Evening star., 1944-12-02
Letters to The Star
Disagrees With Union Now
On Nationalistic Basis

~ oAAc 1oAtoa VI AAc obdi
For some time past, letters laudatory
| of Clarence Streit's Union Now" pro-
| posal and advocating its adoption have
| appeared in your columns. A recent
one, signed Janice Holland, appeared in
| your November "a issue.
Inasmuch as this is a time when
| clear thinking Is imperative, will you
| permit some comment on that proposal?
In the first place, Miss Holland is
misinformed, for, at the Federal Union
lists convention of 1943, the proposal
was enlarged to include all the peoples
Of the world. This changed the nature
OF the proposal and disposed of the
objections numbered l and in Miss
Hollands letter.
Again, Miss Holland says there would
be no attempt to force democracy on
those who prefer other types of govern
ment, yet, in Section 5, Article III, of
the illustrative constitution, it is laid
down that the union will guarantee a
democratic form of government to every
member state, which is quite impossible
except as to external appearance. The
democratic spirit cannot be enforced,
Miss Holland further states that the
foundation of the union would rest on
principles, not nations. But, when the
proposal is examined critically, it be-
comes evident that it is not founded on
demonstrable principles and, when it
Is proposed to set aside both nations and
natlonalism, 1t violates human nature
and natural laws which have made
natlonalism the most powerful spiritual
force extant. 1t calls nationalism ir-
rational and maleficent, which is on
par with saying that the airplane is
irrational and malefcent. 1t speaks of
Switzerland as three nations, which it
is not, as Freeman's essay showed. Mr..
Streit's book is so full of inconsistencies
and irrationalities that it is cause for
wonder how any one can be persuaded
by 1t, and the fact that many have
been is a sad commentary on their
reflective faculties.
Thus, 1t states as its major premise
that the exercise of absolute sovereignty
is the germ" of war But it lists Is
nations exercising absolute sovereignty
which, 1t states, have not warred upon
each other during the past 100 years.
And that number includes two abso-
lutely independent nations which not
only abut directly upon each other
but have long, common border which
is wholly artificial. One of them is,
moreover, infinitely more powerful than
the other. In short, all the excuses for
war are available if either of them were
inclined to war, yet war between them
is unthinkable. They are Canada and
America. The case of these Is, and
especially that of Canada and America
directly controyerts the thesis that the
exercise of absolute sovereignty (nation-
allsm) is the germ" of war. Yet manv
Including Miss Holland, no doubt &C
cept Mr.. Streit's dictum despite the fact
that his own book disproves it!
Says British Have Done 1t.
That book is an outstanding example
of how the right conclusions may be
reached by wrong reasoning. In ad-
vocatlng the organization of democratic
nations to suppress war If for no other
purpose, Mr. STREET is simply proposing
something the need for which is self
evident and something already accom-
plished by the British Commonwealth OF
Nations, instancing once again how
much further advanced in democratic
ways the British are than We But the
forces making for such unions are
so far from being understood by or
even known to Mr.. Streit that none of
them are to be found in his book They
are not understood by the general public,
either; but the intuitive common sense
of the public does operate to make 1t
wary of any proposal which would abro-
gate and dispense with the spirit of
nationalism, the only sure foundation
OF internationalism. The reasons why
nationalism cannot be dispensed with
can be shown; but the publication of
them, now and under present conditions,
is not permissible since it requires an
expose Of the forces antagonistic to
nationalism in general and democracy
in particular and those opponents are
powerfully organized.
Democracy, therefore, must blunder
along in ignorance, resorting to ex-
pediency, because it has no option
Happily, both expediency and natural
law coincide in requiring democratic
internationalism. But to extend the pro-
posed union to all the peoples of the
world is to run counter to natural law
and invite disaster
hovo not mentioned Tho ,be
Of placing representation on a popula-
ton rather than national basis. Should
it be adopted, then the most backward
peoples would dominate. For it would be
the Chinese, the British Indians and
the Russians who would preponderate
and be in position to control. Brave
Russia, for all its gallantry, is not yet
democratic nation, nor is China, while
India contains literally hundreds of
millions who have no faintest idea of
what it is all about, or will have for
years to come. A far more equable and
realistic basis of representation could be
worked out, one which would remain
so far into the future. But it is not to
be found in Union Now Mr.. Streit
has been heard to remark publicly that,
for him. the term, the family of nations
has no meaning at all Could anything
be more revelatory?
AS for Miss Hollands fear that democ-
racy will not survive, let her be re-
assured. Natural law requires it and,
If it should go down, it will rise again,
as it has already done in past times.
A WILL IAN6SOK