|
This pamphlet was conceived and written in
the Western Desert of Egypt and allowed to he sent to England just
before the capture of the 150 Field Ambulance.
It was realigned by members of KK's family
and a member of Federal Union and printed privately.
On his return from POW Camp (after three
more captures) KK was elected to the executive of Federal Union
and a year later became its Organising Secretary. At the Suez Crisis
together with John Pinder, KK set up a broad Committee which produced
a report on the idea of an international Police Force.
This is not an official publication of Federal
Union, but merely the author's expression of opinion on the subject.
He wrote this essay in 1942 when serving in North Africa near "Knightsbridge".
As he has since become a prisoner of war - now in Germany - he has
been unable to correct the proofs himself.
Peace - what then?
For two years I served as a private in England
and in the Middle East, and during this period I have thought much
about the past and of the future.
What of the future? A return to the past? No never.
That is over and done with. There is only the future. Only an "after
the war." What then of the "future" Which shall be:
different from the past.
It is a good sign that nearly all are agreed that
great changes must be made; and great changes can only be made peacefully
if they have been stirring in men's minds for sometime.
We must consider what the shape of this future
shall be. We should consider now, what has been done, what is being
done, what must be done; for, if we give towards preservation of
peace a minute fraction of the money, thought, energy and willingness
to sacrifice, that we have given to forward this war, we should
surely have peace.
So far there has been only one concrete plan put
forward for ensuring peace, and that is Federal Union. In the past
three years and especially as interest has developed along the lines
of post war reconstruction, in the last few months, many books on
Federation have been published in Britain and America. Books written
by professors and lawyers, knights and Lords, scientists and school
masters, journalists and economists and many other men of standing.
But in these few pages I have endeavoured to present the case for
Federal Union as I, the ordinary man in the street and small business
man see it, and to estimate how it will affect me.
I have not attempted to go deeply into the legal,
economic and political aspects for I could not do so as thoroughly,
or as adequately, as has been done by others. I have only proposed
such changes as I consider essential if Federal Union is to fulfil
its purpose and remove war, for the fewer the changes the more acceptable
will it be to the majority and, therefore, the easier to accomplish.
Though our outlook and sympathy must be greatly widened, I have
tried not to override human nature merely for the sake of simplifying
the law or economics. I have tried to reach a balance between the
Ideal Federal Union and the natural opposition which our conservative
natures always range against change.
My ideas have been influenced to a certain extent
by reading the books tabulated at the end, and to their authors,
I am greatly indebted. Some of these authors demand less change,
some more, than I advocate here. My ideas on this great theory have
also been inspired and encouraged by contact with members of many
nationalities, from all walks of life, with whom I have had discussions
on the future, many of which have taken place in strange surroundings.
They have all, without exception, given me confidence that in the
present-day Youth of the World there is good reason, if Youth can
be heard and respected, to hope for tomorrow's peace.
Though all that follows in these few pages applies
equally to the peoples of the United Nations, I appeal especially
to the peoples of the British Commonwealth. The victorious outcome
of this war will be due very largely to our tenacity, and for that
we will be remembered, and because of that we will have a very large
share in deciding the peace that follows.
Cannot we, by our example and whilst we hold the
opportunity in our grasp, make possible in the world that which
no person, race, or empire has ever successfully accomplished -
lasting and creative peace?
What policy we - the peoples of the democracies
- adopt after the may decide the fate of the world for years to
come, the policy we adopt should not depend on the politicians,
but on us, the people, as a whole. Whatever else may be deficient
in our democracy, it is the common man who ultimately decides and
practices the policy. The future is what we choose to make it. We
must make up our minds on what we want - and then see that we get
it.
First of all what are our facts and theories concerning
the causes of war?
We feel no doubt as to who started this war. But
many will differ on who or what caused it. Many hold that no cause
justifies war. The First World War was never expected to be so wide
in scope. Colossal as this war is, it was felt to be inevitable,
though few of us can honestly say we did all possible to avert it.
Most certainly the majority would agree that the German nation (which
has twice given Europe the appalling horrors of war, with no just
cause) must never be allowed to create conditions which could again
lead to war.
How to prevent the recurrence is, however, a matter
of great dispute, although it is generally felt that America, Britain
and Russia must remain strong, until peace is established on a firm
basis. No thinking person can agree that the extermination of sixty
million Germans is a feasible solution, or that we can expect to
subjugate permanently a nation such as Germany, possessing as it
does so much intellect, efficiency and drive.
It, therefore, seems that we must somehow evolve
a scheme by which America and the British Commonwealth and Russia
whilst holding the power to suppress war, could nevertheless co-operate
with a Germany willing to co-operate with the rest of the world.
What of the League of Nations? That surely was
intended to give us the security and international co-operation
necessary for world peace?
A vast amount of excellent work was done by the
League, for instance in the field of international labour, and in
connection with many social problems of international concern. This
work alone justified its much begrudged expenses, but the League
failed entirely in what should have been its main function, i.e.
to be an organisation for the preservation of peace.
The League had high ideals but no practical machinery
for preventing war. In short the League as an effective international
authority was a shadow without substance, giving rise to endless
resolutions which were followed by insignificant action or no action.
As a body the League had no effective power over
the member states, it was like a human body in which each part of
each limb decided to move or work when it alone wished, instead
of acting under the centralised control of the brain. Each nation
(which means the government in power in each nation) had to agree
before a decision could be made and even if that decision were obtained
there was no guarantee or authority to hold them to that decision.
If the same "League" system prevailed
in national government it would mean that a law could only become
a law if and when every citizen agreed to it, and further, if an
individual then broke the law agreed to, no police force could restrain
him or law court judge him.
All this was, of course, proved long before Hitler
started trampling over Europe largely on account of the League's
inaction over the aggression by the Japanese in Manchuria and by
the Italians in Abyssinia.
The League's inaction in the cases of Japan in
Manchuria and later Italy in Abyssinia proved its impotence.
Why, when Hitler's aims became so obvious, did
not America, Britain, France and the other peace-loving democracies,
threatened by one common danger, take combined action to prevent
war?
To begin with, it did not become obvious to all
in one country at the same time, let alone in all the countries
at the same time. Every country, now in the war, wished to avoid
the German menace and tried to avoid war. Each changed its attitude
from one of conciliation to one of a brave show of force many times,
but very seldom did these brave shows of force coincide. Consequently
Hitler was able to attack and overcome them one at a time. There
can be little doubt but that if all the nations now occupied by
Germany had withstood and attacked at the same time Germany would
have been overrun as quickly as she overran the Low Countries. Or
very likely if they had unequivocally stated their unity at the
outset on this vital matter of solid common defence the Nazi attack
would never have come. But this unity was not to be. Each nation
first of all thought of itself and acted accordingly. On such a
basis united and therefore effective and decisive action could never
result. Even Britain and France were until the eleventh hour divided
on a policy concerning the Nazi menace. That delay had its tragic
influence upon the course of the war as we all know.
Could all this have been prevented? Could the
League have worked? Undoubtedly, by possessing a centralised and
absolute control of armed strength, industries and resources o[
its member nations. This would have meant Federal Union which may
sound an impossible proposition. But if we are to prevent war -
man's most preposterous and bloody invention - with all its horrors
and sorrows, with all the appalling changes and disruptions in individual
lives; Federal Union surely must be established.
Remember in June 1940 Churchill offered Federal
Union to France. That offer was rejected by 13 votes to 10. If that
offer had been accepted as it well might have been had it come earlier
we would have had the whole French fleet, most of its Air Force,
and some of its army fighting with us. Our combined forces in North
Africa would have walked through Libya, there would have been no
threat from Syria, and Japan most probably would never have seized
the vital springboard of Indo-China.
How very much shorter the war would have been
for everyone, but for those 3 votes against Federal Union. Is it
really such an impossible proposition?
Federal Union means Central Control. How should
the Central Controlling Body be elected and to whom should it be
responsible?
First this Central Body must be independent of
any individual government otherwise its policy would be influenced
by changes in these governments. No organisation can have stability
which is at the mercy of the veering wind of politics. The Central
Body must in short be a supranational government.
Britain and America are not perfect in their democratic
practice but at least they are would-be democracies, so that any
supra-national government with which these two great countries could
co-operate should be democratic in broad outline too. To initiate
Federal Union, therefore, this Central Body might be, for a limited
specified period, elected by, and responsible to, the peoples of
America and Britain. The cost of administration to be divided in
ratio to the population and/or the taxable income of each State
of the Union and exacted by taxation by the Central Controlling
Body, or let us call it the Federal Parliament. The members of this
Parliament would be drawn from each State in ratio of population,
as also would the manpower of the Federal armed forces. If every
nation were to provide a separate part of those forces the result
would be envy and rivalry, impairing efficiency and co-operation.
German propaganda has many times tried to prophesy just such a state
of affairs happening with the Allied Forces, using the argument
as a wedge driven in to divide them - alleging that one country
was doing more than another in the common effort. This tendency
to division could not arise if all the States of the Union were
equally represented and diffused throughout the Federal forces.
Naturally units of this Federal force would be stationed in whatever
parts of the Union's territory the strategy of World Peace demanded.
A force drawn from, responsible to, dispersed
among and maintained by, the peoples of the constituent States of
the Union, with a common uniform and morale, would so interlock
those States that no force nor threat of force from the outside
could ever separate then.
The causes of war
Because there are no positive factors at work
to create war between America and Great Britain it is comparatively
easy for them to form such a Union. But because a strong armed force
might dictate and enforce a peace the causes of war are not necessarily
removed, and the issue of war may only be delayed. Nor is it likely
that America and Great Britain will wish to dictate peace for ever
and alone.
It is generally agreed that certain nations would,
and some others might, join in such a democratic Union, and it is
not within the scope of this article to discuss fully just what
States these would be. But it is obvious that to make Federal Union
successful the member countries must have a more or less similar
standard of living, common ideas of the purpose of life and government,
and employ democratic principles in statecraft. We can envisage,
therefore, certain countries possessing these qualifications joining
such a Union at the outset. It is essential, however, to bear in
mind that American Union has grown from 13 to 48 states. Provision,
therefore, must be made in the World Federal Union for expansion,
each state subsequently admitted to the Union to be on an equal
footing irrespective of the date of admission. It can be, and frequently
is, argued that there might be severe enmity created among non-federated
countries against the federated states driving them into a coalition
against the Union. Let us, therefore, try to investigate the issues
involved.
One of the most patent causes of war is unequal
access to raw materials, such as oil, rubber, minerals, wool, cotton
and all foodstuffs. An adjustment of the pre-war position in this
respect is one of the principal aims of the Atlantic Charter and
a comparatively easy matter to deal with compared with another powerful
cause of war, i.e. inability to obtain markets. These two factors,
the access to raw materials and the access to markets, are closely
connected.
The question of assuring equal access to markets
is more complex because so many factors are involved such as wage
costs in relation to standards of living, and generally speaking
the social and financial problems of mass production.
Merely to agree to share materials and trade as
has been the case under the Atlantic Charter is not enough, as when
things become difficult we have no means of ensuring that we continue
to share. Therefore these matters should be planned and then be
subject to a permanent Central Control.
To visualise this planning and give a concrete
example let us assume that America, the British Commonwealth and
the remaining democracies create a Central Control for distribution
and allocation of raw materials and trade.
This control would first of all lower, but not
of necessity remove, all tariffs, it would also regulate production.
From statistics of all materials and businesses in its vast areas
the relative quantity of material available and needed could be
calculated, all unnecessary production of raw materials could be
curbed and a glut in any commodity could be avoided. Exports and
imports would be balanced as between the countries of the Union
and with the countries outside the Union.
All tariffs and subsidies might be removed but
would this be practical? Let us take a small example. If British
farming after it has been made efficient everywhere still does not
pay, then it is obvious that we cannot just leave the land to rot,
because free trade has made farming a loss. There are many small
ways in which it could be assisted without raising the cost of produce
throughout Britain, or baulking the trade of the Union. The Control
could put a tariff on the highest grade meat coming into Britain
which would mean that British meat of good quality, which Britain
produces best, would make a higher price, but it would be paid for
by a minority who could afford it: at the same time, it would prevent
South Africa from making huge subsidies to export meat of poor quality
to Britain, when New Zealand and Australia can produce and export
more good quality meat than Britain can take.
This very small example shows the necessity for
placing under a Central Control the right to erect or remove tariffs,
and prevent or give subsidies. For it would then subsidise or raise
tariffs to aid industries (if they seemed potential paying industries
to a certain area, or to the Union as a whole) while it would ruthlessly
remove all tariffs that merely made employment for the few and high
prices for all. It would in every way endeavour to obtain the necessities
of life to supply them to everyone as cheaply as possible according
to production costs. It would have control over currencies and finance
only in so far as it was necessary to complete its control over
tariffs and subsidies.
As regards external trade it would endeavour to
facilitate the importation of those things in which the Union was
lacking and the exportation of that which it required to export
most. It would keep out competition that would be harmful to trade
and not helpful to the people.
A third major cause of war arises over the sharing
of territory. This is perhaps deep rather than technically difficult
because the psychological factors of pride and prejudice play a
large part. It is, however, in this difficult matter that the British
Commonwealth can make the greatest offer for world peace, if it
so wishes. The question must, however, be considered from the point
of view of the Colonies and Dominions.
The Colonies administered by Britain have long
been coveted by her rivals, primarily because of the raw materials
they produce. The proposed Federal Union Central Control of raw
materials would however remove this grievance entirely within the
compass of the Union. Imperial colonial control of colonial raw
materials was in peace time retained (at great cost in many cases)
because of their importance in the event of war. To place these
materials under Federal Union Central Control would not be to give
them up. They would be federal possessions for the use of the people
of the Union and the Federal Forces wherever necessary.
The administration of the colonies, would probably
be best carried out by a Central Control which should pursue the
policy encouraged by the League of Nations, namely, that the interests
of the native population must be served first and that the colonies
be considered as a sacred trust until such time as the natives can
undertake self-government. This Federal department dealing with
the Mandated territories would be composed of personnel drawn from
the entire Union, according to ability, and would be concerned mainly
with the co-ordination of knowledge and experience covering all
the colonies of the States comprising the Federal Union. Right of
inspection would remain permanently in the hands of the Commission.
This body would also receive regular reports on conditions prevailing
throughout the Federal colonial territories. Regarding the employment
of Colonial Civil servants the same division might be suggested,
as that for immigration to the Dominions.
It is, however, in the power of the Dominions
to give great and visible signs of the desire for peace and genuine
positive cooperation. There are many in the world who attack the
Empire system asking "What right have the peoples of the Dominions
to monopolise those cast lands?"
It is so often forgotten - that it was the parents,
grandparents and the present day holders themselves who pioneered
these countries, (cutting themselves off from civilization, fighting
nature and carving paths for future progress) who financed (or paid
in taxes and in labour for) the opening up of these countries -
making them what they are now - the envy of others.
It might be said then that, though the materials
were given them they built their house and, therefore, should have
the right to decide who shares it with them.
In this case neither Britain nor any other form
of power can give access to those lands except those who own them.
The Dominions themselves often proclaim that they
can support anything from double to ten times their present population
and most realize that an increase in population would be of great
advantage. There are, however, many who feel, and some who say,
that it would lower the standard of living and so it would for the
very few who want an easy life and cannot stand up to competition.
There are many ways in which an increase in population
would greatly help the Dominions. It would for instance give a bigger
purchasing power and a bigger consuming power, for agricultural
products and manufactured goods, both of which every Dominion will
greatly need after the war, owing to the rapidly increasing production
of food throughout the world and the innumerable factories set up
in the Dominions, to produce war needs and things temporarily unimportable.
An increase in population would also mean a greater
number to share the cost of transport over a vast area, also the
high taxes that a large area and small population inevitably demands.
Those who move from one country to another carry
with them the learning and productive ability which they acquired
elsewhere. They bring this ability which was acquired and paid for
elsewhere and present it to the new community. The refugee rightly
considered is an economic boon to any community.
How then can immigration best be carried out?
There is only one answer, since the matter is essentially of International
concern. An international government must handle it. If the Dominions
hand over to a Central Control, upon which they would have adequate
democratic representation, the right to decide how many immigrants
each Dominion could accommodate each year, without unduly disrupting
the domestic social system, it would be a great gesture toward real
co-operation. The Federal Commission for Immigration would decide
on the evidence of expert knowledge the number of immigrants each
nation could reasonably assimilate. Every nation could retain the
right to specify the nationality of 50% of the quota of immigrants
assigned to it by the Commission and every nation could have a right
to impose, after agreement with the Federal Commission, some form
of basic educational test for all immigrants. The Federal Commission
would then freely decide where the remaining 50% of would-be emigrants
would go, taking into account the wishes of the emigrants so far
as was possible. In every case it would be the duty and concern
of the Commission to find the right type of community for every
emigrant.
India, whatever her status is or will be, must
be considered separately as owing to her vast native population
she would not be able to work on the same principles as a European
and Democratic Union. But if she so desires the Union must form
as close a connection as is possible on all things that will prove
beneficial to India and to the Union.
The roots of war
Last but by no means least are the roots of war,
and they all lead down from the main one-misunderstanding or lack
of understanding.
Who in England or the Dominions really understood
he problems over the Sudetenland, where, when it was forced on us
as a problem to solve we became victims of propaganda of every kind!
We could not judge for ourselves with a sane mind. But if we had
had a slight knowledge, propaganda would have been ineffective,
for the only way to counteract propaganda (defined as "truths
or untruths used as required to support or disprove a policy")
is accurate knowledge.
In wartime we have many allies but with some we
have only one thing that we know of, in common - an enemy. Without
this common enemy co-operation would never have come, for it is
difficult to co-operate with people whom a year or two ago we hardly
knew existed, of whose language we knew nothing, whose habits are
peculiar and whom by purpose or instinct we may have been taught
to dislike. It is similar to two drunkards (except that war is man's
worst vice and drunkenness in comparison is hardly one) best of
friends while drunk, but once sober finding no common interest because
they are completely ignorant of each other's habits, desires, pleasures
and business.
Therefore it seems obvious that if we are to co-operate
in peace we need something more than a common imaginary enemy. We
must discover our common interests - for they are many, we must
understand each other's problems, we must work together in the fields
of commerce so that the greatest number may have the greatest benefit.
Science has always been international, for instance scientists of
all countries must work together to combat illness and disease,
there is no branch of it that has been given to man by one nation
alone, therefore let us follow the path of science that all nations
may profit equally.
How can we promote understanding and so remove
the main roots of war? We need something abstract - knowledge and
sympathy and above all friendship instead of antagonism in thought.
Many ways towards the achievements of these ideals would be developed
under Central Control.
The first obstacle to better International understanding
might seem to be difference in language although the League of Nations
never found this any great handicap. In any Union of America and
Britain it would be non-existent, but we are considering a Union
which might include parts of Europe. To introduce a new language
or to impose one might sound easy, but the general opinion seems
to be that it is not a practical idea. It would possibly be better
to use the three universal languages, English, French and German
as official languages - every citizen being otherwise free to speak
his own language.
Newspapers and radios nowadays wield great power
and for varying reasons present very biased views, and so lead to
misunderstanding. Freedom of speech is essential to democracy at
peace. How then can the disrupting force of these newspapers and
radio stations be counteracted? Official publications or radio stations
owned by Central Control would be ignored by those who paid attention
to disruptive propaganda. There is, however, one very simple way.
The Central Control would have power to enforce any publication
or radio station to place in its columns or insert in its programme
any statement that the Central Control wished to make. It would
be in the interests of Central Control to make these statements
as short and as infrequent as possible, and only to answer criticism
when untrue, so that then it might attract attention. The great
fact remains that the Federal authority would sponsor a common foreign
policy for all the nations comprising the federation. Federal affairs
would be common affairs and would be the vital concern of all people
in the federation. Once this fact is grasped it will be seen that
the national press would compete against the federal authority no
more than a national or local press now competes against its national
government.
'Travel is of course, with its personal contacts,
the best antidote to national prejudices; but international travel
is beyond the income of most of us. A minute fraction of war expenditure
would go a long way in bringing international travel within the
limits of the majority. There are also many things that hinder travel
- though not so much as most people believe - such things as different
currencies, passports or customs - the removals of which would facilitate
it.
To put all railways and shipping under Central
Control would cause great opposition and necessitate great changes,
and it is not really essential, but all air communications could
come under Central Control with ease, while they are of a far more
international character than rail or sea communications and are
far less hindered by national boundaries and restrictions.
To further strengthen the Union all postal and
telegraphic communications should come under the Central Control,
and where necessary be subsidised by it. (This was done by the British
Commonwealth to strengthen its ties by subsidising Air Mail throughout
its area.)
But we are looking to the future and in doing
so we look to the future generation. We cannot entirely forget the
past prejudices, misunderstandings, hatreds and horrors of war but
if we remember the last in its true light we shall have a stimulus
to prevent its recurrence. They who come after us, should start
with an open mind that they may judge men for what they are as men,
as individuals and not by their nationality, creed nor colour. We
must, therefore, give them the opportunity to meet and to know each
other, to see each other's homes and to know each other's problems,
to know truthfully each other's past and each other's hopes for
the future.
To put under the Central Control all education
throughout the Union would be disastrous. For let us hope that if
we strive successfully we shall not want mere cogs to a vast machine
but individuals, who by their individuality add fresh ideas, colour,
variety and enthusiasms to life. We must presume that any state
accepting Union would see to it that its schools did not teach ultra
nationalism but inter -nationalism, therefore, let each state devise
its own educational system with one stipulation that each child
is taught at least one language other than its own and that to be
one of the three official languages of the Union.
It is, however; just at the school leaving age
that boys and girls are keenest to learn, their minds being still
open to new ideas, with no set prejudices, and they are eager to
see life and to travel.
It is in this field that Central Control can supply
a vast need, first of all by arranging international holiday camps
and hostels, and by subsidising (but not unifying) all international
Youth organizations.
Secondly, by setting up a Union University in
each state of the Union, not necessarily governed under single Federal
authority but working in close co-ordination to a common plan so
that each student during his course will study in various States
- this is already done on a small scale by many students throughout
the world. In this way the student would unconsciously learn and
understand the different ways of life of the various States he visited.
At first especially, this Union University would concentrate on
subjects particularly concerned with international relations, also
subjects that have not merely training value for a career but which
add to the individual's appreciation of Life. Entrance would of
course be by examination, but examination as to character and enthusiasm
rather than of brain power alone. There would be no fees, the course
being on a scholarship basis, and each student would receive an
allowance from the University. The number of students from each
state would be in proportion to population.
The University would endeavour to turn out men
and women not necessarily of great brain, but rather character,
for the world of today is full of the former and lacking in the
latter. In this way Youth from all states would be able to meet
and understand each other and so build up friendships across frontiers,
place names in Federal territory would become centres of living
interest and in that Youth we would find excellent citizens and
statesmen for the Union. Some may say this would be too costly a
scheme but at the most it would probably cost in one year what two
days of war are costing now.
If this Union is not going to be World Union it
must have a Foreign Policy, and what is that foreign policy to be?
First it would emphasize that this Union is for one purpose - to
maintain peace - and that to do so it will remain strong. Secondly,
in all things of world concern it would co-operate as fully as possible
with the rest of the world.
A tangible form of co-operation would be in the
essential matter of fair distribution of raw materials, a rather
tangible but no less important form would be to widen its inter-change
of Youth to countries outside the Union and similarly its Universities.
Most of the machinery of the League of Nations should remain to
enable the countries of the world to meet and to carry on the excellent
work that it has already achieved on many international questions.
It might be thought that there is nothing left
for the State Government to do. Let me mention a few items - colonies,
health and hospitals, education and schools, labour, old age pensions,
roads and all transport, agriculture and marketing, housing and
slum clearance, insurance and power supply, in fact almost all the
major questions that affect us in peace.
Federal Union and some reactions to it
Now that we have found out the reasons for this
Central Control, the Parliament or Senate, call it what you will,
of Federal Union, let us summarize what it would mean.
The Central Control would be elected by and responsible
to the people of the Federal Union.
Its rights to be:
- To raise such an armed force as it sees fit
and to place that force wherever in the Union it is thought necessary
for the maintenance of World peace.
- To impose taxes to cover all expenditure of
the Central Control.
- To control raw materials.
- To raise or remove tariffs and subsidies, external
and internal.
- To direct emigration
and immigration.
- To control all postal and telegraphic communications
and air service.
- To check subversive organizations and
misleading statements.
Its duties are:
- To foster in every way understanding between
the States of the Union.
- To encourage and subsidize the interchange
of Youth.
- To subsidize international travel.
- To foster understanding and agreements for
the benefit of the world as a whole.
These changes may seem revolutionary, but they
really are not. America, when the League of 14 states failed, formed
a Federal Union and the 150 years of her history has proved its
strength. South Africa four years after a very bitter war formed
a Union. Australia has had a Federal Government for years, while
Switzerland, with its three different languages and nationalities,
is a model state; under a Federal Constitution. Since war began
Poland and Czechoslovakia and Greece and Yugoslavia have agreed
on the main principles for a form of Federation after the war. Our
offer of full Union to France proved too late.
Commerce and travel have for a very long time
been internationally connected (though not controlled) while all
things new in the technical world whether it is a new way to make
tooth brushes, reinforce buildings or grow wheat, if successful
immediately become international.
It is merely government, knowledge and sympathy
that have lagged behind and remained national, therefore Federal
Union, which has proved successful will, not be revolutionary but
evolutionary.
Some might say socialism is more important. Pure
socialism would not in any way be hindered, for the Central Control
would have no power to prevent socialism or capitalism in the states,
at the same time socialism and other internal state ideologies would
have a far wider hearing. In the less accurate, but most popular
interpretation of socialism, I think most of us mean and wish the
spending of more of the national income on the needs and comforts
of those who are not in the position to pay for them. In Federal
Union most of these needs would be the concern of State Government;
the cost of war cripples a country for years to come, and delays
the development of legislation to provide these needs, Federal Union
should remove war and then social reform would be possible.
A few might suspect Federal Union of removing
our natural character, customs and habits, but has complete Union
with England for years in any way suppressed Scotland's individuality?
The expense of all these international propositions
might be an objection raised. The expense, as has been pointed out
already, is a very sound reason for Federal Union. The various propositions
made here would in one year cost the different states far less than
one week of war is costing them now, while the combining of the
armed forces and civil service would reduce peace-time expenditure
of each state immediately, not to mention the avoidance of the astronomical
figures of war expenditure.
The one big obstacle to the acceptance of Federal
Union is the natural conservative instinct of all men to all change.
This will be seen in many ways. First and most dangerous opponents
are the cynics and they are many, those, who have given in to life's
difficulties and dislike to see others who still carry on overcoming
them because they dislike change or need for action, like to think
that nothing can stop war and that all men are evil. In serious
debate, however, they can be ignored for, when "cornered",
they merely reiterate these statements.
Then there is the over critical man, who thinks
up every argument against Federal Union and picks every hole possible.
He can easily be detected by his enthusiasm, for he will be confronting
it for a purpose that is selfish.
Then there are the million, who remain indifferent,
but many of them will unconsciously find themselves against Federal
Union because they fear that change will upset their jobs or businesses.
They are liable to throw in their lot and be led by cynics and selfish
opponents, and quite possibly they will take an easy way out and
say "I think it is an excellent idea, but will other people
accept it".
There will be few of us who will not for sentimental
reasons dislike seeing our Navy merged into a bigger unity, or our
famous regiments become names in history, but these and other sentiments
should be discarded. There may be apprehension among those employed
in the armed forces and in the civil services as to what will happen
to them when Federal Union comes, but the Union would take over
all responsibilities and liabilities in this respect and anyone
whose services were dispensed with would be pensioned according
to rate of salary.
Then there would be thousands in this "nation
of shop-keepers" who, like myself, would think that the removal
of the maximum number of tariffs might disrupt their business, factory
or shop. Any removal of tariffs, like all Federal changes, would,
of course, be carried out gradually and with care, while there would
be full compensation for those few businesses, which might be forced
to close.
But let those who have these fears think of war
and its merciless onslaught on all business and trade, disrupting
all and literally smashing many.
How very little in all things will Federal Union
change in comparison to war.
Some of the great changes caused by the motor
car were foreseen, the lack of trade for horse dealers, carriage
makers and blacksmiths, and there was an outcry against it. It did
ruin many businesses, but how few to the vast number it made.
Some might ask, "Why not a World Federation"?
There are many reasons which are the same as those for choosing
European and Democratic countries.
First comes the vast differences in standard of
living which is so closely connected with wages and production costs.
The standard of living in the Non-European or
Eastern countries is very low compared to Western or European. When
the standard of living is low so is the wage rate and so we would
find markets being lost not through lack of efficiency but because
wages are too high.
Secondly though the ideas and ideals of the Eastern
States are changing rapidly they appear far too distant from the
Western for successful Union at present.
Last, but by no means least, though they are reaching
near to it, there are still many countries quite incapable of becoming
democracies, let alone helping to govern a democratic world.
However although we may never reach it in our
time let us set our course towards World Federation, and so know
that we are on the right path.
The duties of man
We can now see how Federal Union would clamp us
together in peace, but we must if we wish to make it doubly sure
find a different spirit. The cynics will say that in this world
you can't change human nature, we do not wish to, but we must and
we shall see that "things rank and gross in nature do not possess
it merely".
Let us think back to the days of Munich, when
peace was in the balance. Everyone was willing to throw all they
could into that balance. Out of that crisis sprang a spirit and
desire for peace, the willingness to sacrifice and the wish to do
all that was humanly possible to retain peace.
A great deal has been spoken about the rights
of man, they have been promised, they have been claimed. But what
rights can we have without duties? We have scorned, and rightly,
the fascist principle that man is made for the State and that he
has no rights from it, but merely duties to it. But Democracy in
its insistence of rights and ignorance of duties is as top heavy.
We cannot demand to be democratic unless we fulfil the duties of
a democrat. Let us put the horse before the cart, then, if our duties
are fulfilled our rights will follow.
When first war seemed to be in the air, we, the
people of the democracies, left it to the politicians and whimpered
"But what can we do?" - which slowly turned to "But
we can do nothing" and by our saying made war inevitable. These
remarks were used to cover our inertia, our fear of change and sacrifice
of pride. We could not be bothered to think clearly or to think
at all on the matter, it was too dreary, too difficult, war was
easier to understand, we could not make the effort to rouse ourselves
and so we let war come upon us.
In the achievement of Federal Union, which is
neither an end nor an aim, but the means to remove war, there are
a thousand and one details to be worked out, some small, some large,
some simple to understand, some that we the people could never cope
with, but these are for the experts to work out, all they need is
our support in anything they do to prevent war, our willingness
to accept with an open mind and understanding of their difficulties
and their decisions, to overcome our prejudices and to give and
not always expect to take in return.
Above all it rests with us - the Youth of the
World - for we have seen war and all it means, we have seen complacency
too and its result. We cannot bring children, our children into
the world if we are going to allow war to come again on them.
We must never forget what war means and always
hold it up for comparison to any small change or sacrifice that
is needed to keep the peace.
Because we wished to end the war we have thrown
every effort and ounce of skill and labour into it. Every man and
woman has taken every interest possible in every aspect of it, an
interest quite inconceivable to our lack of interest in trying to
prevent war in times of peace.
That interest, that urge to do all we can, that
desire to know all we can, that wish to make all personal and national
sacrifice we can, must never be allowed to flag, it must be kept
up not only to win the war, but to win peace for ourselves and for
those that come after us.
We must plan now, think and discuss now, for when
the roar of the battle shall cease we must be ready to strive on
in Peace - to keep - Peace.
Suggested books to read on Federal Union
The case for Federal Union - W B Curry
Union Now - Streit
Peace aims and the new world order - Mackay
The ending of Armageddon - Lord Lothian
The seven Federal Union tracts
Decision - Lionel Curtis
|
