NOTES ON THE WAR

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 136, 11 June 1945, Page 4

NOTES ON THE WAR

PLANNING PEACE

SAN FRANCISCO LIMITS

The problem in Europe today is no longer primarily military; it is the equally great problem of the restoration of law and order, even life itself, to a numbed and devastated continent. The meetings of the military leaders of the Big Three, first at Berlin and this weekend at Frankfurt-on-Main, are steps to the organisation of a fairly uniform treatment of the inhabitants of the zones of the former Reich assigned to Russia, Britain, and America, the French zone not yet being defined, but in any case to be regarded as subsidiary. The military effort of the Western Allies is being transferred from Europe to the Asiatic-Pacific theatre of war against Japan, but the transfer will take months, and deployment for the final assault on Japan is not likely for some time yet. The present phase of warfare is designed to win strategic bases for the assault. Meanwhile, the San Francisco Conference, drawing to a close, holds the stage. As outlined in this column last week, the UNCIO Conference at San Francisco is based on the Dumbarton Oaks formula, a summary of which was given. But there have been many changes, some of them important. Nevertheless, it would be unwise to expect everything to emerge automatically from San Francisco as infallible planning for peace. There are limits to what a conference, however big, can do, and these are set out vigorously by Hanson Baldwin in the "New York Times" on the eve of the conference, his remarks, of course, being addressed more particularly to the people of the United States. This is what he says:— What San Francisco can, and what it cannot do, should be clearly understood by Americans. After the last war, the nation brought up a "lost generation," partly because we keyed our thinking to shibboleths instead of to reality, partly because our western impatience for the immediate millennium overbalanced our judgment. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes again; if we do, the peace will be lost before the war is won and the security of America imperilled. Some of the Problems. Here then, is a "primer for Americans," as outlined Dy some of the men—practical but idealistic men— who will attend the conference:— 1. San Francisco is not a peace conference. It will not settle border or territorial disputes, the future of Germany, reparations, or other issues arising from the war. Most of these issues will not even be discussed; others will be indirectly influenced by the decisions made at San Francisco. 2. San Francisco will be largely concerned with the mechanics of setting up a new League of Nations, or world order. The problems of organisation and administration of such a group, of voting procedure, etc., will dominate the discussions. 3. The world situation will not be fundamentally altered by San Francisco; the millennium cannot be expected overnight, and a "lasting" peace will not be achieved in a few weeks of effort. 4. But San Francisco may provide the unfinished machinery—for other conferences and other steps will be necessary—for international co-opera-tive effort, which may grow in strength and structure and may make wars less frequent. 5. No nation can, and probably no nation will, depend solely upon San Francisco and the organisation that grows out of it for complete security. While, all far-seeing nations, and nations of good will, will attempt to strengthen the machinery for international effort, all of them will sponsor whatever national security measures they deem essential in their own vital interest. 6. The invidious term "power politics" has been levelled in some quarters at the tentative machinery already set up at Dumbarton Oaks, which will be discussed at San Francisco. Power and Responsibility. The tentative plans for the new world organisation do recognise realistically and properly the sound principle that to those who have the power must go the responsibility. This can be called .'"power politics," but historically and realistically, there have never been politics without power, and there has never been a world without politics, for politics is the machinery of government. Government—national or international—that is not based on power, is shadow government. Whether "power politics" are good or bad, as the late President Roosevelt inferred, depends upon the aim of those politics; i.e., what the power is used for. But the authority conferred upon the United States, Russia, and the British Empire in the tentative world organisation does not, per se, mean a callous disregard of the rights of minorities and of small nations. Nor can it mean, without much further implementation, insurance of those rights. In other words, San Francisco will not settle the peace or end the war; it will not create a "brave new world" overnight; it will not eliminate "power politics"—indeed, the new world organisation must be based upon the politics of power coupled with the morality of justice, if it is to be successful. It will not eliminate war for all time or insure lasting peace and it will not provide certain security. Middle Road Held Best. Its chief problems will be how to harness justice and power in tandem, how to couple the rights of small nations with the authority and responsibility that must necessarily be given to big ones, how to reconcile legitimate national and regional security measures with the broader concept- of international and world security. For the United States, San Francisco poses the same broad alternatives that have always faced this nation after previous wars—isolationism, imperialism, or the middle way. From the point of view of military—let alone political and economic—security, isolationism and imperialism are both dangerous roads. The middle road is narrow and hard, but it must be followed. For America cannot afford again a cynical revulsion to the facts of life, nor can we follow the glitterirfg will o' the wisp of aggrandisement, though called by any other name. There must be no more "lost generations," disillusioned with the imperfections of mankind. San Francisco will be pre-eminently worthwhile, no matter how limited its achievements may be. For it is a brave step, and a hopeful one, towards an unending aspiration of history—a finer community of man. This is an ideal that will not be achieved rapidly, and disillusionment must not be allowed to shock us into cynicism. We must keep our eyes fixed on the stars —but our feet planted firmly in the mud of the world we live, in^