There is one fact above all others which forces itself upon the attention of every thoughtful observer of world affairs, and this is that the powers of destruction at our disposal are no longer instrumental for the purposes of national self-defence, or for wars between nations in the traditional sense. In the evolution of human society into ever greater social units, there are now only two tribes - two effective social units left, and if those continue to use the traditional means of settling problems between nations, namely warfare, then they will destroy the planet and put an end to life itself as we know it. As the concentration of the world’s tribes into two superstates represents the culmination of the tribal development of man, it may, if the old tribal habits still persist, mean also the end of human development. For long, philosophers have talked about some catastrophe which mankind will bring upon itself, but now this catastrophe is very near. We may say that we live in the shadow of a catastrophe far greater than anything experienced in the history of our race. Warfare and strife have always been a feature of human life and have left the marks of suffering upon every generation. But however vast and intense the forces of destruction which the demon of human self-righteousness has hitherto unleashed, those forces were limited in their extent and mankind emerged from the slaughter, again to take up the threads of life, to weave them into a new and perhaps still finer pattern than before. But now war means not just immense suffering, broken bodies and hearts, terrible loss of life, love and property, the defeat of all endeavour and the insult to all higher aspiration, it means the defeat of the will to live of mankind itself, it means the end of the human story, the extinction of the human race. The question which therefore faces us today is whether mankind has enough reserves of imagination, intelligence and courage to go beyond its established patterns of behaviour, to transcend the impasse upon us and to respond to a challenge unequalled in the history of our race - develop or die! For the first time we are given powers to decide the fate of our species, nay more, of our planet. We have the power of racial and planetary suicide, to put an end to the life from which we have sprung, and of which we are the highest representatives. The challenge of the atomic revolution is the more obvious as it represents an alternative between the life and death of the human race, and what could be clearer in its poetic grandeur. We have been given intelligence to ponder about it, and at least it could fill every human being with a sense of partaking in the greatest primordial event since his race started on its fascinating adventure. Are we to end this adventure by our failure to change, or are we to take it one step further into a future of hitherto unknown opportunities? Where are the leaders to show us the way through the fateful gates of decision? Is our generation well equipped to abandon a crumbling home, to march forward on the unknown adventure of the journey before us, or are we too timid to leave the ancient hearth of our habits which threaten to drag us down into a crumbling abyss? When a time of crisis like ours needs the utmost clarity of mind, the full employment of that faculty which has hitherto been instrumental for human survival, man’s reason and the courage to use it, a sense of adventure and the awareness of a mighty challenge, we find instead that a heavy fog of confusion has descended upon the minds of men, that timidity and a feeling of helplessness characterise our time. Instead of leadership, we are surrounded by divided counsel and it is well nigh impossible to find the right path in the maze of exhortations shouted at us from all directions. The voice of the nation, the voice of science, the voice of patriotism and the voice of humanitarianism, the love of peace and the need to prepare for war, the call of self-control and compromise and the demon of impatient self-assertion, the admonition of the philosophers and the ribald call of uncompromising self-righteousness all claim our loyalty. In the confusion we all too often shut our ears to escape the painful martyrdom of rational thought. Many, despairing of ever finding a way out of the maze, retreat to their private worlds, the warm hearth of the ancient home, waiting for it to crumble rather than go out into an unbearable chaos. Scientists tell us that six hydrogen bombs can completely destroy life in this country, that America and Russia have between them many thousands of atom bombs, each of which can be used to detonate a hydrogen bomb. It is estimated that in the near future America could have about 5000 hydrogen bombs and Russia about 1000. If we consider that one hydrogen bomb can completely obliterate an area like greater London and kill about eight million people, and if dropped somewhere near the English channel would endanger human lives over the whole of Western Europe including the greater part of the British Isles by radioactive contamination, then we can imagine that even vast countries like America or Russia are far from being safe from extermination. One bomb on each of the major towns and main centres of administration, industry and military concentration would not only completely wipe out these centres, but would also cover the rest of the country with radioactive particles, contaminating crops, animals and human beings, thus not only killing a vast number of people but by poisoning food and water and entering the bloodstream, produce terrible diseases which would take their toll of those fortunate enough to escape immediate massacre. Unknown diseases would spread among all men, and the alternative to sudden death would be a slow and tortuous one. In perhaps two years the major nations would have the material means to bring about such horrors not only in certain countries, but all over the globe, because the use of hydrogen bombs in considerable numbers would have its deadly effect all over the earth. Radioactive clouds of high intensity would be carried by the winds for thousands of miles bringing death, disease and starvation in their wake. But an even more efficient weapon will soon be perfected - the Cobalt Bomb, whose destructive radiation is many times more powerful than that of the hydrogen bomb. In a few years time thermonuclear rockets will carry those to any point of the globe, and heads of government will be in a position completely to destroy an adversary within a very short time, and as this will apply to both sides, with the result that possibly in a few minutes afterwards they will be destroyed themselves. It would only take half an hour to destroy completely a country like England and perhaps a couple of days to destroy the planet. The governments of the major countries tell us that we must speed up and increase our armaments and prepare ourselves for another war. It is, they say, only our enormous superiority of destructive weapons which will deter the adversary from attacking us, and we must be determined to impress him by our armed might, by our power to exterminate him if he should ever dare to show excessive tendencies. Full rearmament, and the capacity for armed superiority is again regarded as a guarantee for peace. As we do not know the intentions of the other side we must suppose them to have aggressive designs and ready to exploit any weaknesses on our part. It is accepted as a basic hypothesis for our political actions that the dynamic behind the policy of the U.S.S.R. is eventual world conquest, which can only be deterred by a show of strength, by a determination on the part of the Western countries to smash every move in this direction by an overwhelming show of military power. As the best guarantee of military superiority is our superiority in nuclear weapons, we have to build ever greater numbers of them, develop their destructive power, build more and more efficient mean for their transport and delivery and gain such strategic points which enables us to cover all parts of the eastern world with our nuclear weapons. It is of course taken for granted that we ourselves are only motivated by a desire for peace, but are forced to gain domination over the other side in matters of destructive power and strategic disposition in order to prevent him from attacking us, to deter his aggressive designs. (Whether the politicians on the other side of the Iron Curtain use exactly the same arguments is, of course, a matter of conjecture). The philosophers tell us that unless our mind can find a new re-orientation, a new outlook and a new morality our species is doomed and we are at the mercy of the ancient destructive instincts which our species has inherited in its long struggle for survival. Reason and civilisation are only a thin crust on the deep waters of primeval instinct, and if reason has lost its power to be the guiding light, the channel for the direction of primitive forces in us, they may erupt with elementary violence, shatter the pretences of civilisation and destroy the endeavour of the centuries of civilised man. It has happened before in our history, but if we submit and let it happen again, the enormous destructive powers which the primitive man in us would have at his disposal would spell an end of our journey of evolution in a final orgy of barbaric annihilation. And the population of the world is left gasping at the contradictions of its leaders, unable to reconcile their claims, torn in its loyalties, unable to differentiate right from wrong, truth from falsehood. It is astonished at the inevitability of further destruction, it does not know how to avert it and stands by helplessly and hopelessly while events take their inevitable course. Mankind submits to be the victim of events it can no longer control, for the time being satisfied with the lease of life given to it while it can still avert its eyes from destruction. But mankind, while it acquiesces in the development of destructive powers by its representatives, is responsible for destruction. We are at this moment responsible for our coming annihilation. And more even than the physical life of this planet is at stake - it is the spirit of man which is on trial. If we submit to the possibility of world wide destruction, then our conscience, our spirit, and all it has ever stood for, will suffer mortal defeat. We are accomplices in the greatest murder of all time - the murder of civilisation. We are responsible by dint of intelligence and foresight, which we have acquired, to be aware of the consequences of our actions, and those of us who hide behind ignorance and flabbiness of thought, behind self-righteousness, behind the warm bosom of habit, to blame the “others,” we are accomplices and cowards all. Ignorance is no excuse for criminality. To avert one\s eyes from what is being done in our name is no escape from terrible blame. As Charles Peguy the great French philosopher has put it: “He who allows things to be done is like him who orders them to be done. It is all one. It goes together. And he who allows things to be done, just like him who orders them to be done, is altogether like him who does them. Because he who does shows courage, at least, in doing. He who commits a crime has at least the courage to commit it. And when you allow the crime to be committed, you have the same crime, and cowardice to boot. Cowardice on top of it all. There is everywhere infinite cowardice.” To hide behind the cover of national self-defence is to insult humanity when we possess weapons not to destroy only soldiers, towns or even countries, but weapons whose measure of destruction is humanity, and this planet. In our time we will not wage war against another nation but against humanity, and thus our measure of responsibility is towards humanity of which we are part. This is no longer the romantic dream of religious leaders, of the mentality of the Sermon on the Mount, the poets and saints, the great philosophers, but in view of our material powers, which encompass the planet - a stark reality. Man is responsible for his actions - a basic tenet of all civilised life. He is responsible for the sphere of his power to which his actions extend and when the sphere of man’s power is the planet, when the planet is at the mercy of his actions and decisions, then he is responsible for life on this planet. Never before has man’s power extended so far and never before was his failure as a species so near. The issue therefore of war and peace is no longer an issue of religious beliefs, sects, political bodies, but an issue of the life of humanity. The fact that the word peace has become stigmatized by its association with communist machinations shows how little we still comprehend this simple but fundamental truth. Our material powers have put upon us an obligation going beyond narrow interest or national self-righteousness. Whether we like it or not we must learn that our home is no longer our family, our village, our town or our nation but this Planet Earth; and we have to defend it against destruction. Against the state of mind that would blow it to pieces to serve prejudicial interests.
II THE PROBLEMS OF CO-EXISTENCE
The age-old conflict between politicians and philosophers, the men of power and the men who guide world affairs only in the realm of their intellect, has always centred round the fact that those in power wanted to keep it and made every solution of political problems conditional to this desire, while the latter saw in every crisis a stimulus for change, for a re-organisation of the social structure. Today this conflict manifests itself in the claim of the major politicians that their respective nations have to defend the ideals of social life which they represent and cherish, and that any solution of present problems in the relationship of nations is conditional upon the preservation of the traditional principles upon which their societies have been built. The philosophers and social thinkers of our time, on the other hand, almost unanimously agree that a world wide change in social organisation and the relationship between the nations is required if mankind is to survive and adjust itself to the enormous changes in its conditions of life. From their tragic responsibility of knowledge they implore us to rise to the challenge set to mankind by the development of the atomic and thermo-nuclear sciences, and choose between the alternatives these thrust upon us; catastrophic destruction of life on this planet, or progress and the possible life of plenty. Great names, those of Bertrand Russell, Einstein, Schweitzer, Mumford, Sir John Boyd Orr, the spirits of Shaw, Wells, Freud, Romain Rolland and many others appeal to us, to accept our responsibility and bring about those changes of social values and institutions which are in keeping with the enormously changed conditions of life in the twentieth century. It is widely felt that we stand at the beginning of a new era, and that the traditional concepts of social organisation are becoming increasingly obsolete. While the sciences span our planet and their great powers impose upon us the obligation to serve mankind as a whole, which science has made the unity of mankind a technological fact and an economic necessity, our political values still belong to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when patriotism and profit were the fundamental principles upon which social organisation revolved. We can no longer apply these values to the powers of destruction and production at our disposal in the middle of the twentieth century. A new set of values will have to be evolved if the forces of modern technology are not to be employed for universal destruction before their great promises of production are even fully envisaged. The task set before us by the thinkers is a difficult one for our sluggish habits and values, and at best would take considerable time to realise. In the meanwhile events move rapidly, and the human mind - knowing full well that major changes in our habitual ways of life and organisation will not come about quickly by voluntary effort - feels that it can do nothing and stares blankly at the fast-moving scenery of uncontrollable forces, bewildered and afraid, waiting for things to happen. It would be convenient if we could conceive of our efforts of readjustment as being guided by a short-term and a long-term aim. The former to be put into practice immediately, to be a basic step towards the unrolling and setting in motion of the latter. Any short-term endeavour for the solution of our crisis would, to a great extent, have to be acceptable to our politicians, or at least be a challenge to them to which they can reasonably be expected to rise without injuring their pride and their antiquated habits, their wisdom learned in the school of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries political practice. Fortunately, there is today one platform upon which politicians and philosophers can meet. It is a simple platform and earthbound, but on it there is wide agreement, namely, the very basic recognition of the desirability of remaining alive on this planet, and the need to share it with nations whose institutions and beliefs are different from our own. The idea that the great ideological conflict between East and West entails on the one hand the duty of the Western powers led by the U.S.A. to destroy Communism, and vice versa the duty of Soviet Russia and its allies to destroy Capitalism, show signs of being on the wane now. The conception of peaceful co-existence is on everybody’s lips as the enlightened temporary solution to our present political dilemma. Apart from the pause it would give us in the feverish haste of political machinations, some time to think and to re-group our shattered morality (as advocated by the philosophers) it has become a necessity dictated by political facts. We have come to a situation in international relationships where any major changes in the balance of power between the Eastern and Western blocs could only be brought about by means of force, which would today entail a war. The consequences of such a war would be so devastating that they would not only negate the purpose for which it was invoked, not only alter the whole scenery of political relationships in a quite unforeseeable manner, but would endanger and probably destroy the very life and texture of civilisation as we know it. Being conscious of this, no statesman with any sense of responsibility, would today consider war to be the logical continuation of frustrated diplomacy, but would recognise it as the destruction of any diplomacy whatsoever - the end of politics. Far from furthering political premises, a war would destroy them. Of this, statesmen are becoming progressively aware. There is a certain equality of power today between our two Super states - America and Russia - and while at every move and turn of diplomacy they knock and bump into each other, they may growl and curse and use invective, but they dare not take recourse to force, as they feel that in the effort to overcome the other fellow, they may in all probability destroy themselves. Hopeful minds now point out that the consequences of this situation is to recognise the existence, and the right to existence of the other side, and to learn the lesson of good behaviour. By means of civility to reduce frictions, bad feelings, annoyances and short tempers which could, at an unguarded moment, make one or the other so far lose his self-control as to raise his fist and strike. The lesson we are beginning to learn in the age of the hydrogen bomb is that, whosoever declares war on the enemy declares war on mankind, and is responsible for its possible annihilation. If co-existence is the watchword of the moment, we must begin to ask how to bring it into effect, and to avoid the mistake of accepting a static concept of the existence of political bodies. Peaceful co-existence will have to be striven for by positive action and demands more than the passive avoidance of war. The refusal to recognise the justification of war is a new idea for sovereign nations with traditional right to wage war as a last resort to enforce or defend their sovereign will; it needs a new conception of the relationship between nations, a new apparatus to replace the old habits of grand politics. A new sovereignty beyond the old traditional national sovereignty will have to evolve in our minds and a new habit of thought and behaviour in political relationships would have to supersede the old. When the United Nations was founded in San Francisco, it was to a great extent to do just that. But by now, we must admit that the ideals which went into its conception have been defeated, and where UNO has been of some use, it can no longer fulfil the original hopes, to become a new sovereign body, guiding the nations and subordinating their self-interest to the wider interests of mankind. It is often reiterated that the League of Nations in Geneva has been shattered on the stubborn rock of national sovereignty. Today the ultimate sovereignty of the two great power blocs, led respectively by the U.S.A and the U.S.S.R. has taken the place of the old-fashioned national sovereignty and is wrecking UNO. The unity of the big four victorious nations upon which the structure of UNO rests, has been broken up, and has instead become a platform for the display of political rivalry between the great nations. The self-interests of the new power-blocs which have developed since 1945 have invaded UNO and it has become a tool for power politics. The real treaties are made outside UNO, the real political functions are enacted on the old diplomatic level of pacts, such as NATO, the Brussels Pact, the abortive EDC and the Western European Union, etc. The united big nations are no longer united, and while they use UNO to propagate their hostility to each other, the fundamental purpose of UNO, the imposition of peace, has given way to a fumbling endeavour to prevent discord from developing into catastrophe, by means of makeshift day to day arrangement. If UNO has failed in its fundamentals as a practical political institution to realise the hopes of its founders, it has also failed to give our minds a new confidence in a higher political authority beyond the accustomed reliance on power politics, and national sovereignty is still the only guide for our political thinking. Hence, the present impracticability of the various schemes for atomic control. Co-existence seems to imply a static concept of the two great powers passively existing side by side and fails to take into consideration the dynamic of quality of their nature. In our time we can no longer speak of nations in the old sense, but must recognise that certain doctrines and principles are enacted through the national organisation, claiming universal validity. Both the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R, the last two really sovereign nations, claim to be the representatives of a way of life which is universally valid and justifiable before mankind. In the absolutism of their own self-righteousness they condemn the other side as the sinner against the interests of mankind. As we have mentioned, there was a strong trend after the war that each of these nations considered themselves as the saviours of mankind and the liberators from the scourge of communism or capitalism respectively. The means of this liberation was considered to be force and the destruction of the antagonist. While we can see signs that the realisation of the all-destructive power of the hydrogen bomb and other equally terrifying weapons, makes mankind apprehensive and puts a brake on the “liberating zeal” of the politicians, the inherent dynamic behind the two nation blocs, is still a major factor to be reckoned with. This is a comparatively new phenomenon which we have to take into consideration, and we shall run into grave dangers if we fail to appreciate it. While co-existence implies a self-contained life side by side, the very nature of the two powers represents a dynamic force which claims world-wide acceptance. And here we need a new perspective if we do not want to succumb to their respective claims, for to succumb to their respective claims would lead us to succumb to the inevitability of war. Let us, instead, see them as two rivals, presenting to the eyes of mankind the spectacle of two promises working out their fulfilment. In the rivalry between East and West, we see the spirit of capitalism asserting its universal validity as expressed by the American way of life, and the spirit of communism asserting its universal validity in the Soviet Russian way of life. But it is obvious that, at the moment, neither America nor Russia express their respective spirit in a pure manner; that both harbour elements which are foreign to the spirit they each claim to express. The spirit of liberal capitalism is putrified in America by repressive habits, where freedom of expression and freedom of conscience are made dangerous and declared inadmissible to the preservation of American capitalism. The same, respectively, applies to Russia, for the safeguarding of communism. One may declare that this repressive spirit and aggressive self-assertion against all who disagree, may they be individuals or nations, are the logical consequences of (a) the monopolistic restrictive habits of twentieth century capitalism, and (b) of the overbearing state power and the infallibility of party bureaucracy of the Stalinist system. Both systems weigh heavily upon the freedom of conscience, self-expression and sovereignty - the creeds of the nineteenth century social philosophy, ultimately underlying both liberalism and socialism. Instead we find a powerful state authority which is supposed to think for the individuals, representing to them all the wisdom and the morality of the universe. In America, the State is here to safeguard the autonomy of the existing units of finance and industry, while in Russia, the State is to safeguard an economy centrally controlled by the Communist Party. The tyranny of monopolies and banks on the one hand and the Communist Party on the other hand, are existing facets of the two opposing systems, to be deplored perhaps, but to be accepted for the moment unless a major revolution were to sweep the Earth and establish a system superior to both. But although one may accept as inevitable the enormous power of monopoly capitalism in finance and industry, on the one hand, and the absolute power of the Communist Party on the other, they do not, I suggest, altogether account for the state of submission in which the modern individual is held. There is a factor which gravely enhances their tendency for absolute power, and that is fear - fear of the “other,” the alternative, the aggressive enemy on the other side of one’s horizon. The capitalism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries could afford to be liberal, because it was confident of its power. When its strength declined and its very existence was challenged in Germany in the early thirties, it had to adopt repressive measures in the form of fascism. It has been said that England, for instance, did not succumb to fascism because its bourgeoisie, for many reasons, economic and national and psychological, still had great confidence in itself. In Russia, the Stalinist method of communism was first inspired by the isolation of the revolution and the aggressive encirclement of it by the capitalist countries. Freedom is a condition which government can only afford to allow their citizens, if they are reasonably secure in the continuation of their power. This is a lesson which history has taught us over thousands of years. Today the system of capitalism feels to be threatened by communist aggression, not any longer by internal revolution, but by the force of the Russian power bloc, which has assumed the mantle of the proletarian revolution. Vice versa, Soviet Russia, as of yore, feels threatened by the forces of reaction and counter-revolution today represented by the power bloc lead by America. The social fears of capitalism and communism are today projected unto the international sphere. There is a communist in every critic, and this critic communist is helping and is being helped by Russia. And vice versa, every open mind is a rat undermining the structure of Soviet Russia and is paid by America. These mutual fears lead to ever-growing suspicions as to the other side’s next step and a need to protect oneself against it, while this desire to strengthen oneself against the other fellow is regarded by him as a provocation, a new source of fear and suspicion, with a need for still greater military power, etc. As long as Governments can point to an acute outward danger to their community, as long as they can show to the populace the existence of an evermore powerful adversary, who in his actions shows aggressive tendencies and threatens their country, so long will Governments have an excuse to curtail the liberties of citizens, both spiritually and economically. At this moment the Governments of the two respective blocs have this excuse, this justification if you like. While such a situation prevails, neither of the two systems has a chance to show its merits, because both are bedevilled by this fear of external aggression. It forces them to be continuously on the alert, excuses forms of repression, breeds hysteria and mean self-adulation, and perverts the ideals which underlie and justify the existence of the two systems. The ideals of liberalism and freedom on the one hand, and the ideals of the dignity of labour and brotherly equality on the other hand, these principles of nineteenth century political philosophy are ultimately represented in American capitalism and Russian communism, but today both these nations are overclouded by fear, and we are unable to judge them clearly and to see their merits, if they have any, because of their recourse to repression by their respective Governments in an endeavour to defend themselves. Remove this fear, and we can see them functioning on the basis of their principles and we shall be able to judge their merits, praise or condemn them. How to remove this fear of aggression? For the time being we must accept the existence of these two systems. The twentieth century, or rather the third quarter of the twentieth century, can be regarded as the testing ground for the enactment of the social ideals of the nineteenth century by two monolithic powers. They must be able to exist side by side for the time being without having to fear each other, and in this manner compete for our admiration. If they fail to do their ideals justice in peaceful competition, then we shall be clearly justified in condemning them both, and the case is made out to sweep the field clear of their false pretences and evolve a new system of social organisation for this earth. Only in this way can our intellect attain a clarity of view which, at the moment, is bedazzled by the inevitability of fear, with power as the ultimate criterion of values. Man is again to become the arbitrator between the merits of political systems, instead of being their helpless victim.
III THE PHENOMENON OF POWER
We said that a new concept of international relationships in politics has to be evolved, and we can start by considering dispositions of material power which have always been at the foundation of politics. A nation’s sovereignty extends as far as its Government’s power to impose its will. It is for this theorem irrelevant whether the Government be elected by the people or thrust upon it, whether it be a democracy, oligarchy, tyranny, dictatorship or monarchy. What matters in this connection is that the Government is de facto established and de jure recognised internally and externally. When a nation has acquired more material power than it could utilise for its own area of administration then it has, by tradition, endeavoured to extend its area of sovereignty by either aggression or colonisation. In the last century with the enormous growth of industrialisation and the ensuing power of material production, we have seen a race for expansion between the great industrial nations, the main object of which was the colonisation of the under-developed areas of the world, but eventually this race, this rivalry for raw materials and markets had to lead to a direct clash between the main nations themselves and the first world war ensued. A similar pattern from the economic point of view developed in the second world war, which was but a continuation of unsettled scores, left over from the first war, although it had a quite different and far more pungent political significance since the emergence of fascist and communist states. There arose from this second world war, two enormous units with very great quantities of raw materials at their command, great numbers of populations within their borders to provide a big and continuous market for the produce of industry, two tightly knit organisations of industrial production, and both with the great primary incentive of (a) the profit motive and (b) socialist emulation, and the secondary incentive of outdoing the other. All these factors combined, have produced the emergence of two overwhelming units of material and industrial power in relationship to which all the other nations as power units inevitably found themselves in material dependence. There is a law in economics, that the very existence of a certain high standard of industrialisation, must necessarily affect all communities with a lower standard of industrialisation, affect their whole structure of economy and bring them into a state of dependence. There are many examples of this, the classic of which is the uprooting of primitive economy in Africa and India, and now the countries of Europe have taken the role of inferior industrial communities and find themselves in a state of dependence on Russia or America. There has, therefore, been a radical change in the political structure of the world as the consequence of the second world war and the issues which have motivated both the first war and the second, have now taken a radically different form. Old fashioned power politics, the classic roundabout of traditional diplomacy is dead, killed by the new facts of economic relationships. But the psychological habits created by the previous centuries still linger on. As Aldous Huxley once remarked - there are fifty nations in Europe all claiming complete sovereignty, fifty gods claiming complete authority and respect from their citizens, even if in this new world they bow and scrape and beg from their new masters, the two new overlords, Russia and America. There is also another new development. Not only are America and Russia overwhelmingly strong as enormous economic units, not only do they think in the terms of the great units of productivity and consumption which they control, but the technology, in old fashioned words, the machinery which is the framework for their economy has a universal quality, its horizon is not even limited to the great spheres under their control but imposes upon its planners a planetary outlook. The world is the unit of operation for modern technology, industry and science. And to this we must add another factor, namely under this planetary outlook of the industrial producer, we get a planetary self-righteousness with regard to the economic philosophy this producer happens to cherish. When American capitalism looks to the world as the market of its produce, it feels that the philosophy of capitalism is a creed to be shared by the world, and the same applies to Russia, in the obverse sense. American capitalism and Russian communism are both creeds which are each felt to be applicable to the whole world, justifiable before all mankind, and the exclusive source of human salvation. (Now, whereas we have great respect for modern large scale technology as practiced by Russia and America, we do not have the same respect for their respective political practices.) The adventure of human effort on this planet, the unceasing effort for self-preservation and the labours for material wealth, have been resolved in our time by the emergence of a technology which encompasses the planet as the area for its productive activity. The outlook of the modern machine is the world, the object of its work the production for mankind. Anything smaller cramps its potentiality. On the other hand the adventure of human life as a social animal has resulted in the expansion of the tribe to the colossal dimensions where only two completely sovereign tribes are in existence, facing each other, filled with the ancient psychological drives inherent in tribal mentality. And the two Nation tribes with planetary productive potentiality at their command, whose range of destruction is planetary, if not cosmic in scope. The drive behind economy as behind the nation is the same as of yore, to apply and to assert themselves, if necessary by aggression as far as the material power at their command allows. But the extent to which these powers have expanded and have become universal, changes the whole picture of traditional concepts. To speak with some well worn phrases of Engles: the change of quantity has brought about a change of quality. There are only two tribes left clamouring to unite the world into one tribe at the expense of the other, and the means to that are weapons of destruction as of old, but different in power, namely thermo-nuclear and others, equally destructive. And here we have to put a stop to the function of traditional habits. We have come to the end of a phase of human development, where we must pause, because the continuation of our development in a straight line will bring about the end of the existence of man. We have to stop and reverse the trend. This will require a very great effort of the human intellect, and great moral courage to confront and challenge the ancient habits. We are either at the end of our development, or at the beginning of a new era, where the human intellect will have to create new conditions in which in inventiveness and power of man can be applied in a new manner. We must re-make our conditions of life, for our old habits of accepting them have led us to the end. The old habits are finished, and we have to create new habits of thought and of social organisation if we are to survive. In the evolution of life on this planet a new factor has arisen with the emergence of human civilisation. Whereas before, animals could survive by adaptation to natural conditions by means of natural selection, man has introduced the mind as a new element, which has taken the place of natural conditions by creating artificial conditions of life, namely civilisation, and it is to this that men have to adapt themselves if they are to survive in the struggle for life. As these artificial conditions are brought about by man’s power to control and impose itself upon nature by means of technology and science, so man’s ability to adapt himself to these is created by religion, philosophy, wisdom and morality. But there are also moments in the history of civilisation when the structure of material power becomes inefficient, contradictory, and fails to promote the interests of human life. In such periods, the mind of man, his wisdom, philosophy and moral courage, have to intervene in the framework of his artificial conditions of life and re-make them into a new pattern where they can again function in a new manner towards the promotion of man’s will to live. Today we are in such an epoch. Man’s readjustment must take the form of the creation of new conditions for himself, of re-creating his civilisation, his habits and requirements, so that his material power can again function for his benefit. The application of modern technology to the old instincts and habits, the old habits of thought and behaviour, the traditional pattern of social organisation, the satisfaction of traditional interests, can only lead to world wide destruction. The interests of national rivalry, the habits of thought which are slave to material self-satisfaction, egoism and self-assertion, must, through the enormous power of modern technology lead not to healthy competition and rivalry but to the gradual assumption of power by ever greater units, and end in their mutual destruction, into which an innocent and ignorant humanity is inevitably drawn. Nature has made the species man, but she can no longer help him. He has taken upon himself the powers of nature, and if he is to survive he will have to produce the ability to make himself, to develop himself by the force of his mind. his intelligence, vision and courage. The mind has taken the place of natural selection, and if the universal power given to him by his modern technology is to be of benefit, then his social desires, the framework of his requirements must take a new shape, must give way to a higher set of values, in keeping with the higher requirements of his planetary material powers. Man can no longer afford to be primitive. It is a great challenge, one of which this species can be proud, to test its ability of survival, its fitness of life in the cosmic scheme of things. Besides this challenge, the machinations of our politicians are childish and irresponsible, their pronouncements irrelevant and their habits of mind outdated and incongruous. A number of great philosophers have sensed the danger and some have risen to a view of the modern horizon where the issues at stake can be clearly seen. It has always been the philosophers duty to point out to us the limitations of our view, bound as we are in the fetters of our pre-occupations, driven by our instincts and habits, our prejudices and emotions, imprisoned by daily tasks to satisfy them. The same applies to our political habits and only few as yet can rise above the jungle and the clamour and see the issues on the wider plain. But this higher view is necessary if we are to escape the doomed prison of our routine. It is time for the philosopher to intervene, and he will find many allies, millions upon millions of the human race, weighed down by heavy foreboding, viewing the senselessness of slaughter, and hypnotised by the inevitability of events which it feels unable to avert. The spectacle of potential wealth and abysmal poverty, the readiness to friendship among the millions of simple people of all nations and the apparent inevitability of hideous slaughter deeply puzzles mankind. Bur the feeling of inevitability amongst the vast millions is due to a lack of vision of an alternative. The politicians are steeped in their habits, in their daily tasks and problems and are genuinely unable to give us such a vision. The philosopher for many years now, driven from the intellectual scene by the sciences has stood apart, and the spiritual reservoir of mankind has diminished and dried up. For the spiritual rejuvenation needed for our numb and helpless humanity, the philosopher, if he still exists, has to take up his duty again amidst the hot steaming crowds of aimless men, and show a way for living. The politicians, up to now, wear the mantle of philosophers, and they are repeating the slogans bred by a finished era. The new era needs a new mind and it has to be created by the fearless, free from defunct investment in the old. The philosophers who have seen the situation have been timid, and they have found themselves unable to give concrete suggestions which deeply intervene in the wheels of the political machinery, and alter its movement from the automatic performance driven by an ancient impetus, to give it a new method of working, which to us does not seem inevitable and senseless, but directed to a purpose of which our interests as a species can approve. The basis for our considerations are: 1 The planetary power of production of modern technology. Modern science and technology if it is to perform efficiently must have as its scope enormous units of production and consumption, at best it must have a world wide scope - production for mankind. 2. The planetary powers of destruction of modern technology. A war would not be limited to nations, to front-line soldiers, its destruction would defy any strategic traditional purposes of warfare, its sphere of destruction would be the planet and mankind. 3. The social systems and ideologies rivalling each other have a universal claim. They are intolerant of disagreement and criticism, they claim to apply to the whole world without exception, and as technology knows no frontiers and limitations, they are too absolutistic - their scope is the world. 4. Against all this we have the institution and psychological drives of a multitude of semi-sovereign nations, planets clustering around the two star-sovereignties, impelled by the ancient forces of brutal enmity. The tribes are bigger. There are only two left now, but their habits are the same as those of centuries ago. And the ideals of civilisation, the creative thoughts are squashed between the overwhelming clamour of the two super tribes, and as the claims of these become all powerful, the creative ideas become useless and senseless; they become irrelevant against the demands of the monoliths. From all this we learn one thing: the tribal mind cannot answer the problems posed to mankind by the first three conditions. These conditions impose upon us the obligation to obtain the mentality of a planetary tribe, in which all men are if not brothers, then fellows all included in what Arthur Keith called “tribal sympathy,” with tribal antipathy, the ancient source of tribal and national warfare driven overboard by the one thing all human beings have in common - the will to live. For the sake of life, the thought of death, the habit of murder must be excluded from our endeavour. If the attainment of the human tribe is the ideal, not of wishful thinking, but now of urgent practical necessity, then we must for the immediate future arrange a second best system of political relationships which, while it does not outrage economic and political interests and entail a world wide revolution, nevertheless provides humanity with a modus vivendi, and opens the way to the greater unity of man, carries us over from the inevitability of destruction to the hoped for life on a greater and fuller scale than ever. It is not necessary for me to enumerate the difficulties for the establishment of the human tribe on a planetary scale, the powers of present economic and national institutions and interests backed by deep psychological tendencies, and the considerable time it would take to bring about such a revolution of mind and of social relationships. But as we have no time to wait, and it is cowardly to do nothing because we cannot do all, we must establish, as I said in the beginning, a limited aim, which can be put into practice almost immediately and which prepares us for the ultimate ideal. Fortunately, the way is well prepared for this. As we cannot at the moment have one world united by one will, we can establish one world in two units, united by one will to survive, which can express itself in two forms: Capitalism and Communism are not to be the systems automatically and inevitably trying to destroy each other, but two philosophies expressing themselves in the framework of the immense units of twentieth century production and administration, vie-ing with each other to produce the “greatest possible happiness for the greatest number of people.” They are the temporary examples of social organisation on our planet which express the twentieth century economic conditions of production on the huge scale and for huge units of population, and whichever of the two is the more successful will show us the way for future social organisation. Instead of self-sufficient bodies whose ultimate aim is power, they are to become examples of moral values, subordinated to the moral judgment of mankind. War in this respect is ruled out. The two powers can no longer assert themselves aggressively in the old way. Aggression and warfare as a means for self-aggrandisement of a powerful nation is ruled out. It must be outlawed. Humanity can no longer afford this method of international relations. Their form of self-assertion will be to win the admiration of humanity by their capability to contribute to its happiness. In peaceful competition, in peaceful application of their principles of social organisation they are to show their mettle. And we can expect in this way a lessening of fear, a lessening of armament, as our and our politicians view will be directed toward a goal of greater social satisfaction of human needs as expressed by our two systems. If we, in the course of time find considerable shortcomings in the two non-European manifestations of a European philosophy, then it is quite conceivable that Europe will itself have a go at creating a great unit of social organisation where modern technology can be applied to a new philosophy of social organisation, and perhaps surpass the two existing organisations in efficiency of production, dignity and happiness for man. That may be a very fortunate development because it would contribute to weaken even more the present absolutistic mania of the U.S.A. and Russia. In the meanwhile we must have peace.
IV THE ORGANISATION OF PEACE
As America and Russia respectively have, effectively, divided the world into two, we shall regard this fact as a temporary necessity, and transform it from an inevitable evil into the basis for a rational organisation of international relationships in the near future. We shall, therefore, accept the existence of establisher power. There may be aspirations for revolutionary changes, particularly in Asia, to which one or the other of the two powers would be only too willing to give help. As it is clear that we cannot from this moment of the acceptance of the two power blocs impose complete political inactivity and the subsidence of all political aspirations, especially in Asia, we must come to an agreement as to when changes of governments are indigenous and not brought about or helped by either of the two great powers, thereby infringing upon the other powers sphere of interest. The most difficult area is Asia, for there great political fluctuations are and will be taking place, and both great powers are keen to cash in on them. There exists, at this time, a great ill-defined vacuum in Asia, which acts as a magnet to both powers and is a potential battlefield. The other potential battlefield is Germany. To draw a clear dividing line of mutually recognised interests in these areas is very difficult, nor is the declaration of their complete neutrality easily feasible. Germany, for instance, will not remain divided for ever. Nor will China agree to leave Formosa in American hands. Nor can Korea remain split in half. Nor Indo-China remain as it is. But on the other hand, we stand before a fait accomplit, namely that any major changes in these situations can only be brought about by war with the probable use of atomic bombs. Our job is to stabilise the situation for the time being, remove fear, and hope for better reason to become our guide. Force at this juncture of history must be discarded. When the world is split in half, when Europe is split in half, those countries which stand in the middle between the dividing line must accept the fate of our mid-twentieth century burden. They can even be the proud specimen upon whom the great peaceful competition is enacted. Once force and fear come to be discarded, these split countries can regain neutrality and vote for their own fate. But not before. Because before then, votes and elections would be a farce, a sham stage for repression, oppression and intimidation by whatever countries have planted their bayonets upon the respective territories. We have to transform a dangerous rivalry between two enormously powerful nation blocs, by the deliberate act of establishing two respected spheres of influence, stabilised, for the time being, and based on world wide agreement. To make this possible, we must evolve certain principles which underlie such a division of the world into two spheres of interest, by which such a division is maintained and respected, and by which any infringement of the spheres of interest are judged and condemned. These principles will have to gain world wide agreement, not only among politicians but among men and women everywhere. For it is high time to make the people of the world themselves aware of their responsibility for peace, and the governments of the world responsible to the people. To make this possible, the principles will have to be simple, few, eminently clear, and readily understandable by all. If mankind, as a whole, can agree on some simple principles of conduct in international behaviour for the preservation, or rather, creation of peace, then it will become the arbitrator in major issues, above governments, and the people will confer the right to govern upon the acceptance by Governments of these principles. The Governments of the world may still be divided, but on the basic issue before mankind, Mankind will assert its unanimous will: the will to live, against the tendencies to death inherent in nation states. The basic revolutionary difference this will bring about is that, whereas up to now the people are responsible to their national government in matters of war and peace, and humanity is divided up into citizens with a primary obligation to their nation which in times of danger has an autonomous will exercised by the government, and while in such times of danger the highest duty of the citizen is towards the state, now humanity will evolve certain high principles of conduct, in respect to which governments will be responsible to humanity. A first step towards the obligation by national governments to the will of humanity will have been taken, and governments which violate in any way these basic rules pronounced by humanity will lose their right to govern. The basic principle which unites mankind is the will to live, and it follows that in our time, any Nation and Government which declares war, however justified it may seem to the point of view of that particular government, commits a crime against humanity and is outlawed. To give this principle a modus vivendi in a political world, one has to create conditions where situations, which inevitably compel governments to declare war, can be avoided. How to avoid the occurrence of situations in which governments feel compelled to declare war?
OUTLINES FOR A WORLD COUNCIL
1. PURPOSE
Part 1. Uncertainty, fear and the need to forestall aggressive tendencies, threats and actions by the adversary are the likely main factors for the occurrence of a war stimulating situation. To eliminate these causes we shall call a conference in which All nations will be represented and whose purpose it will be to ascertain by free and rational procedure the respective spheres of interest of the two main power blocs led by U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. A. Giving the right to either of the two powers, if they wish to exercise it, to occupy and hold strategic military positions. This right by the main powers to strategic bases, will be granted to them by a declaration at this conference by all existing governments to which of the two power blocs they wish to grant military, air or naval bases. B. The recognition of the right of any government to withhold such rights from both powers. Governments which do not wish to grant strategic rights to either of the two powers will then be classes as neutral. The spheres of interest for the purpose of peaceful co-existence can thus be ascertained by declaration of governments, arrived at in open session, and the results of this decision will go to a central committee and will be made publicly known. The purpose of this world council thus would be a stocktaking of dispositions of loyalty among the nations of the world to either of the two power blocs, and the trends of neutrality. This Conference, Council of Governments, will be held every three years. Part II. Changes in Governments and fluctuations in Loyalty As it is quite possible that governments which have declared a loyalty would be superseded by other Governments which would wish to revise the Loyalty of their predecessor, we must be specially careful to ascertain the democratic procedure of governmental changes in these countries. The difficulties we shall encounter are these: Any government which declares Loyalty, for instance, to America, and grants military bases to this country, will evoke the support of America to uphold it against its internal opponents. A conservative government will denounce its opponents as Communist, and will invoke the power of America to secure itself in power. America will also brand these opponents as Communist, and accuse them of employing the help of Russia, and will therefore stamp it out of existence as an unlawful interference of Russian interest into its own spheres of interest. At the same time we must be careful not to establish the status quo and prevent any social and governmental changes. We must not kill the existence of lawful opposition and of political life altogether by making the decision of a government binding for many years and thereby consolidating that government in power. (1) To overcome this crucial difficulty there will be a general declaration of Loyalty every three years. For this period such a declaration will be binding for the country whatever government gets into power in the meanwhile. At the end of the three years, changes of Loyalty can be declared by new governments. (2) To ensure the working of this scheme: (a) Whatever changes of government take place, no influx of arms or concessions of bases must take place inside the stipulated three years. (b) At the three-year mark a world wide review of political changes will take place, which will appoint strategic changes or establishment of neutrality in the respective countries. Changes of strategic points or new influx of armaments into different countries by either of the two powers are only to be permitted at the end of the three years, upon the agreement of the world council, and at no other time at all, whatever the circumstances.
II. THE PRINCIPLES OF PEACE EMBODIED BY THE WORLD COUNCIL
1. The declaration of war, or the waging of war, is a criminal offence against mankind, and any Government guilty of this will be immediately deposed by the will of humanity and its members regarded as criminals. 2. Whatever changes of government occur, no new influx of arms or concessions of bases must take place apart from those decided upon by world council. Any government moving arms to another country without the authorisation of world council commits a criminal offence against mankind and becomes illegal. 3. Any power bringing about a change of government in any country in order to influence its Loyalty disposition by force of arms, commits a criminal offence. 4. Any power preventing the change of government by the indigenous will of the people, by means of force, commits a criminal offence. 5. Any government which does not accept the universal vote of the population of this planet in major issues will be declared illegal.
III. ORGANISATION OF WORLD COUNCIL
A world council for the distribution of power, and spheres of political interest on this planet will be established at a place chosen. 1. It will consist of two representatives of every nation on earth, irrespective of size, population and power. These two representatives will be nominated by their government and endorsed by popular vote in each country concerned. A vote of yes or no will affirm these two representatives in the eyes of the world. Their duty will be to represent to the world council the Loyalty disposition of their country. It is the duty of the world council to take cognisance of the state of affairs as expressed by delegates. A cabinet of twenty members will be elected by the floor - eight countries of one side, eight of the other, and four neutrals. Their duty will be to summarise findings and present decisions to the floor for approval. Every decision must be passed almost unanimously allowing for only 5% disapproval, or 5% abstention. It may well be that the Russian bloc will protest against this scheme by pointing out that the Americans will possibly have a greater number of delegates on their side; that a little South American country will have as many delegates as China. But in this Parliament a slight numerical predominance here or there is irrelevant as, first of all, blocs do not have to be created or shown off, but are recognised as in existence and, secondly, the stress is upon unanimity and not upon a greater vote on either side. If, on the other hand, the council does not come to any agreement, if it is unable to accept the findings of the Cabinet, a universal vote will be put to every citizen on the planet to decide on an issue, and at the same time to declare a condemnation of his own delegates if he so desires. This should keep our diplomats on the alert. They are primarily responsible to the government but ultimately, if they fail, responsible to mankind, who as private citizens irrespective of colour, creed or nationality, will pronounce upon decisions of the world council if it fails to reach agreement. A majority of three-fourths of world citizens will be absolutely binding to all governments. 2. The decisions of the world council are binding, and no delegation or government has a right to walk out. On the eve of important decisions they will sit as long as there is the slightest chance of agreement. The point of this parliament is not to outvote each other, but to reach agreement. It would rather be on the lines of a Quaker meeting - they all speak, but have ultimately to come to agreement. The Chairman will be elected by the twenty of the Cabinet, or can be an outside person if possible to be elected by universal vote. 3. As we see the stress is laid here that world parliament is ultimately responsible to the human beings on earth, which for the first time will be invited to vote as world citizens in world matters. It is often being said that Governments are more foolish than the humble citizens they ought to represent. I have much sympathy with this sentiment, and events of the last decades do not disprove it. If the World Council cannot agree on the findings of its cabinet despite exhaustive discussion, if the stipulated unanimity cannot be arrived at, then a vote on the issue will be put before every adult person of the world. As such an issue will most probably concern the loyalty disposition of one or two particular countries, it will mean a vote of confidence in the delegates of these countries and also, by the way, a vote of confidence in the representatives of all other countries by its citizens. If, on the other hand, for instance, a major power is unwilling to vacate a country despite this country’s declaration of neutrality or change of loyalty, then such a universal vote will (1) determine the attitude of the citizens of the major country and (2) will probably mean a vote of censure upon it by the majority of the world citizens. In face of such a show of open disapproval by the citizens of the world the case for persistence by the major country in its attitude would be considerably weakened and finally its government would put itself into a position of illegality. The technical procedure of such a universal election should not be too difficult. Each of the two delegates will nominate ten assistants. Then each delegate will put his name in a hat and a young boy from the street will pick out a ticket as the name of a country is read out from a list of all countries. If the name of Smith, delegate of England, is picked out of the hat, upon calling out Nicaragua, he, and his ten assistants will go to Nicaragua, where he will meet the other delegate whose name has been picked for Nicaragua, and the two, with their ten assistants each, will together in the name of the world council organise and supervise the voting in that country. The delegates have no power to negotiate political problems, but only represent the world council to ascertain existing Loyalty dispositions.
IV. WORLD COUNCIL AND U.N.O.
This world council does not supersede UNO. It is not for the time being a platform upon which political issues are decided. Whether Germany should be re-armed or not. Whether the atomic bomb should be outlawed or not, are not items to be discussed there. All the world government has to do for the time being is to ascertain the existing distribution of power, and as such it takes cognisance of UNO as far as UNO comes to any definite conclusion, rather than negotiate any day to day problems in the sphere of international politics. The only condition on which my stipulated three-year period for any Loyalty changes may not be applied, is a unanimous decision at UNO for such changes. For instance, in the unlikely event of UNO agreeing unanimously upon the unification of Germany entailing it neutralisation, the world Government will take note of this as a fait accomplit. Germany will then be registered as a neutral state and can, if it likes, by process of democratic decision declare its Loyalty to one or other of the powers unless (and this is more than likely) UNO would stipulate and guarantee Germany’s neutrality for a number of years. In this case the world government would guarantee this neutrality.
V. SAFEGUARDS
In this world of ours all discussions upon safeguarding is reduced to the problem of what effective means we have to prevent any member from violating the decisions of the world government. Both the Americans and the Russians upon looking at each other will declare that the other fellow is more than likely to jump in the face of almost unanimous agreement, and what is to prevent him from ignoring all moral decisions and even world opinion? What is, for instance, to prevent China from invading South Korea, despite its being declared to loyal to America? The answer is, that in the first place the whole scheme of dividing up the world legally, as I have outlined, would have to be approved by all governments, and that would include China, which thereby would accept the division of Korea for at least the period I have stipulated. Any grudge, or dissatisfaction, or the feeling of “being done” would, therefore, be avoided in these Regions, as the governments concerned would affirm the position of their own accord, as it were. If nevertheless, our dubious twentieth century victims of broken treaties will ask, a power does still flout all agreement, and decide to fly in the face of world moral condemnation - what then? Before going further I should wish to point out that no government today would dream of going into a major war without trying to win public opinion to its own side, without pretending that it is defending some holy principle, and fighting for some fine ideal against the encroachment of barbarism and aggression, etc. Since wars in this century have become total wars, they also need to mobilise the human mind, and without some measure of support from that department of human frailty, wars in our sense would be unthinkable as they invade all spheres of human life and demand complete surrender to it by the citizens. The last two wars were fought for some high and impressive principles, and governments were at pains to extol their own virtues and the purity of their aims to support the instincts of patriotism. Our wars, being total wars, are wars of ideas as well as of material power. Taking these matters into consideration, it is practically unthinkable that any government in the world today would dare to enter into a state of war in clear and obvious contradiction to its own declared affirmations (and the stress here is on clear and obvious, as it is rather easy to bamboozle some people). Total wars must mobilise the minds before they can hope for efficient mobilisation of material power, and such mental mobilisation cannot be undertaken by any government if its actions are in obvious contradiction to all its agreed and declared principles. Any breach of agreement would be a breach of agreement against the declared will of mankind, and that includes the citizens of that particular country whose government has committed such a breach. Therefore any act of aggression by a government which ignores its own declaration would be publicly recognised as illegal, and the government responsible would be declared illegal. After considerable thought I have decided not to advocate the pooling of armament to establish an international police force at this stage; this would entail all the problems of international inspection of armaments to which we cannot at this time find agreement, it would imply the declaration of war upon the aggressor or defaulter, which in itself would not, if it is a major power, mean his automatic extinguishment, but the start of a world war, and in any case, would mean long drawn out negotiations regarding the control of atomic power among other things which we must leave to UNO and lastly, would be the end of the principle of unanimous agreement to hold different views and the right to hold them, which is the core of this plan. The hiatus of moral condemnation by mankind, will make a definite change in the mental climate of our world political situation, and instead of compulsive fear of the intention of the opposing power, a sense of responsibility may creep into the attitude of governments. Fear of public opinion which, for the first time through our proposed world council, will be directly expressed and, therefore, become articulate, instead fear of the expansion of power, by means of force on the part of the adversary, may become the leading factor in the motives of governmental attitudes and actions.
V. A CALL FOR DECISION
Sooner or later if we are to survive, the planetary consciousness, the obligation towards the world community which modern technology imposes upon us must take the place of tribal fears, fantastically enlarged today. The compulsion of fear which breeds the dynamic of aggression under the cloak of containment and self-defence must be replaced by a growing awareness of the community of fate of men on this planet, and this proposed world council may be a first step towards a wider meeting of responsible minds, towards a political council representing the expression of the interests of mankind in open world government. The beginning has to be made sooner or later, and at our particular juncture it is rather to be made sooner - there is no time to be lost. To many the idea will seem strange, many will be sceptical, to many it will be unfamiliar, and therefore unpleasant. But we cannot continue on the basis of our present trend - to avoid destruction, the mind of man must have the vision and the courage to seek for new ways of meeting the greatest challenge ever set to him by the cosmic forces which are now put into his hands. The world council, as I have proposed it here in bare outlines, will require further elucidation and analysis in detail, to establish a workable and legally binding organisation. The powers of the council in relation to the various governments, its capacity to supervise and control movements of arms between countries, its capacities to prevent illegal machinations for military influence, etc., will have to be worked out in detail. What I am concerned with, is that the idea of such an institution, and the over-riding justification of the five principles for the maintenance of power should be welcomed by the people of the world and by enlightened governments whose interest in peace, is greater than their compulsion for war. The enlightened governments, backed by the populace, should approach other governments with this idea, propose the Council to them and see to it that the citizens of the world come to hear about it. As I think that humanity cannot possibly lose by it but only regain a sense of security and confidence, as the will to peace must manifest itself at last in some organised way on a world wide level, the willingness of governments to propagate such an organisation will in itself be a test for their sincerity for peace. Let all nations, therefore, send delegates for an initial meeting to discuss and formulate the above proposal for a world council. Much energy is spent, much time, labour, money and intelligence upon the purposes of war. If we only spend a fraction of this for the promulgation of peace there is still hope for our species.