8/7/2019 Meyer 1949

1/9

American Academy of Political and Social Science

A Plea for World GovernmentAuthor(s): Cord Meyer, Jr.Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 264, WorldGovernment (Jul., 1949), pp. 6-13Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and Social

ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1028081 .

Accessed: 28/12/2010 02:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. andAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR

to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnnals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1028081?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1028081?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

8/7/2019 Meyer 1949

2/9

A Plea for WorldGovernmentBy CORDMEYER,JR.

HE creationby peaceful consent inour time of some form of worldgovernment is a tremendously difficultundertaking, and success is obviouslyuncertain. Because of that fact a goodmany people feel that those who arepractically working today for worldgov-ernment must be utopian idealists.Yet in spite of the monumental diffi-culties and in the face of active op-position by official policy makers, thepopular movements that are workingfor world governmentcontinue to grow,and at the same time an increasingnumber of able and respected men aredevoting their energies and time to it.Before all this activity can be dis-missed as irrelevant, as escapism fromthe problemsof the real world, it seemsto me that the objective observershouldtake a momentto considerthe facts andthe logic which force the United WorldFederalists to the position they take to-day. A process of elimination and athoroughanalysis of the other availablecoursesof action and their consequenceshave led the federalists to believe thatthe only way to preservepeace and thevalues of civilized life is through thecreation of a structure of enforceableworld law above the nations.Let me briefly review, therefore, thereasons that we have for rejecting asinadequate the usual courses of actionthat are advocated for our country andthe world.

FUTILITYOF ARMAMENT OLICYFirst, there is the present policy ofthe American Government. I will de-fine that policy as an attempt to main-tain a preponderanceof power so greatthat no nation will dare to attack us.

Thereby it is hoped that peace will be

maintained. In following that policywe are pursuing a programof domesticrearmamentat the cost of fifteen bil-lion dollars a year.We are also engaged in a programofeconomic and military aid to our pro-spective allies in order to ensure strongand loyal allies when the war starts,and we are using an economic boycottin an attempt to weaken the economiesof our probable opponents.Finally, we are forming military alli-ances, such as the Atlantic Pact, in or-der to gain strategic bases for the even-tual war.

Now, given the nation-state systemin which we live, granted the fact thatevery nation today is free to preparefor war, in view of the fact there is noassurance in the world that aggressioncan be effectively dealt with, we in thiscountry have no choice, it seems to me,but to maintain our military defenses.I think most federalists would agreewith that.

However, to admit that arms, bases,and allies are necessary today is not toprove that they can ensure either peaceor American security in the future.They cannot. They are only tempo-rary, dangerous, stopgap expedients tobuy time; and the question is, Whatare we going to do with the time thatwe are buying by building up a militaryforce sufficient for a temporary periodto stop aggression?The reasons why we can decide con-clusively that military rearmamentandbases are not enough are well known tomost of us. First, of course, there isthe revolution that has taken place inthe nature of war itself-a revolutioncharacterized by the new weapons,atomic and biological, and the long-6

8/7/2019 Meyer 1949

3/9

A PLEA FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT

range aircraft. We can have no lastingmonopoly on these weapons. The in-formedmilitary observersand the scien-tists are in agreementthat there can beno effective defense against an air at-tack launched with atomic and biologi-cal weaponsagainst the cities of a mod-ern nation.

Therefore, our present preparationsfor war are not designed to defend ourpeople and our cities. What we aretrying to do is build up so great a strik-ing force, so well dispersed, that evenafter we have lost our major cities andmost of their people, we can counterat-tack from the ruins and wreak equal orgreater devastation on the opposition.And the hope is expressed that fear ofour ability to counterattack will pre-vent any nation from destroying ourcities in the first place.

COSTS OF ARMAMENT POLICYThe full cost of this program is be-coming evident. We have to keepahead of all other nations in the pro-duction of ever more destructive weap-ons. We are faced with the necessity ofmaintaininga large standing army. Wemust in the immediatefuture undertakea program of industrial dispersal anddecentralization if we seek to keep any

part of our war industry functioningafter the war has started. And all thiscosts astronomical sums, fifteen billiondollars this year and an increasingamount in the years to come, whichmeans a steady decline in our livingstandards.At the same time, the building of anarmed camp to enable this country tocarry on a war after it has lost its twohundredmajorcities is necessarilygoingto demand a steady loss of democraticpractice and of civil liberties, and isnow doing so, as I think most of us areaware.

Every country where effective prepa-ration for modern war is undertaken

must in the process become an armedcamp, a barrackssociety, with its peo-ple regimented and disciplined, its liv-ing standards steadily depressed, andits liberties lost.The obvious reactionof other nationsin the world to this program is to fol-low the same course, they also believingthat they can be safe only if they arestronger than we are, they also feelingthat the only security is preponderantpower. They regiment their people,spend increasing sums on armaments,disperse their industries, and the resultis not security for any one of the sepa-rate nations, but increasing insecurityfor all, mutual fear, hysteria, incidents,and eventual war.If that war is allowed to occur, wecan say with assurance that it will bethe most destructive war in history.The large-scale use of atomic weaponswill involve the destruction of most ofour urban and industrial society. Thesurvivors will have little left but ruinsto live with, and the whole courseof hu-man events and history will be set backmany, many years.In the light of these facts we mustconclude that military preparedness inthis country is necessarytoday but thatit is not enough.

SUPPORT OF UNITED NATIONSThere is anothercourse of action thatis often proposed. It is urged that wesupport to the limit the United Nationsas it is presently constituted; that wetry throughevery possible economicandsocialmeansto improvethe living stand-ards in the world and to spread a gen-eral sense of worldcommunityand good

will, and that no attempt be made tochange the structure of the U.N. for along time-until, in fact, a generalsenseof worldcommunityis built up through-out the earth.The hope expressed by the peoplewho follow this line of thought is that

7

8/7/2019 Meyer 1949

4/9

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

gradually differences will be compro-mised, and living standards will be im-proved to the point where at some fu-ture, indeterminatedate, say some hun-dred years from now, we can move tothe establishmentof some form of gov-ernment for the world.In speaking to that position, let mesay that the World Federalists havesupportedthe United Nations as a firststep. We believe other steps should betaken, but we support the U.N. as theonly existing internationalorganization,and we particularlysupport the work ofthe functionalagencies-the United Na-tions Educational, Scientific and Cul-tural Organization, the World HealthOrganization,the Food and AgricultureOrganization, and the like-that aredoing indispensable work in repairingthe damage caused by the last war.

WEAKNESSFUNITEDNATIONSBut we have never felt that the bestway to support the U.N. is to give itblind and uncritical worship. We feelthat in the field of security the U.N. isfatally weak. We feel that the eventsof the last three years and the size ofthe present competitive national arma-ment budgets are a measureof its weak-ness and its failure to protect its mem-bers and provide genuine internationalsecurity. We also feel that only by un-derstandingwhat its weaknessesare andby taking energetic and immediate ac-tion to remedy them can we in factsave the U.N. and end the arms racethat threatens it. Our analysis of theweakness of the U.N. is somewhat, asfollows.The General Assembly was designed

as the town meeting of the world, butits recommendationsare not binding onany member nation. As a result, theyhave been consistently ignored when-ever it has been to the national interestof a country to ignore them.The Security Council is the agency

with the obligationto enforce the peace.However, it cannot act except against asmall state that is without the supportof any of the larger ones. As a result,the Security Council is incapable ofdealing with the real problemsthat leadto major war, because a small countrythat is without the support of any ofthe Big Five is not a nation that islikely to provoke the third world war.The International Court of Justicelacks compulsory jurisdiction in thesense that a nation need not appear be-fore it unless it wishes to, and it lacksjurisdiction over the individual. Inother words, the U.N. is founded on theconcept of collective guilt, on the ideathat sanctions are to be directed againstan entire people-the men, women, andchildren of a whole nation. The U.N.is not founded on the principle that wetried to establish at Nuremberg, theprincipleof individualresponsibilityun-der the law.Finally, there is no U.N. police force.Under the U.N. every nation is free toarm, and therefore every nation has toarm in self-defense against the arma-ment of others.As a result of these weaknesses it isevident that no nation can depend uponthe U.N. as it is today for protection.All nations must depend on their owncompetitive national armaments, onrival military alliances, on strategicbases.

EFFECTSOFARMSRACEThis arms race destroys the possi-bility of effective economic reconstruc-tion throughout most of the world.Sixty billion dollars is now being spent

on armamentthroughoutthe world andover twenty million men are underarms.In this situation is it not naive to hopefor a generalrise in living standardsandfor a gradual improvement of condi-tions? Rather, the opposite is to beexpected.

8

8/7/2019 Meyer 1949

5/9

A PLEA FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT

In addition to the economic cost, theeffect of the competition for militarypower on the minds of the people isreal. Mutual fear and hatred grow.Look for a moment at what has hap-pened during the last three years. Na-tional governments are involved in anattempt to ensure loyal soldiery in theevent of conflict, who believe in theircause and who hate and fear the enemy,and that attempt naturally necessitatespropaganda. This propagandawar thatgoes on at the same time as the compe-tition for armament and bases makesimpossible a gradual growth of mutualgood will and trust. Rather, increasein mutual hatred, fear, and suspicion isto be expected and is occurring.It seems to me only realistic, there-fore, to admit that the U.N. has failedto provide international security andthat the main cause of that failure is itsown weakness, for which it is not re-sponsible. The responsibility for thatweakness must be shared jointly by thegovernmentsof the United States, GreatBritain, and Russia, which at San Fran-cisco in 1945 insisted together on theveto power and on restrictingand limit-ing the authority of the U.N. in everyimportantrespect.

TRANSFORM .N.The fact that neither Americanmili-

tary powernor the U.N.'s present struc-ture can in the long run preservepeaceor end the arms race has led us, the fed-eralists, to advocate immediate steps tostrengthenthe U.N. and to transform t,giving it the power of a federal govern-ment strongerthan its members and ca-pable of protectingthem as against eachother.In the last three years there has beena great deal of debate and discussionasto what changes are necessary in theU.N., what kind of a government itshould become,and what powersshouldbe given to it. Very briefly I wish to

discuss from my own personal point ofview those problems, because there arereal and meaningfuldifferences of opin-ions on these issues among men whoshare a common belief in the necessityfor some type of world federal govern-ment.

PROPOSEDOWERSOF U.N.If the U.N. is to be able to protect itsmembers,it must be given the constitu-tional authority to make and enforcelaw that is binding on national govern-

ments and on their individual citizens astheir first duty. But once one has saidthat, one must add that this lawmakingpower must be very clearly defined andstrictly limited.I think much of the oppositionto thecause of world governmentcomes fromthe fact that people do not understandwhat is actually being advocated. Wedo not advocate the creation of a worldsuperstate with vast power to changethe domestic institutions of the variousnations and stamp out the differencesbetween peoples and impose a commonform of economic and social structureon the world. That is neither desirablenor necessarynor possible.What we do advocate is that the U.N.should be given certain clearly definedand limited lawmaking powers sufficientto preservethe peace between the mem-ber states, and no more than that. Thepowers specifically necessary in the se-curity field seem to be the following:1. Power to prohibit the use of forceby national governments in the settle-ment of their disputes, and to requirethe peaceful arbitration or judicial set-tlement of those disputes.

2. Power to control effectively themeans of making war.3. Power to limit and regulate na-tional armed forces so that no nation ispermitted to maintain more militarypower than it needs for preservationoforder among its own citizens.

9

8/7/2019 Meyer 1949

6/9

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICANACADEMY4. Power to control atomic energy inits potentially dangerous aspects, andto control certain other types of scien-

tific development that can be easily di-verted secretly to mass destruction.5. Power to levy taxes to provide adependable source of revenue, independ-ent of the action taken by national gov-ernments.PROPOSEDHANGESN U.N. STRUCTURE

If even these minimum powers are tobe given to the U.N., some change in itsstructure is required.The present system of representationin the General Assembly is indefensible.One nation, one vote; Luxembourg onevote; Great Britain one vote; Nicaraguaone vote; the United States one vote.We cannot expect any real authorityever to be given to an assembly basedon that system of representation.On the other hand, representationcannot be based on population alone.There are too many differences in thelevel of development between countriesto permit that at this time, although itis an end toward which we must work.It seems to me that a possible com-promise can be found in a weighted sys-tem of representation in which popula-tion, literacy, and levels of economicdevelopment are taken together to de-termine the actual voting strength towhich each country would be entitled.Now, the Security Council. Obvi-ously, the Security Council under itspresent structure is not an effectiveexecutive agency. It should be re-placed by a cabinet responsible for theexecution of the laws, operating withoutveto.

World courts are required with com-pulsory jurisdiction over the individual.We must recognize once and for all thefutility of attempting to prevent war bytrying to enforce sanctions against en-tire countries. We must base the en-forcement procedure of any workable

international organization on the prin-ciple of individual responsibility, whichcan be determined only in a court, ac-cording to known and established laws.Finally, law is meaningless unless itcan be promptly and decisively en-forced. Therefore a world police forceis requiredlarger than the forces main-tained by any separate state, and worldinspection forces are needed with freeaccess into every country to make surethat the prohibited armament is notbeing secretly manufactured.That, very briefly, is the kind of se-curity structure that seems to be theskeleton of any workable organizationhaving a chance of keeping the peace.

LIMITATIONS F U.N.This structure of enforceable worldlaw will not solve all the world's prob-lems, and I think many federalists areguilty of believing that world govern-ment is a panacea. It is obviously nosuch thing. All it can do is give us achance to solve the real economic andsocial problemsof the world, freed fromthe fear of imminent war and from thepressures of a competitive arms race.If the power struggle could be endedby an enforceable rule of law, the re-

sources that are now being squanderedin that struggle could be used to raiseliving standards here and abroad andto extend the area of personal freedom.The functional agencies of the U.N.will obviously have to be steadilystrengthenedin the authority they haveand the powersthey exercise,so that co-operative measures can be undertakenon the international level to deal withthe real and long-termproblemof massstarvation and low living standards.

STEPSTOWARDGOALHere at least are the objectivestowardwhich we in the United World Federal-ists are working,and these are the prac-

10

8/7/2019 Meyer 1949

7/9

A PLEA FOR WORLD GOVERNMENTtical steps that we think are necessaryto reach these objectives.First, we see the obvious need for aninformed and aroused American publicopinion, an insistent popular demand,focused on our legislators. And thatdemand is growing today. In Con-necticut in an official ballot we got aneleven-to-one majority on a question asto whether our country should take thelead in the transformation of the U.N.into a world federal government. Simi-lar majorities occur when the questionis put elsewhere, as in Massachusetts,where the majority was nine to one.We think that is an impressive indica-tion of the fact that the people areahead of their leaders on this issue,that they are readynow to pay the pricein terms of some limitation of nationalsovereignty in order to get a chance tolive in peace.This aroused opinion must then befocused through effective political ac-tion, so that we can be assured of amajority in the House and the Senate.We have now, I would say, about sixtymen in the House and about eight Sena-tors who are informed and active onour side. Our supportersexpect in thenear future to introduce a bill in theHouse which will, if passed, put theCongress on record on this issue. Wehope and expect to get fifty to sixtymen behind that bill when it is intro-duced, and we think we have a chanceof passage.In the state legislatures we are spon-soring a number of different types oflegislation. Particularly interesting isthe fact that recently the legislaturesofMaine and Californiapassed legislationcalling upon the Congress to initiate aNational ConstitutionalConventionun-der Article 5 of our Constitution for thepurpose of making such amendmentsasare necessary to enable the UnitedStates to ratify and enter a world fed-eral structure.

Once we have an assured majority inthe House and the Senate, we can ex-pect and demandaction by the adminis-tration and the President, and we feelthat that action should be a declarationthat it is the goal of American foreignpolicy to move steadily toward thetransformationand strengtheningof theU.N. into an actual federation. Oncethat declaration is made, the next stepis a carefuland patient negotiationwithall the other members of the U.N. tosee if we can get initial broad agree-ment. If we can get that agreement,then and only then should a GeneralConferencebe called under Article 109of the Charter of the United Nations.A review conference under Article109 would act as a constitutional con-vention, and the results would have tobe referred to each country for ratifica-tion; and in this country that wouldnecessarily involve some amendmentofour Constitution. It is a hard road anda long one, and we know it. But wereally see no other way out of the dilem-mas that we now face.

SMALLNATIONSFAVORABLEFortunately, many of the smaller na-tions are with us. They fought for thisat San Franciscoin 1945, and they have

fought for it since then. The constitu-tions of France and Italy provide thatthose governmentscan go into a worldfederation on condition that other na-tions join with them in doing so. Theleaders of India, like Nehru and Dr.Sen, are strong advocates of our cause.Also the Prime Minister of Belgium,the President of France, the Ambas-sador of the Philippines, and the Am-bassadorof New Zealandhave given ustheir support. Backed by strong, well-organizedmovements, there is very lit-tle doubt as to what the smaller coun-tries would do if our country wouldlead with a specificproposalalong theselines.

11

8/7/2019 Meyer 1949

8/9

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

THE CASE OF RUSSIAThe problem of Russia remains.

First, we know that Russia is a dictator-ship, not a democracy, that it has nocivil liberties as we know them. Butwe also feel that democracyis not goingto be established in Russia by conquestthrough atomic war nor by threateningsuch a war. The effect of that kind ofaction is to strengthen the position ofthe present leaders in relation to theirown people, since it gives the leadersthe best propagandacard they have intrying to convince their people that ourintentions are aggressive and that theymust band together for defense againstus.

Second, it seems to me quite clearthat it would be much better and saferall around to have Russia in a worldfederation rather than outside. Out-side it, she would remain free to com-pete for armamentand preparefor warand she would be capable of secret andsudden attack. Inside it, she, togetherwith other nations, would be subject toa commonlaw; she would be subject tosubstantial national disarmament con-trolled by the world police force, thecourts, and the inspectors.Once all those assumptionshave beenmade, I have to admit that the presentleadershipin the Kremlin is opposed tothe idea of world government. As amatter of fact, the Moscow radio hasspent some time attacking us, and itattacked me personally not so long agoas the fig leaf of Americanimperialism;I think that was the nice phrase used.But it seems to me that we cannotassume that this oppositionwill last for-ever, and that there is a chance of ac-ceptance by the Kremlin. That chancedepends on how the proposal is made.We must recognize that the trans-formation of the U.N. into a workingsecurity structure capable of makingand enforcinglaw cannot be made with-

out some kind of general settlement ofthe outstanding\specific ssues, and that,in fact, the two things are interdepend-ent. There is no chance of settling spe-cific issues such as Germanyand Koreaas separate problems; they are part ofthe over-allpowerstruggle.The chance of a settlement rests onan agreement to a working securitystructure that can guarantee that set-tlement. A mere treaty that can betorn up ten days after it is made is in-adequatebecause there is too much dis-trust for nations to go into that kind ofa treaty again. There must be assur-ance of effective enforcementif any set-tlement is to be made, and the achieve-ment of a settlement and the achieve-ment of a workingsecurity structureareinterdependent,and it is in that contextthat the proposal should be made.The possibility of acceptance by Rus-sian leaders is due simply to the factthat in an atomic and biological warthey stand to lose as much as or morethan we do. They stand to be totallydestroyed-their people, their cities, andthe industriesthey have built up. Thereis a possibility that they may be realisticenough to change some parts of theirpresentdoctrineto conformto the facts,the reality being that war is no longera means of advancing the national in-terests of any country, but has becomea method of collective suicide for entirenations. There is a chance that bothwe and they may recognizethat fact intime.

IF RUSSIA TAYSOUTIf at first, after patient negotiation,the Russians do not come in, I think

we should then have no choice but tohold the U.N. togetherfor all it is worthas a forum for discussion, but proceed-ing within it to form a federationof allthose nations willing to join, providingthat a majority are ready to go ahead.We should have to maintain the mili-

12

8/7/2019 Meyer 1949

9/9

A PLEA FOR WORLD GOVERNMENTtary strength of that partial federation;we should have to improveits economichealth; we should have to demonstratethat it was not an instrumentfor Ameri-can domination and control; and, mostimportantof all, we should have to holdout a standing offer of membershiptothose who remainedoutside, and reachthe people of those countries with theknowledgethat here was a fair and hon-orable opportunityto end the arms racethat was continually open to them. Wecould then hope, over a period of time,through a wise course in the pursuit ofthat policy, to gain either a change ofpolicy or leadershipon the part of thosenations that at first might remain out-side.

THE CHANCEOF SUCCESSThis sequence of action provides thebest practical chance of success. It isthat for which we, the United World

Federalists, are working,and we are en-couraged by the growing popular sup-port we are receivingand by the politi-cal supportwe are winning in Washing-ton.Our most effective opposition is notour active opposition, such as the ex-treme right and the extreme left. Ourmost effective opposition is the despairand the resignationto inevitable war ofable and intelligent men who could domuch fighting if they were on our side.We must act and think and live inthe profound conviction that men areneither so stupid nor so brutal as to becondemned to self-destruction. Therewere good words written recently byRobert Oppenheimer;they expresshopeand warning: "It is in our hands to seethat the hope of the future is not lostbecause we were too sure that we knewthe answers, too sure that there was nohope."

Cord Meyer, Jr., New York City, is national president of United World Federalists,Inc. He is author of Peace or Anarchy and of articles in numerous national journals.

13