◆ SpookStack

AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY ~ ** y course to pursue. They entertained the hope, if not the belief, that the Great - War had wrought deep and lasting changes in the minds and hearts of the - people of the world and that they were now ready’ to accept a wholly new ~*< gheory of nationalism. It seemed to be their theory that war had brought all a, peopies into a more kindly, brotherly relationship that in this awful we aptism of blood peoples had found a new life and were henceforth to be ~~ guided by a new spirit. That those views were, and perhaps still are, sincerely = entertained by many people no one can doubt. "nn Se There was another group of individuals having a large part in this program, _ not admirable in many respects, willing to surrender our foreign policy but -- not quite willing, in the face of what seemed an unsettled public opinion, to say sooutright. 9 ee a _. Hence, began that shambling, equivocal policy which found expression in a . muitituae of reservations and all kinds of explanations, none of which nor all of which would have preserved the foreign policy which, like Peter of old, they professed to love but would not own in the hour of crucifixion. Following the period of reservations and the consolations which seemed to flow therefrom there came into international affairs a strange figure known as the “unofficial observer,” always gentlemen of high character, but always, by reason of their commission from their government, required to act as a kind of inter- “uaiiuaal spy, going about over the continents listening in on other peoples’ business. ¥ say “other peoples’ business,” because had it been our business, we should have been there in the person of a duly appointed and authorized agent of the government assuming full responsibility with all other participants. This piuciice brought discredit to our government, impeached before the world our sincerity, and had a tendency at least to degrade the revered policy of Washington to the level of the fugitive discretion or whims of an interna- tional interloper. Whatever happens in the future, let’s be rid once and for all ef this un-American and humiliating policy, if you may call that a policy, which policy has none. Wherever we go or wherever we disclose an interest, let us go as full participants and assume full responsibility with the other participants in the conference. One may personally respect, though he differs with, those who insist that our long-established policy has become obsolete and give their reasons in support thereof, although one may be permitted, I trust, to recall Chancellor Tharlow's remark in reference to the reasons given by his friend, Scott. But this shuffling, uncertain, apologetic attitude toward our American policy and toward the other peoples of the earth and nations of the world can excite nothing less than derision, if not the contempt, of all true Americans and all sincere and candid men everywhere. The hopes entertained that the war was to give us a new world have in no sense been realized. One of the ablest of those who entertained this hope, noted for his breadth of mind and candor of thought, has recently declared: “ During the 1920’s I held the conviction firmly that the world was to experience a period of great international codperation in every field. . . . Looking at the world tcday one may still hope but certainly must question the soundness of that vision of the 1920's.” No less illuminating are the words of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, spoken only a short time ago. He declared that he was “looking upon a stage with something moving immediately behind the footlights,” — ”