The Theodore Roosevelt Centennial CD-ROM

is utopian for the time being; that is, that nations are not

ready as yet to accept it. But it is also possible that after

this war has come to an end the European contestants

will be sufficiently sobered to be willing to consider

some such proposal, and that the United States will

abandon the folly of the pacifists and be willing to co-

operate in some practical effort for the only kind of

peace worth having, the peace of justice and

righteousness. The proposal is not in the least utopian,

if by utopian we understand something that is

theoretically desirable but impossible. What I propose

is a working and realizable utopia. My proposal is that

the efficient civilized nations—those that are efficient

in war as well as in peace—shall join in a world league

for the peace of righteousness. This means that they

shall by solemn covenant agree as to their respective

rights which shall not be questioned; that they shall

agree that all other questions arising between them shall

be submitted to a court of arbitration; and that they shall

also agree—and here comes the vital and essential point

of the whole system-to act with the combined military

strength of all of them against any recalcitrant nation,

against any nation which transgresses at the expense of

any other nation the rights which it is agreed shall not

be questioned, or which on arbitrable matters refuses to

submit to the decree of the arbitral court. (Independent,

January 4, 1915.) Mem. Ed. XX, 172; Nat. Ed. XVIII,

should combine by solemn agreement in a great World

League for the Peace of Righteousness. . . . Such a

world agreement offers the only alternative to each

nation's relying purely on its own armed strength; for a

treaty unbacked by force is in no proper sense of the

word an alternative. Of course, if there were not

reasonable good faith among the nations making such

an agreement, it would fail. But it would not fail merely

because one nation did not observe good faith. It would

be impossible to say that such an agreement would at

once and permanently bring universal peace. But it

would certainly mark an immense advance. It would

certainly mean that the chances of war were minimized

and the prospects of limiting and confining and

regulating war immensely increased. At present force,

as represented by the armed strength of the nations, is

wholly divorced from such instrumentalities for

securing peace as international agreements and treaties.

In consequence, the latter are practically impotent in

great crises. There is no connection between force, on

the one hand, and any scheme for securing international

peace or justice on the other. (New York Times,

October 18, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XX, 64; Nat. Ed. XVIII,

LEAGUE FOR PEACE—SUPPORTERS OF. There

is one point about those gentlemen who support a

League for International World Peace that is worth

while considering. Six months ago or more I outlined

that programme which they announced they had just

discovered the other day. But I then very emphatically

stated that it was a programme for the future and that

our first business was to make good the promises we

had already made and to put ourselves in position to

defend our own rights. These gentlemen declined to say

a word in favor of our fitting ourselves to go into

defensive war in our own interest; and yet they actually

wish to make us at this time promise to undertake

offensive war in the interests of other people! It is a

striking illustration of the recklessness with which the

average American is willing to make any kind of a

promise without any thought of how it can be carried

out. (To E. A. Van Valkenberg, June 29, 1915.) Mem.

Ed. XXIV, 454; Bishop II, 386.

LEAGUE FOR PEACE AS ALTERNATIVE TO

FORCE. The great civilized nations of the world which

do possess force, actual or immediately potential,

LEAGUES FOR PEACE VERSUS ALLIANCES. It

is because I believe our attitude should be one of

sincere good-will toward all nations that I so strongly

feel that we should endeavor to work for a league of

peace among all nations rather than trust to alliances

with any particular group. Moreover, alliances are very

shifty and uncertain. Within twenty years England has

regarded France as her immediately dangerous

opponent; within ten years she has felt that Russia was

the one power against which she must at all costs guard

herself; and during the same period there have been

times when Belgium has hated England with a peculiar

fervor. Alliances must be based on self-interest and

must continually shift. But in such a world league as

that of which we speak and dream, the test would be

conduct and not merely selfish interest, and so there

would be no shifting of policy. (New York Times,

November 29, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XX, 198; Nat. Ed.

XVIII, 170.

<- Previous First Next ->