WAR OR PEACE
By John Foster Dulles
The MacMillan Company, New York
1950, 274 pages,
With Mr. John Foster Dulles in the State Department, his book on "War or Peace" acquires a new significance in world politics, for it is likely to serve as a guide to American diplomacy under the Republican administration. Parts of it find expression in President Eisenhower's inaugural speech and his State of the Union message. It foreshadows both the scrapping of Harry Truman's policy of containment and opposition to Winston Churchill's advocacy of "Europe first." It analyses postwar developments and indicates the direction in which the free world under American leadership will probably move in the global struggle against Communism. In particular, it is of interest to us in that it discusses Asiatic problems extensively, giving serious consideration to China. Indeed, it would not be easy to find another book which deserves as much attention as this one at the present moment.
Needless to say, the author is uniquely qualified to discuss the pressing problems of war or peace by reason of his wide experience. In this book, the reader will find the author's considered opinions on intricate postwar problems and his cool-headed views on the Communist menace. Mr. Dulles is realistic but alive to moral values. He combines political reality with an idealistic longing for peace. Peace, he says, requires strategic planning, willingness to sacrifice, and the impulsion of a righteous faith. If we mobilize for peace the way we do for war or, to put it more specifically, if we summon up the potentialities, particularly the moral and spiritual potentialities, which we usually reserve for war, we have the opportunity to save mankind from catastrophe.
The author starts from the premise that the Russian Communists, as distinguished from the Russian people, are the implacable enemy of humanity today. His analysis of the doctrines of Soviet Communism, as interpreted by Stalin and applied to postwar politics, is authoritative. He calls special attention to what he recently called a bad book, namely, Stalin's Problems of Leninism. He compares it to Hitler's Mein Kampf and warns us against neglecting it until it is too late. As far as the present reviewer knows, the author's understanding of the true nature of Communism is almost unrivaled. His account of the Communist "not war, not peace" tactics explains practically all tensions in postwar politics. It may be recalled that his study entitled "Soviet Foreign Policy, and What to Do About it," which appeared in Life magazine for June 3 and 10, 1946, led Vishinsky to attack him as a "warmonger" in the United Nations.
In attempting to make a balance sheet of Communist gains and losses in the postwar period, Mr. Dulles finds that there has been a very definite shift in the global balance of power in favor of Soviet Communism. He lists three basic reasons why the Soviets have scored successes:
"One is that Soviet Communism saturates the world with propaganda that has universal appeal.
"A second reason is that the Soviet Communist Party has perfected a superb organization to conduct indirect aggression throughout the world.
"A third reason is that Soviet Communism has the advantage of the offensive. It has no counteroffensive to fear, either in propaganda or in 'cold war.' It can push its redivision of the world, picking the time and place for its offensive and knowing that it can consolidate its gains at leisure." (p.165)
In contrast to the Communist thesis that "only a party which has mastered the Marxist Leninist theory can confidently advance and lead the working class forward," Mr. Dulles asserts that it is equally true that only those who have mastered that theory can anticipate and thwart the moves of those who use it as a "guide to action." (p.7) On the basis of his knowledge of Communism, he lays down in this work some valuable principles and devices which may be employed to deal with the Communists. By adopting, for example, his suggestion to set a limit to long speeches in UN meetings (pp. 197-198), he managed to frustrate the Russian attempt to wreck the Japanese peace conference at San Francisco in 1951.
It is important to note that unlike the self-styled realists in the postwar years, Mr. Dulles has not lost faith in the United Nations. He believes that the United Nations has contributed to the solution of international disputes and that it has deterred aggression by exposing potential aggressors. Of course, what the United Nations has done is not adequate; it needs to be supplemented and improved. Mr. Dulles takes an unequivocal position in favor of strengthening the United Nations. But he wrote his book before the Korean war when the iniquity of the Chinese Communists had not yet been fully exposed. Consequently, he was not entirely free from illusions. "If the Communist government of China," he wrote, "in fact proves its ability to govern China without serious domestic resistance, then it, too, should be admitted to the United Nations." (p. 190) That was a highly dangerous statement. Since then, Mr. Dulles has never repeated it.
This leads us to an interesting question which has recently arisen in connection with the policy of "peaceful liberation" as worked out by Mr. Dulles. The question is whether the word "liberation" means the overthrow of Communist regimes or the weaning over of the satellites from the Kremlin. If we judge from the book as a whole, Mr. Dulles must have the former in mind. It would be strange, if he should think the other way. As President Eisenhower points out in his State of the Union message, the Republican administration will "never acquiesce in the enslavement of any people in order to purchase fancied gain for ourselves."
It is understandable that Americans should attach paramount importance to the unity of Western Europe. In many ways the United States considers herself a part of that region and it is natural that the greatest part of postwar American aid has been ex pended to strengthen the West. As a consequence of the Korean war, however, the whole picture has changed. For the first time in history a world organization, the United Nations, has sent troops to stop aggression. In the past, as in the two world wars, the United States was only belatedly drawn into war, but this time she has taken the lead in the crusade. It is time for the United States to give up the preconception of "Europe first". President Eisenhower declares in his State of the Union address that "the freedom." we cherish and defend in Europe and in the Americas is no different from the freedom that is imperilled in Asia." This is something revolutionary in American diplomacy. It will be recalled that Winston Churchill met with strong opposition when he declared during his recent visit to the United States that "the real center of gravity is Western Europe—in front of the Iron Curtain." All that contributes to this line of American thought has its origin in the present book. (p. 224)
We are happy to note that Mr. Dulles admits that the U. S. policy in the East used to rest on the foundation of friendly relations with China. Such friendly relations lasted until after the war when the Communists overran the Chinese mainland. There are many causes for the Communist success and the United States, as Mr. Dulles points out, is not without fault. Immediately after the war the United States declared (in December, 1945) that the Chinese government should come to terms with the Communists and that "a China disunited and torn by civil strife could not be considered realistically as a proper place, for American assistance." General Marshall was sent to China to attempt the impossible. In December, 1948, the American government reversed its former policy and took the position that, "should a government come into power which comes to terms with the Chinese Communists, all aid should cease." If in December, 1945, as Mr. Dulles observes, the U. S. government had taken the position which it took three years later, then the Chinese government might have become stable and would probably have acted as the United States advised. The U. S. misguided policy of 1945 was pressed upon the Chinese government only a few months after the U. S. disclosure to China of the notorious Yalta dictate. Naturally, the Chinese government felt hurt and distrusted General Marshall's advice to come to, terms with the Communists. (pp. 226-227)
With such a lesson in mind, Mr. Dulles stands for the building of a totally new policy towards Asia. In his opinion, there are two general principles to be followed. In the first place, any policies regarding Asia and the, Pacific must be a logical development of the policy of peaceful evolution to national independence, as the Western Powers have generally adopted since the end of the war. This policy has successfully frustrated Soviet schemes to promote violent revolution in Asia. Secondly, any policies for Asia and the Pacific must recognize the distinctive religions and cultures of Asia. That is good sense. If worked out satisfactorily, it can contribute a good deal to the cause of anti-Communism. After all, Oriental faiths and moral values do not square with Communist atheism and materialism.
If the above two principles, Mr. Dulles says, are followed, the United States will be qualified to help establish a permanent Association of the Free Nations of Asia and the Pacific. This, in his opinion, would not initially be a military alliance like NATO; it would best start as a consultative council. As we know, the difficulties are enormous. While it is clear that the purpose of the proposed organization should be to promote the cause of anti-Communism, there are countries such as Australia and New Zealand which are sensitive to the revival of Japanese militarism. Indonesia and Burma have memories of Western colonialism and Japanese aggression, from both of which they have just been liberated. If Indo-China and Malaya are included, they must be approached at present through France and Great Britain which are the very countries they hate more than Communism. The Republic of Korea is now at war. Apart from lack of armaments, Japan has not yet restored diplomatic relations with some Pacific countries such as the Philippines. The United States on her part would not be interested in a Pacific union which will involve the use of her land forces. It will be recalled that on the initiative of President Quirino seven Asiatic and Pacific nations met at Baguio, the Philippines, in 1950. They failed to discuss a Pacific organization because some delegations refused to tackle political questions. Apparently that mood remains unchanged today. If such countries as India, Pakistan and Ceylon are to be considered, the question becomes all the more complicated. Under the cloak of neutrality between East and West, India is actually shielding the evil forces of Communism.
Despite all difficulties, Mr. Dulles has done a great deal for the security of the Pacific in recent years. He has been responsible for the Japanese peace settlement and the U. S. security treaties with the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand. What is more, he never regards the present situation as adequate or final. These security treaties provide for the "development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific area." The time may not be ripe for such a comprehensive arrangement, but certainly it can not be far off. For the enemy would simply not allow us to tarry and procrastinate.
Hsiao Tso-liang
YOUR LIFE IN A DEMOCRACY
By Howard E. Brown
J. B. Lippincott Company, Chicago,
Philadelphia, New York. Revised, 1948.
xi + 435 pages.
Nowadays many speak glibly of "the democratic way of life," but few take the trouble to analyze what it means or what its implications are. Although "Your Life in a Democracy" by Mr. Howard E. Brown of Classen Senior High School, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U. S. A., does not pretend to be an academic treatise on this important topic, for the simple reason that it is written neither for the general public nor for the scholar, but only as a high-school textbook, yet the field it covers includes so many aspects of an individual's daily life and its presentation is so absorbingly interesting that it may well serve as an introductory course for all those who want to pursue the subject further. People who have no adequate conception of how the Americans live, or what ideals they try to inculcate in their children, will benefit by a perusal of Mr. Brown's work either in the original or in translations. The reviewer understands that a Chinese translation is in preparation and will be published soon. He is confident that when the Chinese version is made available to readers in Free China, and elsewhere, it will contribute materially to a wider diffusion of knowledge about the democratic way of life, which is so regrettably lacking today.
The book is divided into seven parts. In order to lend a more personal touch to his work, the author addresses his readers in the second person and entitles the different parts thus: Your Opportunity, Your School Life, Your Personality and Friends, Your Job as a Citizen, Your Health, Your Mind and Emotions, Your Future. A mere recital of these headings does not do justice to Mr. Brown, for he has managed to introduce a wider range of modern knowledge into the text than the titles seem to indicate. There within the modest compass of a school-book profusely illustrated with approximately 120 halftones, he has given us some of the most important conclusions reached by students in psychology, mental hygiene, dietetics, civics, education, and vocational guidance.
Mr. Brown's approach is essentially psychological. He lays particular emphasis on the importance of habit-formation. Hence he says in the Preface, "The theme and thesis of this book is that doing a thing intelligently and repeatedly is the only way in which it can be made a part of the personality and character. Both experiment and experience testify to the futility of trying to bring about any far-reaching individual or social improvements by means of precept alone. Such changes are effected, if at all, through the development of new habits and better attitudes; no amount of information or inspiration will suffice." Well-intentioned schoolmasters and public men, of whom the world is so full, who dream of making their pupils and fellow-citizens into saints "by means of precept alone," should take this as well as the following passage to heart. "Being a good citizen is as much a matter of habit as is using a lathe or operating a linotype," Mr. Brown insists. "The habits that make the efficient, and useful citizen should be started in the home, then taken up and developed intensively by the schools." (Preface, p. v) "
Mr. Brown's definition of democracy serves the purposes of a high-school textbook well enough. "The term democracy," says he, "describes a form of government which derives its power from the people under it — 'government by the consent of the governed.'" (p. 195) But how is the consent of the governed to be obtained? It is done by voting and the counting of noses. In the words of our author: "Our Government is based upon the principle of majority rule. It is not possible literally to carry out the 'will of the people,' for the whole people are never of the same will; the best that can be done is to try to serve the will of the majority of the people." (p. 195) And the means whereby the will of the people is expressed is the ballot, which Mr. Brown describes as "the chief weapon with which the individual citizen expresses his opinion on governmental affairs," (p. 195) Though all this may sound rather elementary to the political scientist, it deserves incessant repeating because it is of the very essence of democracy. Even as recently as President Eisenhower's inauguration, The New York Times took special pains to re-emphasize the same idea in an editorial entitled "Moment of Transition" on January 25, 1953. Inspired by "the strength and the sublimity of the American ideal," the editor characterizes the "results of the election" as "the tribunal from which no appeal could be taken — the supreme court of the ballot box," and goes on to elucidate its underlying significance for the American people in a few simple but dignified sentences. "At the ballot box," says he, "we do not choose men to rule over us; we choose men to rule for us. We, the people, delegate power; we do not resign it. Whether or not we ever formulate the thought in so many words, all of us understand this fundamental principle and are guided by it."
If the people in a democracy do not choose, men to rule over them, but choose men to rule for them, naturally they enjoy certain rights which the government cannot take away from them. As Mr. Brown puts it, "One of the rights upon which Americans have always insisted has been the right to say what one believes, without fear of persecution or punishment. A free press, uncontrolled by the Government, has been another strongly defended ideal. Recently the radio and motion picture have been added to the list of means of expression which the people want kept secure. On the whole, these rights have been successfully defended because the public has felt very strongly about them." (p. 201)
In sharp contrast to the sort of life people live in a democracy, Mr. Brown has also sketched for us a revolting picture of life in countries ruled by dictators. "In these dictator-ruled countries," he writes, "people believe what their rulers want them to believe. Opinion is handed them ready-made. People may not assemble to talk matters over, except with the consent of the Government. Every thing that appears in print, if not actually prepared by the Government, is carefully censored, lest the reader get an idea of his own. The radio and the film are regulated with equal care. Under a dictatorship, you could not talk to a friend over the telephone without suspecting t hat someone else might be listening to your conversation, Your private letters would be subject to official inspection. In school, you would never be given a chance to hear all sides of a political question; your schoolbooks, your teachers, everything and everybody contributing to your beliefs would have to be passed upon by the Government before they could enter ill any way into your education. You would be taught only such things as your Government would be willing for you to know or believe." (p. 202)
This description of the sorry plight of people living under dictatorships is positively an understatement, for it has not said anything about the terrors of the concentration camp, the midnight knock on the door, the physical and mental anguish of slave-laborers, and the cruelties of public trials, purges, and liquidations. But even that much which Mr. Brown has depicted is sufficient to convey a general idea of the contrast between freedom and slavery, or democracy and dictatorship.
Beside portraying a vivid picture of life in a democracy, Mr. Brown's book has a number of other merits to commend itself. In discussing any question, it never fails to present arguments both pro and can and always allows the reader to think for himself and draw his own conclusions. It is, moreover, richly interspersed with bits of interesting information and humor. The reviewer cannot resist the temptation of citing a few instances which have given him much pleasure in the course of his reading. The case of Thomas Edison (pp. 39-40) not remembering his own name, while being absorbed in the problem of "how to make a telegraph instrument that would send several messages over the wires at the same time," mayor may not be true, but it is certainly an apt illustration of the power of concentration. To be told that "Lloyds of London will insure nearly anything against almost any sort of possible accident—such as a large society garden party against the event of rain," (p. 266) is at least amusing to those who happen to hear of it for the first time. The comment on party platforms of political parties, which Mr. Brown quotes on p. 200, is sometimes only too true: "'Of course it's a good platform,' someone said of one such declaration of political faith. 'Nine-tenths of it consists of the Ten Commandments."' But the following thrust at the smart set is conceived in a more sarcastic vein. "Some families pride themselves en being 'smart' people;" says our author, "they know what's what, and are always up to the minute. They wear the very latest clothes and you will find the very latest novel on their library table, frequently with some the leaves uncut." (p. 247)
Readers in Free China who are watching the Chinese National Government authorizing the sale of public lands to private individuals should be especially interested in reading of the analogous movement in the United States. "More than two-thirds of the area of the United States and Alaska has at one time or another been public property," we are told. "Under the administration of the General Land Office, more than nine-tenths of the nation's public lands have been distributed to its citizens, or reserved for some special purpose. 'Homesteading' has been the usual method of converting the land to private ownership. A citizen can obtain title to 160 acres of land in return for living upon and improving it, or to twice that amount if the land is to be used for stock-raising. Some land is sold, prices usually ranging from one to four dollars per acre. Of course, most of the better land has already been taken up; half of the states no longer contain any land for distribution." (p. 178)
It the reader is critically minded, he will perhaps object to Mr. Brown's statement that "most modern dictatorships are not set up by force," (p. 204) for the fact is that at least two of the biggest and most oppressive regimes, namely those of the Russian Bolsheviks and the Chinese Communists, were set up by sheer force of arms. Mr. Brown's way of putting it leaves us with the not altogether correct impression that in all cases the people themselves are a blame, if they "in time of trouble vote away their rights" (p. 204) of their own free· will. Certain nations such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy did that, but the Russian and Chinese peoples never voluntarily chose to be ruled by dictators who came to power through violence and bloodshed.
Lastly, the reviewer owes it to candor to point out that certain arithmetical miscalculations seem to have crept in on p. 270 in connection with the hypothetical case of a family buying a house partly cash down and partly on the instalment plan. But that is a minor error which can be easily rectified: it does not detract from the value of the book as an excellent introduction to the American way of life.
Durham S. F. Chen