Proposals for a Free World

[Proposals for a Free World]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Proposals

for a free world

TOWARD NEW HORIZONS: No. 2

This, the second in a series of statements dealing with the post-war world, includes recent speeches by seven United Nations leaders—Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands; Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and Foreign Minister T. V. Soong of China; Prime Minister Jan Christiaan Smuts of the Union of South Africa; President Roosevelt, Vice President Henry A. Wallace, and Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles of the United States.
From time to time the Office of War Information will publish additional significant statements.

ELMER DAVIS, Director

Office of War Information, Washington, D. C,

To undertake the task [of winning the peace] successfully, to overcome all the incalculable material difficulties in the way, it will be essential that every nation sacrifice some of that aggressive pride which has distorted the notion of sovereignty. The new order which will arise from this terrible conflagration will not be, of course, Hitler’s vandal and sterile “new order,” but one based on law, more elastic, yet stronger. All the States will have to collaborate in it by curbing their individual ambitions, cutting down their armies, and building up a system in which war is outlawed, in which differences between nations may be settled without the idiotic resort to force ...
No disarmament, whether of armies or of the spirit, can be attained so long as the exaggerated notion of national sovereignty which prevailed throughout the nineteenth century and in the early years of the twentieth is still entertained. Nor should we overlook the fact that it was by virtue of the inordinate notion of sovereignty that Germany restored military service and reoccupied the Rhineland, that Mussolini took the diplomatic steps which preceded the invasion of Ethiopia, and that the three dictatorships of Germany, Italy, and Japan betrayed their international commitments and, breaking away from Geneva, combined to attack the whole of peace-loving humanity. Such cases must never be repeated.

EZEQUIEL PADILLA*

Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mexico

*In an article in Foreign Affairs for October 1942.

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT salutes the independence of the Philippine people. He suggests that their history in this century provides a pattern for the future of other small nations—"a pattern of a global civilization which recognizes no limitations of religion or of creed or of race.” *

Though the alien flag of a treacherous aggressor flies temporarily over the Commonwealth of the Philippines, it is with supreme confidence in ultimate victory that the United Nations commemorate this birthday of its youngest member.
It was just seven years ago that this Commonwealth was established. By that time the United States had maintained sovereignty of the Philippine Islands for almost forty years. But as I said in 1935 when the present Commonwealth was inaugurated, “The acceptance of sovereignty was but an obligation to serve the people of the Philippines until the day they might themselves be independent and take their own place among the nations of the world.”
Let me go back to the days when Admiral Dewéy won the battle of Manila Bay, and American sovereignty was established over the Islands. To a very large part of the American people, it seemed incongruous and unwise that the United States should continue a colonial status over many millions of human beings who had already shown a desire for independence.
However, the United States and the leaders of the Filipino people soon undertook a long-time process of providing facilities in the Islands for education, health, commerce, and transportation, with the definite thought that the day would come when the people would be able to stand on their own feet. At the'same time, we granted them a greater and greater degree of local self-government.
By the year 1934 sympathetic conferences between Philippine and American leaders reached the conclusion that the time for complete independence could be definitely set—to follow a ten-year period of complete local autonomy under a Commonwealth form of government with its own Constitution.
This status was duly set up in 1935 under the Presidency of my old friend, Manuel Quezon. It succeeded so well that by December 7, 1941, we

* On the occasion of the seventh anniversary of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, November 15, 1942.

were jointly at work preparing for the consummation of complete independence in 1946. Both nations and peoples had kept faith with each other during all these years. Confidence in each other’s good faith was firmly established—and it was cemented into place during the bitter months of ordeal which followed the treachery of Japan.
The brave peoples of the Philippines—their Army and their civilians—stood shoulder to shoulder with the Americans in the fight against overwhelming odds—resolute to shed their blood in defense of their liberty. Richly do they deserve that liberty!

Preparation for Independence

I like to think that the history of the Philippine Islands in the last forty-four years provides in a very real sense a pattern for the future of other small nations and peoples of the world. It is a pattern of what men of good will look forward to in the future—a pattern of a global civilization which recognizes no limitations of religion or of creed or of race.
But we must remember that such a pattern is based on two important factors. The first is that there be a period of preparation, through the dissemination of education and the recognition and fulfillment of physical and social and economic needs. The second is that there be a period of training for ultimate independent sovereignty through the practice of more and more self-government, beginning with local government and passing on through the various steps to complete statehood.
Even we in the United States did not arrive at full national independence until we had gone through the preliminary stages. The town meetings in the New England colonies, and the similar local organizations in other colonies, gradually led to county government and then to state government. That whole process of political training and development preceded the final formation of the permanent Federal Government in 1789.
Such training for independence is essential to the stability of independence in almost every part of

506990°—43

the world. Some peoples need more intensive training and longer years; others require far less training and a shorter period of time.
The recent history of the Philippines has been one of national cooperation and adjustment and development. We are sure now, if ever we doubted, that our Government chose the right course.
The pattern which was followed there is essentially a part and parcel of the philosophy and the ideals of the United Nations. The doctrine which controls the ambitions and directs the ruthlessness of our enemies—that there is one master folk destined to rule all other people—is a doctrine now on its way to destruction for all time to come.
The United States and the Philippines are already engaged in examining the practical economic problems of the future—when President Quezon

and his Government are reestablished in the capital of Manila. He and I, in. conference last week, agreed to set up a Joint Commission of our two countries, to study the economic situation which will face the nation which is soon to be, and to work out means of preserving its stability and security.
This typifies the highest form of good faith, which now exists between our two governments.
It is more than that. It is a realistic symbol of our grim determination and of our supreme con-, fidence that we shall drive the Japanese Army out of the Philippines—to the last man.
President Quezon—on this auspicious anniversary—I salute, through you, the people of the Philippine Islands. I salute their courage. I salute their independence.

Her MajCSty, QUEEN WILHELMINA, foresees a post-war reconstruction of the Netherlands and their overseas territories on a basis of full and free partnership.*

Today it is a year ago that the Japanese, without previous declaration of war, launched their treacherous attack on our allies. At that time we did not hesitate for a moment to throw ourselves into the struggle and to hasten to the aid of our allies, whose cause is ours. Japan had been preparing for this war and for the conquest of the Netherlands Indies for years and in so doing sought to follow the conduct of its Axis partners in attacking one country after another. This plan we were able to prevent, thanks to our immediate declaration of war.
After a year of war we can bear witness that thè tide is turning and that the attacker, who had such great advantages, is being forced on the defensive. It is true that the Netherlands Indies, after defending themselves so heroically, are, for the most part, occupied by the enemy, but this phase of the struggle is only a prelude. The Japanese are getting ever nearer the limit of their possibilities as our ever-growing might advances toward them from all sides. They have not been able to break China’s courage and endurance and Japan now faces the ebbing of her power in

*In a broadcast to the Netherlands and overseas territories, December 6, 1942.

this self-willed war, which will end with her complete downfall.

The Same Struggle Is Shared

At this moment my thoughts are more than ever with my country and my compatriots in the Netherlands and the Netherlands Indies. After an age-old historical solidarity, in which had long since passed the era of colonial relationship, we stood on the eve of a collaboration on a basis of equality when suddenly we were both confronted by the present ordeal. The treacherous aggression on the Netherlands in 1940 was the first interruption in the process of development; the heroic battle of the Netherlands Indies, followed by the occupation of the major part of this territory in 1942, was the second.
At the time when the Indies were still free and only Holland was occupied, the vigor of our unity became apparent and on both sides a feeling of stronger kinship developed more rapidly than it could have in peacetime. Now, however, this mutual understanding has been deepened still further because the same struggle is shared in all its agony and the same distress is suffered in all its bitterness. In the Netherlands as well as in the

Netherlands Indies, the enemy, with his propaganda for the so-called new order, has left nothing untried to lure the spirit of the people and to disguise his tyranny and suppression with the lies of his promises for the future. But these lies and this deceit have been of no avail because nearly all have seen through them and have understood that our enemies have as their aim nothing but slavery and exploitation and that as long as they have not been driven out and defeated there can be no question of freedom.

Free Consultation

In previous »addresses I announced that it is my intention, after the liberation, to create the occasion for a joint consultation about the structure of the Kingdom and its parts in order to adapt it to the changed circumstances. The conference of the entire Kingdom which will be convoked for this purpose has been further outlined in a Government declaration of January 27, 1942. The preparation of this conference, in which prominent representatives of the three overseas parts of the Kingdom will be united with those of the Netherlands at a round table, had already been begun in the Netherlands Indies, Surinam, and Curacao, the parts of the Kingdom which then still enjoyed their freedom. Especially in the Netherlands Indies, detailed material had been collected for this purpose and it was transmitted to me in December 1941 by the Governor General.
The battle of the Netherlands Indies disrupted these promising preparations. We can only resume these preparations when everyone will be able to speak his mind freely. Although it is beyond doubt that a political reconstruction of the Kingdom as a whole and of the Netherlands and the overseas territories as its parts is a natural evolution, it would be neither right nor possible to define its precise form at this moment.
I realize that much which is great and good is growing in the Netherlands despite the pressure of the occupation; I know that this is the case in the Indies where our unity is fortified by common suffering. These developing ideas can only be shaped in free consultation in which both parts of the Kingdom will want to take cognizance of each other’s opinions. Moreover, the population of the Netherlands and of the Netherlands Indies has confirmed through its suffering and its resistance its right to participate in the decision

regarding the form of our responsibility as a nation toward the worldi and of the various groups of the population toward themselves and one another. By working out these matters now, that right would be neglected, and the insight which my people have obtained through bitter experience would be disregarded.

The Purpose for Which We Fight

I am convinced, and history as well as reports from the occupipd territories confirm me in this, that after the war it will be possible to reconstruct the Kingdom on the solid foundation of complete partnership, which will mean the consummation of all that has been developed in the past. I know that no political unity nor national cohesion can continue to exist which are not supported by the voluntary acceptance and the faith of the great majority of the citizenry. I know that⁵ the Netherlands more than ever feel their responsibility for the vigorous growth of the Overseas Territories and that the Indonesians recognize,' in the ever-increasing collaboration, the best guarantee for the recovery of their peace and happiness. The war years have proved that both peoples possess the will and the ability for harmonious and voluntary cooperation. A political unity which rests on this foundation moves far toward a realization of the purpose for which the United Nations are fighting, as it has been embodied, for instance, in the Atlantic Charter, and with which we could instantly agree, because it contains our own conception of freedom and justice for which we have sacrificed blood and possessions in the course of our history.
I visualize, without anticipating the recommendations of the future conference, that they will be directed toward a commonwealth in which the Netherlands, Indonesia, Surinam, find Curasao will participate, with complete self-reliance and freedom of conduct for each part regarding its internal affairs, but with the readiness to render mutual assistance. It is my opinion that such a combination of independence and collaboration can give the Kingdom and its parts the strength to carry fully their responsibility, both internally and externally. This would leave no room for discrimination according to race or nationality; only the ability of the individual citizens and the needs of the various groups of the population will determine the policy of the government.

We Are Not Subjugated
In the Indies, as in the Netherlands, there now rules an oppressor who, imitating his detestable associates and repudiating principles, which, he himself has recognized in the past, interns peaceful citizens and deprives women and children of their livelihood. He has uprooted and dislocated that beautiful and tranquil country; his new order brings nothing but misery and want. Nevertheless we can aver that he has not succeeded in subjugating us, and as the ever-growing force of the United Nations advances upon him from every

direction, we know that he will not succeed in the future.
The Netherlands Indies and the Netherlands with their fighting men on land, at sea, and in the air, with their alert and brave merchantmen and by their dogged and never-failing resistance in the hard struggle, will see their self-sacrifice and intrepidity crowned after the common victory with the recovery of peace and happiness for their country and their people in a new world. In that regained freedom they will be able to build a new and better future.

VICE PRESIDENT WALLACE outlines two prime requisites of a lasting peace: a world organization based, like the American union, on a maximum of home rule and a minimum of central authority; and the maintenance of full employment at home, which should be the joint responsibility of Government and private business.*

For the people of the United States, the war is entering its grimmest phase. At home, we are beginning at last to learn what war privations mean. Abroad, our boys in ever greater numbers are coming to grips with the enemy. Yet, even while warfare rages on, and we of the United Nations are redoubling our great drive for victory, there is dawning the hope of that day of peace, however distant, when the lights will go on again all over the world.
Adolph Hitler’s desperate bid for a Nazi world order has reached and passed its highest point and is on its way to its ultimate downfall. The equally sinister threat of world domination by the Japanese is doomed eventually to fail. When the Hitler régime finally collapses and the Japanese war lords are smashed, an entirely new phase of world history will be ushered in. The task of our generation-— the generation which President Roosevelt once said has a “rendezvous with destiny”—is so to organize human affairs that, no Adolf Hitler, no power-hungry warmongers, whatever their nationality, can ever again plunge the whole world into war and bloodshed.

*In a radio address on the occasion of the eighty-sixth anniversary of the birthday of Woodrow Wilson, December 28, 1942.

The situation in the world today is parallel in some ways to that in the United States just before the adoption of the Constitution, when it was realized that the Articles of Confederation had failed and that some stronger union was needed.
Today, measured by travel time, the whole world is actually smaller than was our little country then. When George Washington was inaugurated, it took seven days to go by horse-drawn vehicle from Mount Vernon to New York. Now Army bombers are flown from the United States to China and India in less than three days.
The World, Not Wilson, Failed
It is in this suddenly shrunken world that the United Nations, like our 13 American States in 1787, soon willbe faced with a fundamental choice. We know now that the League of Nations, like our own union under the Articles of Confederation, was not strong enough. The League never had American support, and at critical moments it lacked the support of some of its own members. The League finally disintegrated under the successive blows of world-wide economic depression and a second World War. Soon the nations of the world will have to face this question: shall the world’s affairs be so organized as to prevent a repetition of these

twin disasters—the bitter woe of depression and the holocaust of war?
It is especially appropriate to discuss this subject on this particular date, because it is the birthday of Woodrow Wilson, who gave up his health and eventually his life in the first attempt, a generation ago, to preserve the world’s peace through united world action. At that time there were many who said that Wilson had failed. Now we know that it was the world that failed, and the suffering and war of the last few years is the penalty it is paying for its failure.
When we think of Woodrow Wilson, we know him not only for his effort to build a permanent peace but for the progressive leadership he gave our country in the years before that first World War. The “New Freedom” for which Wilson fought was the forerunner of the Roosevelt “New Deal” of 1933 and of the world-wide new democracy which is the goal of the United Nations in this present struggle.
Wilson, like Jefferson and Lincoln before him, was interested first and always in the welfare of the common man. And so the ideals of Wilson and the fight he made for them are an inspiration to us today as we take up the torch he laid down.
Resolved as we are to fight on to final victory in this world-wide people’s war, we are justified in looking ahead to the peace that will inevitably come. Indeed, it would be the height of folly not to prepare for peace, just as in the years prior to December 7, 1941, it would have been the height of folly not to prepare for war.
As territory previously overrun by the Germans and the Japs is reoccupied by the forces of the United Nations, measures of relief and rehabilitation will have to be undertaken. Later, out of the experience of these temporary measures of relief, there will emerge the possibilities and the practicalities of more permanent reconstruction.

Foundation Stones of Democracy

We cannot now blueprint all the details, but we can begin now to think about some of the guiding principles of this world-wide new democracy we of the United Nations hope to build.
Two of these principles must be Liberty and Unity, or in other words, home rule and centralized authority, which for more than 150 years have been foundation stones of our American democracy and our American union.

When Woodrow Wilson proposed the League of Nations, it became apparent that these same principles of Liberty and Unity—of home rule and centralized authority—needed to be applied among the nations if a repetition of the first World War was to be prevented. Unfortunately the people of the United States were not ready. They believed in the doctrine of Liberty in international affairs, but they were not willing to give up certain of their international rights and to shoulder certain international duties, even though other nations were ready to take such steps. They were in the position of a strong, well-armed pioneer citizen who thought he could defend himself against* robbers without going to the expense and bother of joining with his neighbors in setting up a police force to uphold civil law. They stood for decency in international affairs, but in the world of practical international politics the net effect of their action or lack of action was anarchy and the loss of millions of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in a second world war.

Machinery for a World System

The sturdy pioneer citizen, proud of his own strength and independence, needed to be robbed and beaten only once by bandits to be ready to cooperate with his law-abiding neighbors. I believe the United States also has learned her lesson and that she is willing to assume a responsibility proportionate to her strength. England, Russia, China, and most of the other United Nations are perhaps even more eager than the United States to go beyond the Charter which they have signed as a declaration of principles. The United Nations, like the United States 155 years ago, are groping for a formula which will give the greatest possible liberty without producing anarchy and at the same time will not give so many rights to each member nation as to jeopardize the security of all.
Obviously the United Nations must first have machinery which can disarm and keep disarmed those parts of the world which would break the peace. Also there must be machinery for preventing economic warfare and enhancing economic peace between nations. Probably there will have to be an international court to make decisions in cases of dispute. And an. international court presupposes some kind of world council, so that whatever world system evolves will have

enough flexibility to meet changing circumstances as they arise.
As a practical matter, we may find that the regional principle is of considerable value in international affairs. For example, European countries, while concerned with the problems of Pan America, should not have to be preoccupied with them, and likewise Pan America, while concerned, should not have to be preoccupied with the problems of. Europe. Purely regional problems ought to be left in regional hands. This would leave to any federated world organization problems involving broad principles and those practical matters which affect countries of different regions or which affect the whole world.
The aim would be to preserve the liberty, equality, security, and unity of the United Nations—liberty in a political sense, equality of opportunity in international trade, security against war and business depression due to international causes, and unity of purpose in promoting the general welfare of the world.
In other words, the aim would be the maximum of home rule that can be maintained along with the minimum of centralized authority that must come into existence to give the necessary protection. We in the United States must remember this: if we are to expect guarantees against military or economic aggression from other nations, we must be willing to give guarantees that we will not be guilty of such aggression ourselves. We must recognize, for example, that it is perfectly justifiable for a debtor, pioneer nation to build up its infant industries behind a protective tariff, but a creditor nation can be justified in such policies only from the standpoint of making itself secure in case of war.
A special problem that will face the United Nations immediately upon the attainment of victory over either Germany or Japan will be what to do with the defeated nation. Revenge for the sake of revenge would be a sign of barbarism— but this time we must make absolutely sure that the guilty leaders are punished, that the defeated nation realizes its defeat and is not permitted to rearm. The United Nations must back up military disarmament with psychological disarmament—supervision, or at least inspection, of the school systems of Germany and Japan, to undo so far as. possible the diabolical work of Hitler and the Japanese war lords in poisoning the minds of the young.

Avoiding the Shock of Peace
Without doubt, in the building of a new and enduring peace, economic reconstruction will play an all-important role. Unless there is careful planning in advance, the return of peace can in a few years bring a shock even worse than the shock of war.
The magnitude of the problem here in the United States, for example, is indicated by the probability that in the peak year of the war we shall be spending something like 90 billion dollars of public funds in the war effort, whereas two years later we may be spending less than 20 billion dollars for military purposes. In the peak year of the war effort, it is probable that we shall have around 10 million men in the armed services and 20 million additional men and women producing war goods for the armed services. It would seem that within the first two years after the peace at least 15 'million of these 30 million men and women will be seeking jobs different from those which they had when peace came.
Our expenditures have been going at a rate fully seven times as great as in World War No. I and the conversion of our industry to wartime uses has been far more complete. Thousands of thoughtful businessmen and economists, remembering what happened after the last war, being familiar with the fantastic figures of this war, and knowing the severity of the shock to come, have been greatly disturbed. Some have concerned themselves with plans to get over the first year. Others have given thought to the more distant future.
It should be obvious to practically everyone that, without well-planned and vigorous action, a series of economic storms will follow this war. These will take the form of inflation and temporary scarcities, followed by surpluses, crashing prices, unemployment, bankruptcy, and in some cases violent revolution. If there is lack of well-planned and vigorous action, it is quite conceivable that the human misery in Certain countries after the war may be even greater than during the war.

Enlightened Self-Interest
It is true that in the long run any nation, like any individual, must follow the principle of self-help, must look to its own efforts to raise its own living standards. But it is also true that stronger nations, like our own, can provide guidance, technical advice, and in some cases capital investment to

help those nations which are just starting on the path of industrialization. Our experience with the Philippines is a case in point.
The suggestions I have made with a view to promoting development and encouraging higher standards of living are necessarily fragmentary at this time. But in some quarters, either knowingly or unknowingly, they have been grossly distorted and misrepresented. During the recent political campaign one member of Congress seeking reelection made the flat statement that I was in favor of having American farmers give away a quart of milk a day to every inhabitant of the world. In other quarters these suggestions have been referred to by such terms as “utopian,” “soggy sentimentality,” and the “dispensing of milk and honey.” But is it “utopian” to foresee that South America, Asia, and Africa will in the future experience a development of industry and agriculture comparable to what has been experienced in the past in Europe and North America? Is it “soggy sentimentality” to hold out hope to those millions in Europe and Asia fighting for the cause of human freedom—our freedom? Is it the “dispensing of milk and honey” to picture to their minds the possible blessings of a higher standard of living when the war is over and their own productivity has increased?
Among the self-styled “realists” who are trying to scare, the American people by spreading worry about “misguided idealists” giving away U. S. products are some whose policies caused us to give away billions of dollars of stuff in the decade of the twenties. Their high tariff prevented exchange of our surplus for goods. And so we exchanged our surplus for bonds of very doubtful value. Our surplus will be far greater than ever within a few years after this war comes to an end. We can be decently human and really hardheaded if we exchange our post-war surplus for goods, for peace, and for improving the standard of living of so-called backward peoples. We can get more for our surplus production in this way than by any high-tariff, penny-pinching, isolationist policies which hide under the cloak of 100 percent Americanism.
Self-interest alone should be sufficient to make the United States deeply concerned with the contentment and well-being of the other peoples of the world. For, as President Roosevelt has pointed out, such contentment will be an important contribution to world peace and it is only when other peoples are prosperous and economically

productive that we can find export markets among them for the products of our factories and our farms.

The Basis of Post-War Prosperity

A world family of nations cannot be really healthy unless the various nations in that family are getting along well in their own internal affairs. The first concern of each nation must be the wellbeing of its own people. That is as true of the United States as of any other nation.
During the war, we have full employment here in the United States, and the problem is not to find jobs for the workers but to find workers for the jobs. After the war, it will oe vital to make sure that another period of unemployment does not come on. With this end in view, the suggestion has been made that Congress should formally recognize the maintenance of full employment as a declared national policy, jdst as it now recognizes as national policies the right of farmers to parity of income with other groups and the right of workers to unemployment, insurance and old-age, annuities.
Full,employment is vital not only to city prosperity but to farm prosperity as well. Nothing contributes more to stable farm prosperity than the maintenance of full employment in the cities, -and the assurance that purchasing power for both farm and factory products will always be adequate.
Maintenance of full employment and the highest possible level of national income should be the joint responsibility of private business and of Government. It is reassuring to know that business groups - in contact with Government agencies already are assembling facts, ideas, and plans that will speed up the shift from a Government-financed war program to a privately financed program of peacetime activity.
This shift must be made as secure against mischance as if it were a wartime campaign against the enemy. We cannot afford either a speculative boom or its inevitable bust. In the war we use tanks, planes, guns and ships in great volume and of most effective design. Their equivalents in the defense against post-war economic chaos will be less spectacular, but equally essential. We must keep prices in control. We must have continuity in the flow of incomes to consumers and from consumers to the industries of city and farm. We must have a national system of job placement. We must have definite plans for the conversion of key industries to peacetime work.

When the war is over, the more quickly private enterprise gets back into peacetime production and sells its goods to peacetime markets here and abroad, the more quickly will the level of Government wartime expenditures be reduced. No country needs deficit spending when private enterprise, either through its own efforts or in cooperation with Government, is able to maintain full employment. Let us hope that the best thought of both business and Government can be focused on this problem which lies at the heart of our American democracy and our American way of life.
The war has brought forth a new type of industrialist who gives much promise for the future. The type of business leader I have in mind has caught a new vision of opportunities in national and international \ projects. He is willing to cooperate with the people’s Government in carrying out socially desirable programs. He conducts these programs on the basis of private enterprise, and for private profit, while putting into effect the people’s standards as to wages and working conditions. We shall need the best efforts of such men as we tackle the economic problem of the peace.
This problem is well recognized by the average man on the street, who sums it up in a nutshell like this: if everybody can be given a job in war work now, why can’t everybody have a job in peacetime production later on? He will demand an answer, and the returning soldier and sailor will demand an answer—and this will be the test of statesmanship on the home front, just as ability to cooperate with other nations for peace and improved living standards will be the test of statesmanship on the international front.
The Common Meeting Ground
How thrilling it will be when the world can move ahead into a new day of peaceful work, developing its resources and translating them as never before into goods that can be consumed and enjoyed! But this new day will not come to pass unless the people of the United Nations give wholehearted support to an effective program of action. The war will have been fought in vain if we in the United States, for example, are plunged into bitter arguments over our part in the peace, or, over such fictitious questions as Government versus business. Such bitterness would only confuse us and cloud our path. How much more sensible it would be if our people could be supplied with the facts and then, through orderly discussion, could arrive at a

common understanding of what needs to be done.
I have heard the fear expressed that after the wax* the spirit of self-sacrifice which now animates %o many of our people will disappear, that cold and blind selfishness will supplant the spirit which makes our young men willing to go thousands of miles from home to fight—and die if need be—for freedom. Those who have this fear think that a return of blind selfishness will keep the nations of the world from joining to prevent a repetition of this disaster.
We should approach the whole question, not emotionally from the standpoint of either sacrifice or selfishness, but objectively from the standpoint of finding the common meeting ground on which the people of the world can stand. This meeting ground, after all, should not be hard to find—it is the security of the plain folks against depression and against war. To unite against these two evils is not really a sacrifice at all, but only a commonsense facing of the facts of the world in which we live.
The Challenge We Face
Now at last the nations of the world have a second chance to erect a lasting structure of peace—a structure such as that which Woodrow Wilson sought to build but which crumbled away because the world was not yet ready. Wilson himself foresaw that it was certain to be rebuilt some day. This is related by Josephus Daniels in his book, The Life of Woodrow Wilson, as follows:
“Wilson never knew defeat, for defeat never comes to any man until he admits it. Not long before the close of his life Woodrow Wilson said to a friend: ‘Do not trouble about the things we have fought for. They are sure to prevail. They are only delayed.’ With the quaintness which gave charm to his sayings he added: ‘And I will make this concession to Providence—it may come in a better way than we propose.’ ”
And now we of this generation, trusting in Providence to guide our steps, go forward to meet the challenge of our day. For the challenge we all face is the challenge of the new democracy. In the new democracy, there will be a place for everyone—the worker, the farmer, the businessman, the housewife, the doctor, the salesman, the teacher, the student, the store clerk, the taxi driver, the preacher, the engineer—all the millions who make up our modern world. This new democracy will give us freedom such as we have never known, but only if as individuals we perform

our duties with willing hearts. It will be; an adventure in sharing—sharing of duties and responsibilities, and sharing of the joy that can come from the give-and-take of human contacts and fruitful daily living. Out of it, if we all do

our part, there will be new opportunity and new security for the common man—that blend of Liberty and Unity which is the bright goal of millions who are bravely offering up their lives on the battle fronts of the world.

GENERALISSIMO CHIANG KAI-SHEK urges the United Nations to begin at once organizing a world-wide international order. He warns that without political, social, and economic justice for all peoples, there can be no lasting security,*

The political testament of the Father of our Republic, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, began with the reminder to his followers, “The Revolution is not yet achieved.” Even after the national revolution succeeded in overthrowing the War Lords and unified China in 1927, we have continued to characterize our Government as a Revolutionary Government. •
Critics asked, now that you have established a Government of all China, why do you persist in calling yourselves a Revolutionary Government? What do you mean by Revolution?
The answer is that what we mean by Revolution is the attainment of all three of Dr. Sun’s basic principles of national revolution: national independence, progressive realization of democracy, and a rising level of living conditions for the masses. When victory comes at the end of this war, we shall have fully achieved national independence but will have far to go to attain our other two objectives. Hence our claim that ours is still a Revolutionary Government which means no more or less than that it is a government dedicated to attaining these other two objectives.
Insisting on national independence for all peoples, Dr. Sun’s vision transcends the problem of China, and seeks equality for all peoples, East and West alike. China not only fights for her own independence, but also for the liberation of every oppressed nation. For us the Atlantic Charter and President Roosevelt’s proclamation of the Four Freedoms for all peoples are cornerstones of our fighting faith.
For many centuries Chinese society has. been free of class distinctions such as are found even in ad-

7* In a message to the New York Herald Tribune Forum, November 17, 1942.

vanced democracies. At the core of our political thought is our traditional maxim: “The people form the foundation of the Country.” We Chinese are instinctively democratic, and Dr. Sun’s objective of universal suffrage evokes from all Chinese a ready and unhesitating response. But the processes and forms by which the will of the people is made manifest, and tfie complex machinery of modern democratic government cannot, I know to my cost, be created overnight, especially under the constant menace and attack of Japanese militarism.
During the last years of his life Dr. Sun devoted much of his forward thinking to the economic reconstruction of China, and nothing, I believe, so marked his greatness as his insistence that the coming tremendous economic reconstruction of China should benefit not the privileged few but the entire nation.
The absence of a strong central government capable of directing economic development, the bondage of unequal treaties trying to keep China as a semi-colony for others, and above all the jealous machinations of Japan—all these greatly retarded the economic reconstruction to which the national revolution of China is dedicated.
But the end of the present wax will find China freed of her bondage, with a vigorous Government and a people ardent with-desire to rebuild their country. I feel the force'of this desire as a tidal wave which will not only absorb the energies of our people for a century but will also bring lasting benefits to the entire world.

“Patriotism Alone Is Not Enough" ;
But the bright promise of the future, which has done much to sustain us during our grim struggle with Japan, will^ cruelly vanish if after paying

the price this second time we do not achieve the reality of world cooperation.
I hear that my American friends have confidence in the experience of men who have “come up the hard way.” My long struggles as a soldier of the Chinese Revolution have forced me to realize the necessity of facing hard facts. There will be neither peace, nor hope, nor future for any of us unless we honestly aim at political, social, and economic justice for all peoples of the world, great and small. But I feel confident that we of the United Nations can achieve that aim only by starting at once to organize an international order embracing all peoples to enforce peace and justice among them. To make that start we must begin today and not tomorrow to apply these principles among ourselves even at some sacrifice to the absolute powers of our individual countries. We should bear in mind one of the most inspiring utterances of the last World War, that of Edith Cavell:
“Standing at the brink of the grave, I feel that patriotism alone is not enough.”
We Chinese are not so blind as to believe that the new international order will usher in the millennium. But we do not look upon it as visionary. The idea of universal brotherhood is innate in the catholic nature of Chinese thought; it was the dominant concept of Dr. Sun Yat-sen,

whom events have proved time andagaintobe not a visionary but one of the world’s greatest realists.

Responsibilities., Not Rights
Among our friends there has been recently some talk of China emerging as the leader of Asia, as if China wished the mantle of an unworthy Japan to fall on her shoulders. Having herself been a victim of exploitation, China has infinite sympathy for the submerged nations of Asia, and toward them China feels she has only responsibilities—not rights. We repudiate the idea of leadership of Asia because the “Fuehrer principle” has been synonymous with domination and exploitation, precisely as the “East Asia co-prosperity sphere” has stood for a race of mythical supermen lording over groveling subject races.
China has no desire to replace Western imperialism in Asia with an oriental imperialism or isolationism of its own or of any one else. We hold that we must advance from the narrow idea of exclusive alliances and regional blocs which in the end make for bigger and better wars, to effective organization of world unity. Unless real world cooperation replaces both isolationism, and imperialism of whatever form in the new inter-dependent world of free nations, there will be no lasting security for you or for us.

DR. T. V. SOONG, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China, proposes an Executive Council of the United Nations, as a first step toward a workable world order.*

I am delighted to speak under the auspices of United China Relief, which has done and is doing so much to encourage the people of China by bringing them direct and active assistance from the people of the United States.
This is the day China cherishes as the Double Tenth—the tenth day of the tenth month, October.
It is the day of our Declaration of Independence— the day when Sun Yat-sen proclaimed the Republic of China—the beginning of the People’s Century in Asia—our Fourth of July.

*At Carnegie Hall, New York City, on the thirty-first anniversary of the Republic, October 10, 1942.

But October 10 is a Fourth Of July only 31 years old!
It represents the daring not of our remote ancestors but of our own fathers—and of many men now living.
The men who today are the leaders of the state and heads of families in China are the very young men who on that day of October 10 pledged to Dr. Sun himself their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
These years in China are what the era of the Founding Fathers were to you.
The torch of democratic idealism and the revolutionary faith of thé Chinese Founding Fathers

were thrown to them from the Fathers of your own Fourth of July. Dr. Sun was American-educated and took his inspiration from the early American patriots who also were not afraid to create new worlds.
No Chinese patriot, however blinded by his devotion, will claim that China has fully realized her own democratic faith. In 1911 there was in China hardly any preparation for representative government and, except for the few leaders, scarcely anyone had the slightest notion of how a democracy operates.
As Dr. Sun used to say, mortals and their institutions do not spring to life in full maturity. They must grow from humble beginnings. They will learn only by their mistakes, until in the process of trial and error humanity advances.
We had to try to develop in a few years from a medieval empire to a modern democracy against incessant intrigue and finally military attack of a Japan who wanted no democracy in Asia.
But for all our mistakes and difficulties our democracy made us a unified nation.

A Revolutionary Faith

For five years a united China has kept fighting-— fighting in a way military men of magnificently equipped armies do not always understand— fighting in the irregular way in which revolutionary armies without equipment have always had to fight—fighting in exactly the same way as George Washington’s armies had to fight, retreating, retreating, and retreating, past this very spot, from the defeat of the battle of Long Island to the victory of the battle of Trenton—fighting with wits against Japanese mechanized forces asking everything that even your Marines can give.
When the United Kingdom and the United States became at war with Japan we thought the end of our fighting was near.
But today the Japanese are stronger than ever in the Far East, and our supply base in Burma is gone.
Ambassador Grew has had to live with the Japanese during these critical war years. No one tells better than he what fanatically determined fighters and implacable foes they are, and how dangerously strong and menacing to you as well as to us.
Why do the Chinese keep fighting a foe as strong as that—^despite democratic reverses?

Because they have a revolutionary faith in themselves? Yes.
But also because they have a revolutionary faith in you, the democracy you Americans stand for and your courage to build new worlds. . Because they are sure that the kind of a World that the American Revolution and the Chinese Revolution can together create will be a world in which Chinese children can live as well as American children.
What do they ask in return for that faith in you?
If I could sum it up in a sentence I would say that what they want in return is a revolutionary faith on your part—revolutionary faith in yourselves and in the possibilities of democracy and your democratic allies—faith enough to let yourselves and the other principal United Nations start now—realistically—to build the kind of democratic world that can stay democratic after this conflict is over.
They want to see action begun now to realize the resolve of your great President, which is also the resolve of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, about the United Nations and democracy and the Four Freedoms—for Asia as well as for Europe and the Americas.
In announcing on this auspicious day that the United States Government is prepared promptly to negotiate a tre'aty for the immediate relinquishment of extraterritorial rights in China and for the settlement of related questions, thereby giving recognition to China’s new status, the President has again evinced his deep understanding of the political sentiments of an aroused Asia.
There is no question for the Chinese as to China’s future._
To beat off the Japanese we have fought and endured for five years; it may well take us another five years, but the common people of China as well as their leaders do not even think of defeat.

Instruments for a Fasting Peace

We know that any people with resources and manpower can—at a price to their civilization— become militarily strong. We remember that we, like other nations, have at times been the world’s best soldiers, .best manufacturers, best inventors, and that we are going through a national renaissance as well as a war.
But we do not want military power; -after victory we want lasting peace.

Because this new China has suffered more from aggression than perhaps any other nation still free— because it does feel its own potential strength—: because as the newest convert to democracy the democratic dream is strong within us—we want to do something now so that the society of the future will not have to be an armed camp.
From this stems the natural desire of China to see set up, as quickly as possible, an Executive Council of the United Nations, and to help to evolve therefrom a workable world order, an international instrument fully capable of dispensing justice and enforcing law and order among nations during, as well as after, the war.
We know from bitter experience that no forward planning—post-war or otherwise—is worth the effort unless a realistic machinery for collective security—for freedom from fear—can be developed and be actually working before this war ends and while the pressures of war make it possible for such cooperation to catch hold.
The ghost of the League of Nations does not daunt us Chinese. We have thought perhaps the most about its failure because we were the first arid the most grievous victim of that failure. It was on the rock of the Manchurian incident—at which time I was charged by my government with the direction of our foreign policy—that the League foundered, and this war began—for you as well as for us.
But we know that the League failed for a very concrete reason—because the two great powers which controlled it and could prevent action by it did not believe it was necessary for their own security.
That is not the situation today.
Today those powers which did not feel the League useful to safeguard their own security, and you who felt it even less necessary for your own security, have to recognize that international order and collective security have become essential for the survival of strong states as well as the preservation of weaker ones. Today an aggressor left alone in his preparations can get a death jump on a strong state as well as a weak one.

We Must Start Now

A second difference from the League is that this time we can form our international society while we are still fighting the war.

Undoubtedly much of the* trouble: with the League was that it was formed after and not during the first World War when the Allied nations no longer had to find answers to thé thousand and one reasons why men do not want to cooperate. Men learn to cooperate only by having- to do it and the only time when they will practice at it is when they doubt whether they can survive if they don’t.
The new world order, like the Chinese Republic, and like all human institutions, will never be realized until we start it. And we shall never be more ready for starting it than now. Under the impact of the terror, the sacrifices, and the suffering we are undergoing, we are seeing more clearly than ever before, and perhaps more clearly than we ever shall again, the crying necessity of a new world order. If we cannot compose our differences now with all that we hold dear at stake, what chances are there later when exhaustion, mutual recriminations, and cynicism at the end of the war paralyze common action?
We cannot oppose to the onward surge of the Nazis and the Japanese a mere negative attitude, the vindication of the Nine Power Pact, the defense of the status quo of the British Empire, or the territorial integrity of the Soviet Union and of the United States. We must give to our young men who are called on to sacrifice a flaming mission of a new world order and begin to make that mission come true now. Against a fanatic faith in supermen, we must oppose a revolutionary enthusiasm for common men.
' We are in the midst of a war more terrible, more all-embracing than the last, and to the millions of the Chinese and Russian dead will be added millions of American and British dead before we are through. Are these to die in vain; after victory will we have nothing better to offer our peoples than universal exhaustion to be followed in a few years by still another war? Or shall we not begin at once, here and now, to make what will prove to be the great advance in human history, the emergence of a world order?
China has known the depth of suffering; she means not only to win, but to keep her arms bright after the war.
Through Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek she pledges those arms to her comrades of this war to be used, not in furtherance of nationalistic ambitions, but to help uphold the new world of justice and freedom.

UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE WELLES asks that agreements based on the principles of the Atlantic Charter be reached by the United Nations before an armistice is signed, so that rehabilitation measures and the disarmament of the aggressor nations may he undertaken without delay.*

Tonight, we of the United Nations have the right to look ahead, not only with hope and with passionate conviction, but with the assurance which high military achievement affords, to the ultimate victory which will presage a Free World.
None of us are so optimistic as to delude ourselves into the belief that the end is in sight; or that we have not still before us grave obstacles, dark days, reverses and great sacrifices yet to be undergone. But the tremendous initial effort, in the case of our own country, of transforming the inertia of a democracy of 130 millions of people at peace into the driving, irresistible energy of 130 millions of American citizens aroused and united in war, has been successfully made.
The first .months of confusion and of crosscurrents are past. The men and women of the United States are now enabled to see for themselves the development of the strategic moves in which their Commander in Chief and their military and naval leaders are engaged. They are able to appreciate the amazing nature of the feat realized in the occupation of North Af ica; and to recognize the time and the extent of the preparation required for this gigantic task.
They now realize that the prodding of our selfappointed pundits who were constantly demanding the creation of a second front was not required, and that the carefully thought-out plans for the second front now in being had long since been conceived, and were already in process of realization while the clamor of these critics went on.
They can now fully evaluate the lack of vision and of knowledge of those who demanded the abandonment of our whole policy toward the French people, at the very moment that that policy was afforded the striking opportunity of proving its full worth—its full worth to the cause for which we fight, and its full worth in preserving the soul of France during the darkest days she has ever known: France, the birthplace of so many of those principles of human liberty for
♦Before the New York Herald Tribune Forum, November 17, 1942.

which we and the people of France once more battle today.
They realize that we have in North Africa but one objective—the defeat of the Axis forces—which will bring with it the liberation of the people of France. During these first days all arrangements which we may make with Frenchmen in North Africa are solely military in character, and are undertaken—properly—by the American and British military commanders. It is the hope of all of us that all Frenchmen who represent or who are part of the forces of resistance to Hitler will unite as one in the support of our military endeavor.

Achieving the Free World
And so the clouds are lifting—the clouds of doubt and of disparagement and of lack of selfconfidence. We can all see more clearly how inevitable has now become the final conquest of the armies of that criminal paranoiac whom the German people were so benighted as to acclaim as their leader; how crushing will at long last be the defeat which the Japanese hordes and their military leaders will suffer in just retribution for the treacherous barbarity which they have been inflicting upon the world during the past eleven years.
How can we achieve that Free World, the attainment of which alone can compensate mankind for the stupendous sacrifices which human beings everywhere are now being called upon to suffer?
Our military victory will only be won, in Churchill’s immortal words, by blood and tears, and toil and sweat.
It is just as clear that the Free World which we must achieve can only be attained, not through the expenditure of toil and sweat alone, but also through the exercise of all of the wisdom which men of today have gained from the experience of the past; and by the utilization not only of idealism but also of the practical knowledge of the working of human nature and of the laws of economics and of finance.

Essentials of the Future Peace
What the United Nations’ blueprint imperatively requires is to be drafted in the light of experience and of common sense, and in a spirit of justice, of democracy, and of tolerance, by men who have their eyes on the stars, but their feet on the ground.
In the fundamentals of international relationships there is nothing more fatally dangerous than the common American fallacy that the formulation of an aspiration is equivalent to the hard-won realization of an objective. Of this basic truth we have no more tragic proof than the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
It seems to me that the first essential is the continuous and rapid perfecting of a relationship between the United Nations, so that this military relationship may be further strengthened by the removal of all semblance of disunity or of suspicious rivalry and by the clarification of the Free World goals for which we are fighting; and so that the form of international organization determined to be best suited to achieve international security will have developed to such an extent that it can fully operate as soon as the present military partnership lias achieved its purpose of complete victory.
Another essential is the reaching of agreements between the United Nations before the armistice is signed upon those international adjustments, based upon the universal principles of the Atlantic Charter, and pursuant to the pledges contained in our mutual-aid agreements with many of our allies, which we believe to be desirable and necessary for the maintenance of a peaceful and prosperous world of the future.
"No One Will Go Hungry • •
We all envisage the tragic chaos and anarchy which will have engulfed Europe and a great part of the rest of the world by the time Hitler’s brief day is done, and when he and his accomplices confront their judges. The United Nations’ machinery for relief and rehabilitation must be prepared to operate without a moment’s delay to alleviate the suffering and misery of millions of homeless and starving human beings, if civilization is to be saved from years of social and moral collapse.
“No one will go hungry or without the other means of livelihood in any territory occupied by the Uniteci Nations, if it is humanly within our powers to make the necessary supplies available to them. Weapons will also be supplied to the

peoples of these territories to hasten the defeat of the Axis.” This is the direction of the President to the Lend-Lease Administrator, to General Eisenhower, and to the Department of State, and it is being carried out by them to the full extent of their power and resources. The other United Nations, each to the full extent of their ability, will, I am sure, cooperate wholeheartedly in this great task.
Through prearrangement certain measures such as the disarmament of aggressor nations laid down in the Atlantic Charter must likewise be undertaken rapidly and with the utmost precision.

We Must Be Prepared
Surely we should not again resort to the procedures adopted in 1919 for the settlement of the future of the world. We cannot afford to permit the basic issues by which the destiny of humanity will be determined, to be resolved without prior agreement, in hurried confusion, by a group of harassed statesmen, working against time, pressed from one side by the popular demand for immediate demobilization, and crowded on the other by the exigencies of domestic politics.
If we are to attain our Free World—the world of the Four Freedoms—to the extent practicable, the essential principles of international political and economic relations in that New World must be agreed upon in advance and with the full support of each one of the United Nations, so that agreements to be reached will implement those principles.
If the people of the United States now believe as a result of the experience of the past twenty-five years that the security of our Republic is vitally affected by the fate of the other peoples of the earth, they will recognize that the nature of the international politicál and economic relations which will obtain in the world, after victory has been achieved, is to us a matter of profound self-interest.
As the months pass, two extreme schools of thought will become more and more vocal—the first, stemming from the leaders of the group which preached extreme isolation, will once more proclaim that war in the rest of the world every twenty years or so is inevitable, that we can stay out if we so desire, and that any assumption by this country of any form of responsibility for what goes on in the world means our unnecessary involvement in war; the other, of which very often men of the highest idealism and sincerity are the spokesmen, will maintain that the United States must assume the burdens of the entire globe, must

see to it that the, standards in which we ourselves believe must immediately be adopted by all of the peoples of the earth, and must undertake to inculcate in all parts of the world our own policies of social and political reform whether the other peoples involved so desire or not. While under a different guise, this school of thought is in no way dissimilar in theory from the strange doctrine of incipient “bear the white man’s burden” imperialism which flared in this country in the first years of this century.
The people of the United States today realize that the adoption of either one of these two philosophies would prove equally dangerous to the future well-being of our nation.

Assuring the Four Freedoms

Our Free World must be founded on the Four Freedoms—freedom of speech and of religion— and freedom fr om want and from fear.
I do not believe that the two first Freedoms—of speech and of religion—can ever be assured to mankind, so long as want and war are permitted to ravage the earth. Freedom of speech and of religion need only protection; they require only relief from obstruction.
Freedom from fear—the assurance of peace, and freedom from want—the assurance of individual personal security, require all of the implementation which the genius of man can devise through effective forms of international cooperation.
Peace—freedom from fear—cannot be assured until the nations of the world, particularly the great powers, and that includes the United States, recognize that the threat of war anywhere throughout the globe threatens their own security—and until they are jointly willing to exercise the police powers necessary to prevent such threats from materializing into armed hostilities.
And since policemen might be tyrants if they had no political superiors, freedom from fear also demands some form of organized international political cooperation, to make the rules of international living and to change them as the years go by, and some sort of international court to adjudicate disputes. With effective institutions of that chaiacter to ensure equity and justice, and the continued will to make them work, the peoples of the world should at length be able to live out their lives in peace.
Freedom from want requires these things:
People who want to work must be able to find

useful jobs, not sometimes, not in good years only, but continuously.
These jobs must be at things which they do well, and which can be done well in the places where they work. .
They must be able to exchange the things which they produce, on fair terms, for other things which other people, often in other places, can make better than they.
Efficient and continuous production, and fair exchange, are both necessary to the abundance which we seek, and they depend upon each other. In the past we have succeeded better with production than exchange. Production is called into existence by the prospects for exchange, prospects which have constantly been thwarted by all kinds of inequalities, imperfections, and restrictions. The problem of removing obstacles to fair exchange—'the problem of distribution of goods and purchasing power—is far more difficult than the problem of production.

The Goal Is Worth Striving For
It will take much wisdom, much cooperative effort, and much surrender of private, shortsighted and sectional self-interest, to make these things all come true. But the goal is freedom from want— individual security and national prosperity—and is everlastingly worth striving for.
As mankind progresses on the path toward the goal of freedom from want and from fear, freedom of religion and of speech will more and more become a living reality.
Never before have peace and individual security been classed as freedom. Never before have they been placed alongside religious liberty and free speech as human freedoms which should be inalienable.
Upon these Four Freedoms must rest the structure of the future Free World.
This time there must be no compromise between justice and injustice; no yielding to expediency; no swerving from the great human rights and liberties established by the Atlantic Charter itself.
In the words of our President:
“We shall win this war, and in Victory, we shall seek not vengeaqce, but the establishment of an international order in which the spirit of Christ shall rule the hearts of men and of nations.”
We won’t get a Free World any other way. ;

PRIME MINISTER SMUTS of the Union of South Africa points out that with the conceptions of the United Nations and the Atlantic Charter we have already taken steps forward in international policy. The Atlantic Charter "only requires more careful definition and elaboration to become a real Magna Charta of the nations.”*

Behind all the issues of this war lies the deeper question now posed to the world: which do you choose—the free spirit of man and the moral idealism which has shaped the values and ideas of our civilization, or this horrid substitute, this foul obsession now resuscitated from the underworld of the past? This, in the last analysis, is what this war is about. At bottom, therefore, this war is a new Crusade, a new fight to the death for man’s rights and liberties, and for the personal ideals of man’s ethical and spiritual life. To the Nazi fanaticism we, .oppose this crusading spirit, which will not sheathe the sword till Nazidom and all its works have been purged from this fair world. And in that spirit the United Nations will march forward to victory and to the world which will follow that victory.
I therefore come to the question: what is the sort of world which we envisage as our objective after the war? What sort of social and international order are we aiming at? These are very important questions, deserving of our most careful attention, if we mean not only to win the war but also the peace. Our ideas on these matters 22 years ago were much too vague and crude, and at the same time much too ambitious, with the result that when they came to be tested by hard experience they proved wanting, and their failure helped to contribute to the present conflict.
With that experience before us we ought this time to hammer out something more clear, definite, and practical. A great deal of thought is no doubt already being given to these matters, and one may hope that we shall approach the peace much better informed and equipped than we were last time.

Principles of a New World
Certain points of great importance have already emerged. Thus we have accepted the name of the United Nations. This is a new conceptionj much in advance of the old concepts of a League of

*In the conclusion of his address before the two houses of the British Parliament, October 21, 1942.

Nations. We do not want a mere League, but something more definite and organic, even if to begin with more limited and less ambitious than the League.
The United Nations is itself a fruitful conception, and on the basis of that conception practical machinery for the functioning of an international order could be explored. Then again we have the Atlantic Charter, in which certain large principles of international policy in the social and economic sphere have been accepted. That too marks a great step forward, which only requires more careful definition and elaboration to become a real Magna Charta of the nations. Again, we have agreed on certain large principles of social policy, involving social security for the citizen in matters which have lain at the roots of much social unrest and suffering in the past.
We cannot hope to establish a new heaven and a new earth in the bleak world which will follow after this most destructive conflict of history. But certain patent social and economic evils could be tackled on modest practical lines on an international scale almost at once. Then, again, we have accepted the principle of international help underlying the Mutual Aid Agreement.
The helping hand in international life is thus already a matter of practical politics, and could be suitably extended after the war. This, too, is a far-reaching innovation, pointing the way to fruitful developments in future.
All these are already indications of considerable advances to a better world and a richer life for mankind. To these we may add much of the social and economic work of the League of Nations, which remains of permanent value. Much of the League organization could thus continue to function for the future well-being of mankind.
In sober resolution, in modest hope and strong faith, we move forward to the unknown future. There is no reason why we should not hopefully and sincerely attempt to carry out for the world the

task which now confronts us as pever before in the history of our race.

The Common Birthright

An American statesman has called this the century of the plain man, the common people. I feel that in this vast suffering through which our race is passing we are being carried to a deeper sense of social realities. We are passing beyond the ordinary politics and political shibboleths. It is no longer a case of Socialism or Communism or any other “isms” of the market place, but of achieving common justice and fair play for all.
People are searching their own souls foi the causes which have brought us to this pass. May it be our privilege to see that this suffering, this travail and search of man’s spirit, shall this time not be in vain. Without feeding on illusions, without pursuing the impossible, there is yet much in the common life of the people which can be remedied, much unnecessary inequality and priv

ilege to be level«d away, much common-sense opportunity to be erected as the common birthright and public atmosphere for all to enjoy as of right.
Health, housing, education, decent social amenities, provision against avoidable insecurities—all these simple goods and much more can be provided for, and thus a common higher level of life be achieved for all. As between the nations, a new spirit of human solidarity can be cultivated and economic conditions can be built up which will strike at the root causes of war, and thus lay deeper foundations for world peace.
With honesty and sincerity on our part, it is possible to make basic reforms both for national and international life which will give mankind a new chance of survival and of progress. Let this program, by no means too ambitious, be our task, and let us now already, even in the midst of war, begin to prepare for it. And may heaven’s blessing rest on our work in war and in peace.

This is a publication about the war. When you have finished reading it, please pass it on to a neighbor or a friend for further circulation.

The following publications, on themes related to Proposalsfor a Free World, are available free upon request to the Division of Public Inquiries, Office of War Information, Washington, D. C.

TOWARD NEW HORIZONS: The World Beyond the War. First of a series of pamphlets containing statements and speeches illuminating the developing policies of the United Nations. Speeches by Vice President Wallace, Under Secretary of State Welles, Ambassador Winant, and Milo Perkins throw light upon the development of American thinking on the subject of the post-war world. 16 pages.
THE FOUR FREEDOMS: The Rights of All Men— Everywhere. An elaboration of the freedoms we are fighting for. 16 pages.

THE WAR AND HUMAN FREEDOM. Secretary Hull’s speech. 20 pages.
THE THOUSAND MILLION. Concise descriptions of the countries and people that make up the United Nations. 50 pages, illustrated.
WAR AND PEACE AIMS: Extracts from statements of United Nations leaders. Available only from the United Nations Information Office, 610 Fifth Avenue, New York City, for 25 cents.

OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION WASHINGTON, D. G

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE TO AVOID PAYMENT OF POSTAGE, $300

For additional copies, write Division of Public Inquiries, Office of War Information, Washington, D. G

Us S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE