One of the most important pronouncements concerning the policy of the United States has been made by Mr. Cordell Hull, U. S. Secretary of State, in which he denounced dreams of isolationism which have been very much to the fore in the minds of many Americans when considering the relationship of their country with the rest of the world. But a few years ago it could have been readily conceded that the majority of the people in the United States believed that they could keep themselves aloof from whatever happened in the way of warfare in other parts of the world, and that preparation within itself to meet any form of outside menace was all that was necessary. That doctrine would have been true so long as the United States resolved to remain purely self-contained, but directly she branched out strongly into foreign trade and established interests all over the world, it was obvious to non-Americans that sooner or later the United States would be drawn into all those problems which beset the world, even if only to protect them. Singularly enough that was not so apparent to a large proportion of the population of the United States, which, firmly grounded in the advice given by Washington against entering into any foreign entanglements, held to it as the gospel whence should spring all deci sions on foreign policy. But Washington's condemnation of foreign entanglements was not quite so absolute as many would seem to believe. Only a short while ago Mr. H. A. Wallace, Secretary for Agriculture, repeated two sentences from a speech by Washington which go to prove that contention "We may choose peace or war as our interest guides and justice shall counsel. Taking care always to keep ourselves in a respectable posture of defence, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies."
That particular passage suggests that what ihe great American statesman had in mind was reluctance that the United States should enter into permanent alliances though he did not exclude the possibility that temporary arrangements mights be resorted to if such were in the best interests of the country.
Very different considerations were abroad in the world when Washington was laying the foundations of the policy of the United States, and the words quoted above are probably more applicable now to that nation's position vis-à-vis of the world at large than it was then. Principles may remain unmodified for ever; that need not be true of their application, and though there may still be a very urgent desire on the part of large numbers of Americans to continue strictly minding their own business, the fact of the matter is that that business has become so extensive, embracing practically all parts of the world, that such modification has become necessary if not immediately imperative. That business is not solely that of dollars and cents but of morality, good neighbourliness, insistence upon those democratic ideals which even now are denied only in a very few countries. Thus as Mr. "Hull rightly says the United States are closely concerned over the maintenance of world order under law as the sole effective means of the preservation and application of peace. The point has been made quite as clear by the Turkish President, M. Ineunu, who has recently declared that Turkey was fully awakened. She was not content merely to assure her own safety but was ready and willing to contribute to the peace of the world, and if war came she would fearlessly do her duty. It is by no means astonishing that if a nation such as Turkey has been brought to a realization of the common effort necessary to make sure that peace and justice shall reign in the world, that a nation animated with such ideals as the United States would ultimately come to the same conclusion. The adoption of a policy of aggression by a number of Powers, and the consequent peril in which other nations may thus be placed, has made it incumbent upon those who prefer to see the rule of law continue as the dominating factor in international politics, take such common action in preparation against furiller aggression as shall ensure that the latter shall be brought to nothing but failure. It is not likely that the United States could be persuaded to enter into such a formal alliance as those which it is now being sought to perfect by the democracies in Nevertheless the fact that the peace of the world is being threatened in the manner which it is, and the necessity to see that it shall be secured against those which menace it, means that whether the United States enters any alliance or not, she may find herself forced into a struggle for the protection of her own ideals, and the ensure ing of her own ultimate safety. A Europe brought under the heel of an aggressive combination despising and hating all that democracy stands for, would be a very definite menace not only to the rights and interests of the United States but to the actual safety of the country and its people. It is for reasons such as this that Mr. Hull's speech assumes the importance it does, especially at such a juncture, It is most certainly against the interests of the United States that the ideals which dominate the counsels of such nations as Germany and Italy should prevail in the world, and if it were sought to impose them upon other nations and the democracies sought with all their might to prevent it, the United States might not be drawn into the struggle. Even then it could not remain indifferent to the outcome. It is for that reason that the United States can no longer expect that by withdrawing from normal relations with other nations freedom from risk of embroilment in war can be ensured. It is a regrettable fact that world conditions are now such that only by the organization of the peace-loving nations into an effective combination for the preservation of themselves and all that they believe in can it be hoped that war will be prevented, or that if that fails the prospect of victory for their side shall be most favourable. It would be perfect if the United States could be included in any such arrangement, for no axis as at present constituted, or as it may ultimately be extended could possibly hope to succeed against such a formidable array of antiaggression Powers. The peace of the world would be assured, and would then open the way to negotiations for the settlement of those outstanding questions without which the tranquillity _of the world can never be secured. That is the goal ultimately to be aimed at,—the establishment of justice throughout the world, a justice reached by negotiation, and not an injustice imposed by force.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.