No fact in the world situation is more hopeful or important than the excellent relations and understanding which have developed between the United States and the two Western democracies, Great Britain and France. I cannot recall any period when the good will between the two main branches of the English-speaking peoples was so pronounced. This has not been the result of diplomacy or negotiation. It has arisen naturally and almost unconsciously from an identity of outlook in both peoples towards world problems in Europe and in the Far East. It is not true that this harmony is expressed only in smooth platitudes about the joys of peace and the horrors of war. On the contrary, it is sustained in the United States by a marked and reasoned approval of British and French institutions and policy, and an equally noticeable dislike of the tendencies of the Dictator-ruled countries.
One may say that throughout the United States there is a keen abhorrence of the doctrines and practices both of Nazism and Fascism, and a strong current of sympathy with the countries great and small who are faithfully endeavouring to preserve their parliamentary institutions, and to maintain the conditions of law, freedom and peace. It is remarkable that the new American Ambassador in Paris and Mr. Gerard, the envoy to the Coronation, should within a few weeks have given vent to these sentiments in public. For instance, on February 22 Mr. Bullitt said in Paris:
'We are not indifferent to the state of those countries which carry on the great tradition of Western civilisation…. As children of the old civilisation of Western Europe, we believe that there is such a thing as truth. It is only fair to point out that we did our utmost to stay out of the war which broke out in 1914, that we stayed out of it for three years, and that we shall stay out of any war which may break out in the future so long as God permits. We hope to stay out of war, but we are entirely aware that there is always some possibility that some nation might be sufficiently reckless to drive us into war.'
And last week Mr. Gerard said in London: 'When you are armed, then armed Britain will be the greatest guarantee of peace on earth…. We in America-I think in this one thing I can presume to speak for my country-are firmly determined on three things. First, we are against war; secondly, we are against any alliances; and, thirdly, we are against meddling in the muddled affairs of Europe. But we and you, the great British Empire, are bound by something more binding than alliances and treaties. We are bound together by mutual trust, by mutual understanding, by a common desire for stability and peace, and especially by the feeling that at this moment, with Fascism on one side and Communism on the other, the three great democracies, Great Britain, France and the United States, stand as the sole hope of liberalism and of the freedom of the world.' There certainly has not been any occasion either before or since the Great War when the views of the United States Government have been so clearly and weightily expressed upon European affairs.
It would be a mistake, however, to assume that these friendly declarations imply any intention on the part of the United States to become involved in the quarrels and combinations of Europe. On the contrary, the main movement of opinion in America is more set on avoiding foreign entanglements and keeping out of another world war than ever before. No European statesman should be so foolish as to count upon the armed assistance of the United States even if his country were the victim of unprovoked aggression. It is much better to face the real facts. The intense desire of the United States to keep out of any European war is shown in the striking change in American opinion upon the so-called 'freedom of the seas.' Because this doctrine brought about a war between the United States and Great Britain in 1812 and a war with the German Empire in 1917, it is now widely discarded at Washington.
The various neutrality Bills which have been passed or discussed in Congress all seek to prevent by various methods a repetition of the past. Rather than be drawn into another Armageddon, it may be that the United States will forbid their citizens to traffic on the high seas with any belligerents at all. A kind of neutrality is now being considered which appears at first sight to be isolationist and impartial in the last degree. The doctrine of 'cash and carry' means that no American ships will carry supplies to the warring countries, but if these countries choose to present themselves in ships at the American doorstep with ready money in their hands they will be allowed to buy non-military supplies. This arrangement certainly has the merit of rendering to superior sea power its full deserts. It avoids for Great Britain, if engaged in war, the danger of any dispute with the United States such as caused so much anxiety in 1914 and 1915. It may be rather chilling comfort, but it is comfort none the less.
Ever since the United States built a Navy equal to that of Britain, and even before, it has been impossible for the British Navy to enforce any blockade contrary to the final will of the United States. Our resources would be altogether insufficient, and it is now a settled maxim of British policy that without the good will, or at least the acquiescence, of the United States the famous weapon of a blockade cannot be used. For this reason the growing moral association of ideas between the three great parliamentary democracies is above all to be welcomed. The only kind of struggle which can arise in Europe is one in which a Dictator country is declared to be an unprovoked aggressor against a victim State. One cannot conceive that in these circumstances the United States, while maintaining strict neutrality, would hamper in any way the victims of aggression.
There are two other questions which affect British and American relations. They stand upon a different plane to these great moral issues, but they are none the less important. The first is the question of the British war debt to the United States. No solution has yet been offered of that problem. It is quite certain that the economy of the whole world would be prejudiced by the sterile remittance from Great Britain of thirty-five million pounds sterling per year across the Atlantic. It would repeatedly rupture the exchanges and distract the entire finance of international trade. On the other hand, John Bull would always be anxious to have the quittance of Uncle Sam. This question should be perseveringly studied in the light of the obvious fact that matters cannot indefinitely remain as they are.
The second great question is one of co-operation in world finance. Is not an undue burden being borne at the present time by the United States in the maintenance of the gold price? We are witnessing the absurdity of gold being produced from the womb of the earth, in South Africa, in Russia, in Canada, and being purchased and reburied in the United States. Evidently we are approaching a point where the two great capitalist Powers must co-operate together in securing a stable world currency. It may even be that these two financial questions would be easier solved together than separately. If so, the atmosphere of comprehension and friendship which we now feel around us would be a stimulus to statesmen to act with hopeful energy.
聚合中文网 阅读好时光 www.juhezwn.com
小提示:漏章、缺章、错字过多试试导航栏右上角的源