LET’S go back to the wizard of figures, Ely Culbertson. Perhaps Euclid and Pythagoras can help us and with their figures establish a peace for us. What charms me in Culbertson’s plan is his precise mathematical reasoning and the matching of a clear mind against big problems. The question is what can be done with sheer mathematics, with a peace-point-ration system.
It is fair to caution the reader against mixing up Mr. Culbertson with those power politicians. He has studied mass psychology, but he is not a professor of psychology, nor is he a politician; he is an unpretentious thinking man like you and me, and a man of uncommon intelligence and clear thinking. If Euclid or Pythagoras could save us, Culbertson will. Moreover, Mr. Culbertson has a lot of common sense. He is able to see the inherent danger of international coercion and resentment arising from the existence of an international police force that serves as the cloak of sectional, national domination, the greatest danger of all schemes for a police force, and he is concentrating his thinking on the elimination of that psychological danger. We feel here a sense of fairness and good will to start with. His presentation of dilemmas, remedies, and comments is clear, lucid, and precise. That is why I am discussing it as one of the most attractive schemes of world co-operation. Besides, playing a game of international bridge is fun: it exercises the brains.25
We are not going into a full examination of the “World Federation Plan.” It has a “World Armament Trust,” a “World President,” “World Trustees,” “World Judges,” and “World Senators.” It has a “World Constitution” and plans for three time periods: the “War Period,” the “Armistice Period,” and the “Postwar Period,” the first two periods being under the “Provisional Government.” It has a “World Territorial Table,” dividing the world into eleven “Regional Federations,” including “sovereign two-way states” (like Switzerland, Danzig) and “Autonomous Regional Federations” (the Indian and the Malaysian).
But the most distinctive feature of the plan is the “Quota Force Principle” which is mathematics. Each Regional Federation would have a “National Contingent,” and there would be an additional “Collective Quota,” the “Mobile Corps,” owned by all the member Regional Federations, which is like a “joker,” or better, like the “widow” at poker, that all hands can count as their own.
The dilemma that Mr. Culbertson is trying to solve is how to harmonize the existence of the “World Police” with national sovereignty. He solves it by the interesting formula that while the national contingents are all parts of the “World Police” in time of war, in time of peace each is a national force policing its own territory, and no foreign national contingent may step into its territory. Furthermore, since these “National Contingents” form a “World Police” by pooling their strength, each contingent is adequate for defense of its own territory, and none is adequate for attacking others with any chance of success.
THE QUOTA PRINCIPLE OF WORLD POLICE
ILLUSTRATIVE TABLE OF THE QUOTA FORCE PRINCIPLE
The cards being dealt out, let’s sit down to play the international contract bridge game. The merit of this mathematical distribution of forces, according to its author, is the following:
The quota mechanism not only eliminates military dictatorships and wars between single nations; it eliminates wars between alliances or coalitions of nations. On the basis of the Quota Force Principle, it is impossible to point out any politically conceivable combination of nations which could conduct a war of aggression against the remaining nations of the World Federation without being decisively outnumbered.
Let us assume the most powerful (although the least likely) combination of nations some years after the World Federation is founded: The United States, Great Britain, and Germany decide to rebel against the World Federation and to conquer the World. Without the Quota Force Principle, there is no question but that this coalition of powers could easily dominate the world. With the Quota Force Principle, the joint Quota of these three nations would be only 39%. Against them there would be lined up Armored Forces of planes, tanks, and warships totaling 61%, of which 22%, the Mobile Corps, would be the Shock Troops. Before England and Germany (19%) would have time to develop their industrial potential into a military potential, they would be overwhelmed, isolating the United States with its 20%.
Let us reverse the situation and assume a communist-dominated Europe and Asia, in revolt against the World Federation and the Anglo-Americans. Without the World Federation, a Communist Japan, China, Poland, Russia, Germany, and France, lined up against the Anglo-Americans, would automatically result in a Third World War. With the World Federation, the Quotas of the rebel communist nations would total only 33% against the 67% total of the Mobile Corps, the Anglo-Americans, and the other Contingents of the World Police.
In other words, no one will have a grand slam. The cards are, in fact, so dealt out that no one will bid at all. If mathematics will give us a peace, this plan will do so. If the cat can be belled, if Russia will accept the cards dealt out to her, if no card-player nods, if all the players are equally skillful, or equally reckless, or equally cautious, or equally honest, or equally good at making passes to neighbors or slipping cards from their sleeves, above all, if all the players love and trust one another, there should be no bid and no play at all. If there are no upsetting factors like different national psychologies, national ambitions, and cultural traditions, if eternal vigilance can be kept up, if the “World Government” is able to act promptly and despatch the “Mobile Corps” instantly, if it will not appoint another Lytton Commission to take a year to make a report for the purpose of being filed, if it is easy to define “aggression” and “defense,” if there is not the question of industrial potentials, if there is no question of commercial aviation, if all people are equally aggressive or equally satisfied with what they have, if no nation secretly rearms or openly defies and denounces the quota system, if the different “National Contingents” and the “Mobile Corps” are equidistant from the point of conflict, if there are no questions of sea and land transportation to distant continents, and if all are available at a moment’s notice, if no state member hesitates or remains neutral at the call of duty, if there are, for instance, no internal factions in Czechoslovakia or between Czechoslovakia and Poland when Russia or Germany rebels, if above all, no single nation dominates the “World Government,” if the “World Judges” do not take orders from the big powers, if the “World Senate” could not be captured from within, if the big powers would refrain from manipulating the “World Government” into their private machine as they did with the League of Nations, if there are no problems of corruption and failing enthusiasm and division of mind and even change of mind among the powers, if there is no selfish disposition of the “Mobile Corps,” if there is no underhanded manipulation and control of important strategic material, if there is no progress in chemical industry, no development of new weapons undefined, if there is a guarantee that national sentiments in the different states will not change, if there is no selfish isolationism, if economic autocracy does, not set in in any one state, if there is indeed justice, and if there is no racial discrimination, then we shall indeed have a fair prospect of peace by this plan. In other words, if this is a mechanical game and the cards are cards, and not quarrelsome, fickle-minded, and always progressing human beings, the game will never be played and the cards will remain as they are dealt out at the beginning. Then, thank Heaven, we shall have no war!
We might conveniendy take this quota table for the study of how complicated psychological factors underlie plain arithmetic. There is no question that the quota table will be acceptable to the United States army and navy experts, and fairly acceptable to British experts. But why should Russia, with a greater territory and bigger population, accept a lower quota than the United States, particularly in view of the traditional combination of England and America, and the English control of the Indian Federation and the American control of the Malaysian Federation? Who will bell the Russian cat?
It is clear that raising the common “collective quota” of the international “Mobile Corps” and lowering the percentage of the national contingents of the “Big Powers” would accomplish every purpose Mr. Culbertson desires more surely and more effectively than the low collective quota and high quotas for certain particular powers in sharp contrast to the rest of the nations. Equal quotas for the Regional Federations and a high common collective quota for all would seem to represent the principle of international justice and sincerity, and create greater confidence. It would be a simple idea to give that collective quota 50 per cent, and then no matter what the combinations of “rebellious” “National Contingents” are, they would still be less than the collective quota obeying the command of the “World Government,” unless the whole world revolts against the “World Government,” which is an absurdity. Even a 32-34 per cent for the collective quota would secure a readier approval, on either of the following formulas:
(A) Collective Quota |
34% |
11 National Contingents |
|
(averaging 6% each) |
66% |
(B) Collective Quota |
32% |
Russia, China, Britain, and U. S. |
|
(10% each) |
40% |
7 other Contingents |
|
(averaging 4% each) |
28% |
Under the “B” plan, a U. S.-Britain combination or a Russia-China combination would give only 20 per cent as against the Collective Quota of 34 per cent, or against 80 per cent of the World Police.
Why is this not suggested? And here we come at once to the root of the matter, which is psychological. For the acceptance of America and Great Britain the principle is consent, and for the acceptance of Russia the principle is coercion. “It would have been desirable, perhaps, to lower the American and British quotas even further. But in that event, it is unlikely that the majority of the British Parliament would approve it, and highly improbable that two-thirds of the American Senate would vote for such a risky commitment.” But why “risky,” particularly if there is a bigger collective quota? How about the risky commitment for Russia? We read:
It is possible that Russia, mindful of her bitter pre-war experiences with the capitalistic countries and suspicious of their future intentions, might adopt a policy of total isolation until convinced that the World Federation is designed for her benefit as well as for that of other nations . . . there could be no objection on Russia’s part if the World Federation should increase its own total armed strength, parallel to Russian increases, so as to maintain the Quota Force Principle.
We are back in the same rut again, the rut of armament race, which is a risky matter, and of political coercion, which is still riskier.
And here we receive a strong and clear hint from Sir Norman Angell that Anglo-American conduct during the peace as during the war will be along the line of “unilateral” action. Clarence Streit and all other advocates of Anglo-American union or domination think in exactly the same way: The other nations may take it or leave it, the World Government will not be based on consent of the world. For Sir Norman Angell said in his New York Town Hall speech of March 11, 1943:
Note this, the American elder statesmen in adopting the Monroe Doctrine did not proceed first of all by drawing up an elaborate Pan-American Constitution. They did not even get in touch with the Latin-American Republics. The Declaration was unilateral. This, it seems to me, is a pregnant hint for today.26
Sir Norman Angell is really getting more and more exasperated.
But why the higher quota for the big powers and a low quota for the other powers? Here we run into a series of inverted reasonings. Because, Mr. Culbertson says, the small powers would combine and attack the big powers! Where in history have the small nations ever had the wit to combine in defense, much less in attack? Does not history teach the exact reverse? Was it Norway or Switzerland or Denmark that threatened world peace? But we read:
The ideal distribution of the World Police might seem to be the assignment of an equal Quota to each of the eleven Regional Federations. But this would be unrealistic. In computing the Quotas one must keep in mind not only the factors of territory and industrial capacity, but the psycho-political factor as well. If each Region had an equal Quota of the World’s Armed Forces, then the poorer regions (which are in great majority) might seek to combine for an attack against the few prosperous ones.
It is the old story of Finland threatening the security of Russia. Why not seek safety in a bigger “Collective Quota” and have a little more confidence in the “World Government”? It would seem that the psycho-political principle should operate against nations which have a historical record of aggressiveness rather than against the historically peace-loving small nations.
In the case of China, the inverted reasoning is even more apparent. I know Mr. Culbertson is well disposed toward China. The inverted reasoning he employs—one set of reasoning for China, another for America and Great Britain—is purely unconscious and profoundly human. A Lebensraum of continental dimensions is the reason for a higher quota in the case of the United States, Britain, and Russia; the same fact is adduced as the reason for denying it to China. And why? Because China “threatens” the other powers. We read:
In the deeper sense of future reality, it is perhaps best for the peace of the world that the United States, Britain and Russia should be the ones with a preponderance of Quota strength. Each has a lebensraum of continental dimensions, the economy of each is inwardly, not outwardly, expanding [sic!]. Each is threatened by powerful rivals—rump super-states like Germany, which lacks lebensraum, or embryonic super-states like China, which lacks technology.
So the story is that, China, which lacks technology (or war potential) is threatening either Russia or the United States which have it!
Mr. Culbertson makes it quite clear that the size of China’s population, a territory easy to defend, and a homogeneous population are the reasons for China’s being assigned 4 per cent, while the same factors are the reasons for Russia and the United States being give 15 to 20 per cent. Mr. Culbertson admits the “seeming injustice,” which he “explains” as follows:
In the case of China, it would seem that this heroic nation of five hundred million people should be entitled to more than 4%. Actually, the very size of her population is the main reason for China’s relatively low Quota. China has not only a very low industrial capacity and territory which is fairly easy to defend, but she possesses an enormous homogeneous population. She will have trained forces for internal policing at least four times the size of that of the United States. Although such a police force will have no heavy weapons, it will be in effect, a supporting infantry. Hence her Quota of 4%.27
I don’t follow you, Mr. Culbertson.
The psychological reason is deeper than that. Mr. Culbertson really would not want China to lay herself open to the suspicion of imperialism and invite the fear of the world. It is only later that we read the real reason, as suggested in a world without the “Quota Force Principle.”
Furthermore, the World Federation enables China to develop industrially without exciting the fears of other great nations. Without the World Federation, power-politics might dictate that other nations should sooner or later strike at China, to prevent her five hundred million people from becoming too powerful industrially and therefore militarily.
But even within the World Federation, the same dilemma really exists: either strangle China industrially or allow her to develop until she will demand a revision of the quota for equality with the other nations, and this demand for revision will have to be kept down by coercion at the point of the bayonet, or by stubborn manipulation of the “World Government.” It will be the story of the “5:5:3,” in altered forms—the basis of the present war with Japan. Such complications always arise when we get “realistic” and forsake the principle of equality.
That China may be coerced into acceptance or remain outside is another matter. If she does accept 4 per cent, it will not be because of coercion, but because of the old rogue’s Laotsean philosophy of the wisdom of appearing foolish, the advantage of lying low, the strength of gentility, and the victory that comes from not inviting the fear of the world. I am sure of it. The fear is that the younger nations will not live by the wisdom of avoiding fear and hatred and ruin by insolence. “To pretend to be a damn fool” is such a common phrase in Chinese that I constantly forget it isn’t an English idiom. Who but a Chinese scholar would call himself “Guard Stupidity” or “Embrace Folly”? But I know eventually it is white insolence that will ruin any world co-operation.
No, the problem of peace is not a problem of mathematics, but a problem of the psychology of the big powers. The problem of world peace is no more a problem of mathematics than the problem of conducting a campaign is the problem of disposition of troops and topography; very often, given the troops and the tanks, it is only the problem of the commanding general’s personality, his mind, his courage, his quick decision, his capacity to get along with his officers, and his attitude toward his superiors, his rivals, and his enemy.
Battles have been lost because the general was thinking of his mistress in the enemy camp, and peace has been lost because the Lavals were busily traveling to Berlin and Rome. And while the conception of power politics remains what it is and the statesmen of the leading powers still sit in their moronic complacency, with no mental comprehension of how the war arose and what it is being fought for, except certain colonial possessions and the status quo, peace will forever remain an elusive hope and the blood of our children and grandchildren must flow.
May I suggest a simple solution? May I claim and demonstrate that peace has been possible? May I substantiate it by history and point out that peace has not been an empty dream, but a reality, an accomplished historic fact, in many quarters of this earth? Without a convention, and without quotas, peace has already been achieved between Canada and the United States. Without a convention, or federation, or the “Quota Force Principle,” peace has been achieved in the continent of South America already. And may I also suggest that there was peace in Asia in the centuries preceding the coming of the white man? That there has been peace in Tahiti and Bali and the Samoan Islands? Peace, too, in Greenland and Iceland.
And may I point out why? There is peace in South America and in the Caribbean Sea because the Spanish and Portuguese Empires have collapsed. There have been civil wars, but we are not interested in local civil wars; we are speaking of the large patterns of world history. There will be peace in the world only when the English, French, and Dutch Empires collapse. I know this war is not big enough to reverse the process and wipe out the Empires, and I hope World War III will do it. If the imperialist powers will not worry overmuch about the “capacity for self-government” of the Filipinos, the Javanese, the Indians, and Burmese, there will be peace, too, in the Philippines, the Dutch Indies, India, and Burma. But if they do not stop worrying overmuch about the capacity for self-government of the colonies, wars will continue to be fought in the home countries themselves.
Civil wars are necessary in a nation until an equilibrium is restored. Revolts against empires are necessary until the invader is driven out. The only stable equilibrium in the world is the equilibrium of equality. Only when such equilibrium is reached can we have peace. Small countries have the right to fight, perhaps to setde an old boundary dispute. Big countries have no right to fight, ever, because when they fight they involve the whole world. When small countries fight, it is at least their own business; when the big powers fight, it is always because they want to interfere with someone else’s business. Small countries do not fight, because they always have enough territory. Big countries fight, because curiously what they have is never enough—they need Lebensraum. Finally, all countries, whether big or small, do not fight because they are contented, and all countries, whether big or small, fight because they are discontented. As Laotse says, “There is no greater curse than the lack of contentment, no greater sin than the desire for possession. Therefore he who is contented with contentment shall be always content.”
And so Mr. Culbertson is putting the cart before the horse when he puts arithmetic before psychology. Of all the fifty or sixty nations in the world, only three or four big powers are upsetting the peace of the world. These powers have run over this earth, kicking down people’s fences in bad temper and worse manners, robbing them of their liberty and independence, and taking possession of their goods—and have then fought wars among themselves for these goods. First they fought among themselves, and then they called upon the entire world to fight for them to keep what they have. This makes litde sense, and it makes still less sense to say that we can have peace only by giving greater power to the big powers and disarming the small powers, on the plea that the small powers may combine to attack them!
Big Powers, at least behave as if you were not scared! But now we suddenly hear about policing the world, as if the Greenlanders and Samoans and Formosans and Burmese were threatening the world peace, while the big powers don their uniforms, strutting about to club the small powers on their heads with a baton if they do not behave. It would seem that we could well police the big powers for a while and leave the poor Samoans and Balinese and Eskimos alone. But, no, we cannot disarm the big powers, because the big powers will not be disarmed, after having so heroically fought and triumphed in this war. Very well, then, let’s have wars eternally. The first thing we know the police will start shooting among themselves and scare us poor humble neighbors out of our wits.
25 Ely Culbertson, The World Federation Plan (The World Federation, Inc.). Distributed by Garden City Publishing Co.
26 As reported in the New York Times, March 12, 1943.
27 The last sentence, “Hence her Quota of 4%,” appearing in the original mimeographed copy has been struck out in the printed and revised edition. This is interesting. It was meant to clinch an argument, but Mr. Culbertson must have felt that instead of clinching the argument, it weakened it.
