The Wilmington morning star. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1909-1990, 1945-04-25

crhis article appeared last week in the Christian
Science Monitor)
BY PROF. HERMAN FINER
Visiting Lecturer in Political Science, Har
ward University; formerly Reader in Public
Administration, University of London
The formidable time for decision is upon
u.s. Next week, thirty nations will enter on
the decisive stage of determining the organi-
zation of our peace. The keeping of the peace
everywhere depends on the lasting collabora-
ton of the Big Three of Yalta. With their
mighty power goes their mighty responsible
ity. If their ways should part, as the failure
of the League demonstrates, they will be
forced for security to form defensive and
therefore hostile coalitions.
| Security is not the only issue: there is JUS
| tice But concern for justice, domestic and
| international, has rarely been known to flourish
| in war or preparations for war Peace, there
FORE is the highest interest OF all peoples A
dreadful responsibility lies upon the govern
ments and peoples of the democracies to rem
der possible, or at least not to prejudice, the
friendship of the Three, A like responsibility
devolves as sharply on the rulers of Soviet
| Russia even more severely perhaps because
their people are not altogether free to direct or
moderate the course of the Soviet's foreign
policy.
There are qualms in the consciences of
many in this Republic about the righteous
| ness OF COudDOraClOn WIFI ue 0OV1CL. IL Is
matter for the profoundest anxiety. There
have even been more or less open sCgges-
tons that war with the Soviet is some day
inevitable, and, for democracys sake de-
sirable This is deeply disturbing state of
mind, though not unpleasant to Nazls. In
too many cases it is not disinterested, and, OF
course; deliberately refuses to seek light on
Soviet Russia.
There are others, however, to whom it is
matter of conscientious doubt whether CO.
operation of the Soviet and the democracieS
| is possible. They sense a difference of pur-
pose and political methods, and therefore
moral difference. between them. They are
genuinely preplexed by the recurrent self
reproach: If our form of government is right,
then the Russian must be wrong. and If their
system is wrong, how can it be possible for
us to work together? The Soviet view of
liberty civil rights and freedom OF con-
science utterly contradcts ours Their form
of economic enterprise is alien to ours Soviet
practice in foreign affairs seems at times to
be swayed by a relative rather than an abb
solute regard for international obligations.
Truly, if we want earnestly enough to col
laborate, we can. The chronically bitter issue
is whether we ought Collaboration would
imply a compromise on our part, and there
is moral blemish, something repulslve, in
compromise 1t affronts conscience and self
respect, for it is equated with hyprocricy and
O1SaVOWdl OF our OWN IuOTdl SlduOdIOS
These doubts must be satisfied, for the
obligations attending the current security
proposals are severe. They entail military
commitments They must be continuing and
automatic, and so require a foundation IN
the steady conscious loyalty of the public.
Is compromise proper, and is it possible?
1t depends on whether we can distinguish
legitimate from illegitimate compromise and
support the former.
The legitimacy of compromise in lnterna-
tional politics can be Illuminated by reflect
ing on the frequent challenge whether Soviet
Russia is democracy. Many among the
friends of the Soviet Union declare quite sin
cerely that is is a democracy because it
seeks the peoples welfare and permits the
expression of opinion. The assertion cannot
possibly be maintained against the crucial
test: Can Stain and his Council of Peoples
CommiSsars be popularity voted out of office?
Stain would be the first to laugh the apollo
gists out of court if they were so politically
| calloW as to answer, Yes.
| Do Soviet electoral arrangements allow
even of the proposal of ticket in epposi-
criticism of Stalin's character, intellect, am
billions, and policy, such as has been exer-
cised about leaders in England, even in the
darkest hour? We all know the answer: 1t is
moral negative.
| Hence, it is no service to the U. S. S. Il. or
world peace 10 WaVer ABOUT anu dOouI VII
these issues, for that only introduces flavor
of hypocrisy which corrupts compromise
The Western world in long and bloody self
sacrifice, originated and developed denoc-
racy, and has the right to declare what 1t IS
1t has no alternative but to say that Soviet
Russia is not democracy.
The Soviet Government is in many other
respects highly beneficial to the people OF
Russia, and even lesson to the western
world But decidedly it is not democracy
For democracy is government by the people,
for the people, and the Soviet excludes the
former In Western opinion and experience,
therefore, it is no long-run guarantee OF the
latter Nor. to get the perspective rlght' was
Russia a democracy before 1917.
compromise is only legitimate ana
morally acceptable if it does not aim our
power of recognition Our first duty as demo-
cratic citizens is to truth and not to acqul-
escence and Discrimination. If for the sake
of quiet life we deny the evidence OF our
senses and moral acknowledgements we com
init two sins against the light. We would
appear cynical and would therefore hoAo"
out and adulterate the basis OF our own dem-
ocratic method. What a government does IN
the name of its people that government
teaches its people to name. If it says to an
other government, II cannot persuade you
to accept my good, therefore l Will pretend
Ito accept your evil and even suggest 1t is
nv good" it thereby authorizes a demorallz-
ing example in public, business, and DO