United States, has delivered a pronouncement regarding American policy, which by reason of its oportuneness, acquires a more than usual importance, 1t is highly significant that, at a time such as this, he should have thought fit to make so clear a statement of how he regards present world tendencies and the part the United States should play in helping to check them. The crucial issue to-day, he said, was whether the principles—of American policy enunciated on July 16, 1937—would be vitalized and firmly established as a foundation for international order, or whether international anarchy, based on brute force, would inundate the world and ultimately sweep away the very bases of civilization and progress. The issue has been posed by the "rising tide of lawlessness, the growing disregard for treaties and increasing reversion to the use of force and numerous other ominous tendencies emerging in the sphere of international relations." It is a matter for the deepest regret that the rule of law is rapidly disappearing and that the world is progressing toward a trial of strength, when brute force will decide whether the principles which have dominated the relationships between nations in the past shall be vindicated, or whether the only right shall be that of might. The threats to international morality which are being made in Europe and Asia cannot but be regarded with the utmost seriousness. The strong desire for peace which was felt after the hideous sufferings of the Great War, engendered enthusiasms which led to attempts at disarmament. The wish, for too long was father to the thought, and pacific democracies have had it forcibly brought home to them that the time is not yet ripe for peace, and that humanity may again be thrust into travail. Hence Mr. Hull contends, on the subject of American rearmament, that no policy would prove more disastrous than for an independent nation to fail to arm adequately when international lawlessness was on the rampage.
The Secretary of State has made it quite plain that the foreign policy of the government of the United States is not one dominated by dollars and cents, or inspired by any similar sordid considerations. Those, who in the past have thought so, should. have been disabused last year, but the impression has apparently prevailed in some quarters, and it is, perhaps, just as well that the reaffirmation has been made. There is a tendency on the part of some people and even of governments to endeavour to assess the political interests of one country in another upon purely material considerations. That is a form of realism which denies its own definition, for it completely ignores the fact that there are still governments in the world animated by high principles, Such an one is the United States, and this has been emphasized by Mr. Hull's denial that the interest and concern of the United States in any part of the world, whether in the Far East or any other part of the Pacific area, in Europe or anywhere else were not measured alone by the numbers of American citizens residing in that particular country, by volume of investment and trade, or by exceptional conditions peculiar to that particular area. "There was, he pointed out, a much broader and more fundamental interest—that orderly processes in international relationships should be maintained. This announcement, made at such a time as this, will undoubtedly be taken as an implied rebuke to Germany over what has been done with regard to Austria. It goes no further, for it is still quite clear that the United States will remain very reluctant to take any part in European matters unless the necessity to do so is forced upon them, American sentiment is definitely against it, though history has shown that that great nation can be moved on questions of principle in a manner which has never been demonstrated on mere material considerations.
It is because American policy is so largely dominated by principle that the "isolationist at any price" cannot be allowed to have his way. The very fact of a nation's existence places upon it international responsibilities, and leaves it open to international dangers. It might be possible to cut the western hemisphere entirely off from the rest of the world, but not only would the world suffer, but in the long run the inhabitants of the American continents would suffer morally and physically. It is impossible to be in the world, but not of it. It is to be regretted that the policy of the United States does not make it possible for something more downright to be said on existing conditions. If it were possible, an announcement of what would be the attitude of the United States in the case of certain eventualities would have greater influence for peace than anything which has transpired up to the present, It would, however, possibly lead to those entanglements which it has been the American tradition to avoid. Nevertheless were the fate of the democracies at stake, judging from the point of view of principle, there can be no doubt where America's sympathy would lie. It is for reasons such as these that extensive addition to the armaments of the United States is under consideration. The American government is profoundly convinced that the most effective contribution which it could make to the cause of peace was to have the country respected throughout the world for its integrity, justice, goodwill, strength and unswerving loyalty to principles. It is well that this should be realized. There has been much departure from that policy by other nations, and the appeasement of the world will only be achieved when all the nations are brought back to the age-old belief that, after all, honesty is still the best policy.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.