Ideals in American Foreign Policy

Abstract

A British writer recently commented on the puzzling dualism in statements of American foreign policy. He found lofty and generous professions of idealism uttered almost in the same breath with strident pronouncements on American military, naval and aerial power. Which is the true 'voice of America? What will be the direction of American policy in the perilous years to come? Will it give continuing support to the United Nations and its ancillary organizations? Will it actually participate in the promising new plans for constructive co-operation wvith other nations or will the United States, relying on its new-found military might and economic predominance, decide to hoe its own row ? These are great questions. The answers are heavy with significance. I cannot answer theem; I know no American who can. Perhaps I can help others to frame their own answers by commenting briefly on some of the chianges in emphasis that are taking place in American thinking about foreign policy. Let me begin by pointing out some of the contrasts between 1946 and 1919. Ten months after the Armistice that ended the first world war, Americans were feverishly debating whether or not they should enter the League of Nations. Now, ten months after V-J Day, the United States finds itself a charter member and one of the leading participants in the United Nations. My country has taken leadership in setting tip the new International Monetary Fund, the Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Food and Agriculture Organization. It has taken the initiative in establishing an international organization for the regulation of air transport. Finally, and most important, the United States has proposed a plan for international control of the production of atomic energy and to prevent its destructive use in warfare. In the face of these facts it would seem unwise to predict that history will repeat itself and that, with the enemy defeated, Americans will again withdraw, leaving their Allies to wrestle with the problems of the peace. Isolation versus international co-operation was for twenty years the issue at the heart of all discussions of American foreign policy. The Japanese put an end to that controversy at Pearl Harbor. If, after that disaster, there were any who still were confident of the ability of the United States to live in security, untroubled by the fear of attack, they were convinced of their error by the atomic bomb.