and
trained people to handle the intri-
cacies of international affairs. But
even more than these, we have body
polite aware of the modern world
in which it functions and deter
mined that the lives of its indi-
vidual members shall be worth liv-
ing.
War aims and peace aims are but
two sides of the same coin. We fight
a war in order to have peace. Our
war aims are then really peace aims.
We cannot wait until the day after
fighting ceases to prepare for the
peace. That dawn must find us
ready with sense of values which
shows us how to reach our goal of
a world at peace. Planning for
peace is part of our war work. This
does not detract from the war effort.
On the contrary, it increases the will
to fight in order to have chance
at the peace.
To win the peace, we must con-
slider carefully to what extent we
are willing to place limitations on
our national sovereignty-what func-
tions which are now considered pure
ly national, but which affect the
welfare of other nations, would be
dealt with more satisfactorily on
the international level than on the
national. To give an obvious ex-
ample, we couldn't possibly send
letters around the world with the
speed, accuracy and low cost now
possible if each nation had its ma
tional mailing system which made
individual arrangements with all the
other nations of the world. We have
now learned that control of epi-
denies and narcotic drugs can only
be handled effectively on the inter-
national level and that certain labor
standards are best established by
international agreement.
AS part of the peace, we shall
want to consider putting tariffs and
immigration on the international
level. These are movements of
goods and peoples from one nation
to another, so it is impossible to
deal adequately with them from the
purely national point of view.
If we are to have world in which
the four freedoms are available to
all, we must have a system which
insures respect and development for
those people who have been called
backward" Shall we extend the
guardianship theory of the mandates
system which was applied quite sue