Askov American., 1943-12-30


freedom of opposition, or else an ex-
plosion.
You ask some specific questions
which 1 must deal with. For in
stance: "What is to prevent the use,
by reactionary governments, of the
National Contingents' in the Initi-
ating-States mot merely for inter-
national order" but for domestic
suppression?
There are several answers. Most
important is the fact that the Nat
ional Contingents, as members of the
World Police Force, will owe allie
glance not to the governments of the
countries in which they are located
but to the government of the World
Federation and will have taken oath
not to interfere in any internal dis
putes, for the breaking of which they
would be subject to court martial
and execution in disgrace. Further
more, any members of a National
Contingent who felt like intervening
in an internal dispute would prob
ably have against them a large part
of their own Contingent as well as
the overwhelming remainder of the
World Police Force and major part
of public opinion, both in their own
country and throughout the world.
You ask, "to what agencies can we
turn for action against economic ma
tionalism, cartelS the exploitation
of colonies by master nations, the
dominance over regions by the 'in-
itiating' (most powerfully states ?"
Well, as to economic nationalism
and cartels, if the peoples and ma
tions decide that these should be
eliminated, they will be able very
easily to accomplish this elimination
through the agencies of the World
Federation which have been men
toned above.
On the subject Of ''dominance"over
their regions by the initiating states, I
think it is only necessary to say that
under the World Federation Plan, the
smaller countries would be relatively
far more werfu as against the
great powers" than they are today.
These little nations would be backed
by the whole force of the World Police
and their own citizens would COM
pose the Mobile Corps which would
be the most powerful army exist
ing in the world
Regarding "eXploitations of col
onies" this is topic which you bring
up several times. where" you ask,
sis an agency available to which
oppressed groups may turn ?"
To take your specific illustration:
if large number of Kenya natives
were arbitrarily turned out of their
houses on the discovery of gold in
the locality they could apply for re-
dress to the Government of the
World Federation which is charged
under the Constitution with Super
vision of the rights of Colonies to
self-rule and fair treatment"
Your fourth query, basically,
questions the wisdom of establishing
an. American zone of strategic de-
fence such as that which is provided
in the World Federation Plan. You
seem to fear that ''the American
gravitation toward fresh imperial
istic power implicit in our new naval
supremacy and our need of safe
guarding supplies now shut off to us
in the East" would turn this zone
into preserve in which US. i'm
perialism would be active.
It is interesting to note that one
of the causes which you anticipate
as motivating United States imper-
ialism would be "our new naval
supremacy" Clearly, you are think
ing of an American imperialism
backed by great national armed
strength-and it is indeed true that
imperialism cannot be successfully
pursued without such backing. But
under the World Federation the pre-
sent anarchic and lawless system of
armed and conflicting nations would
be abolished. Naval, as we'll as all
other form of armed supremacy
would not be held by the United
States or any other nation but by
the World Police Force of the World
Federation Government.
1t is possible to cite many in
stances where bases in a smaller
country have been occupied by
large power-as distinct from COM
plete occupation of the whole coun-
try-and where no degree of i'm
perialistic control over the smaller
land, nor even infringement on its
independent sovereignty, has re-
suited. Apart from the instances
you cited from my Summary of
American bases in Cuba and Ber-
muda one might also recall the Bri-
tish peace-time bases in Egypt and
Iraq. Although England, unlike
the United States, has definite
bend toward imperialism, these
bases did not infringe on Egyptian
or Iraqi sovereignty and these coun-
tries were even controlled, very Of
ten by anti-British governments.