America and the Next War—An Isolationist’s Estimate

AMERICA AND THE NEXT WAR-AN ISOLATIONIST'S ESTIMATE "c. H ..RTLEY GMTTAN THE people of the United States have never been noted for unanimity of opinion on major public policies. From time to time there has been extraordinary popular support for particular leaders and for particular policies, but let a condition arise which requires a drastic redefinition of policy, or a firm reiteration o( an old policy which circumstances have called into question, and the people-or the publicists and politicians who give voice to their sentiments-immediately fall upon one another with a vigour which must strike outsiders as little short of amazing. At the moment an outstanding subject of furious debate is American foreign policy, a hardy perennial about which Americans have rarely been in complete accord when they have been sufficiently aroused about relations with other nations to have any opinions at all. . While the debate is ordinarily conducted on the political level, American foreign policy is really triune in character. It involves economic, political, 'and military considerations. A good deal of the muddlement which is to be found in the public declarations on the subject arises from the failure to recognize the ways in which the three factors are interlocked. There is a rather strong disposition to compartmentalize thinking about these matters and to phrase a political foreign policy compatible with the deep-seated moral ideals of the masses of the people, an economic foreign policy which accords with the position of the United States as a great capitalist-imperial power, and a military policy which is continental in character, the emphasis falling upon naval development. How- "ever often"attention is called to the need for co-ordinating the three elements if a completely successful policy is to be formulated, failure is always the lot of the perfectionists. American foreign policy persistently remains a muddle of disturbing and misleading contradictions . To confound confusion, the United States stands between Eu~ope and Asia and must take up a position with regard to both areas. Naturally and inevitably American discussion about foreign affairs consists largely of what shall be the attitude vis II vis Europe. 271 272 THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY Even when Asia is brought to the fore, the Americans are very apt to take a European view ·of Far Eastern affairs. As far as I am aware, there is no peculiarly American policy with regard to the Far East- even the Open Door dogma (now being liquidated) is of British origin. Under ordinary circumstances Americans are pro-Chinese and anti-Japanese, but it is well known that in economic terms the Am, erican involvement in Japan is much larger than in China, whether the evidence be direct investments or trade figures . The more powerful pull of Europe-the greater reality of Europe in the American imagination-leads to the formulation of foreign policy largely on the basis of what has happened or is thought to be about to happen in Europe. Thus at the present moment, while it can hardly be alleged that Americans are unaware of what is happening in the Far East, the public debate is chiefly concerned with the American attitude toward Europe, especially toward the fascist powers of Europe. The Asiatic question enters in almost as an after-thought and there is little clear recognition of the fact that a somewhat different attitude should be taken toward it. This duality of objective makes it difficult, if not impossible, to coordinate the three elements of foreign policy in a fashion which will serve equally well in both instances. The only really satisfactory way to gain an appreciation of the immense complications involved in the argumentation over foreign policy is intensively to examine representative declarations on the subject, paying particular attention to the implications on salient points. For this purpose the views of President Roosevelt, Secretary of State Hull, ex-Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson, and exPresident Herbert Hoover may profitably be selected, with incidental reference to the statements of representative politicians and publicists. . Under the constitution, foreign policy is in charge of the President . The Secretary of State is his executive officer. It is nevertheless true that not all presidents...