THE IMMEDIATE NEED FOR INTERDEMOCRACY FEDERAL UNION AND MR. STREIT'S PROPOSED DECLARATION OF INTERDEPENDENCE

By Linus Pauling

"Union Now" meeting, 8 P.M. Monday, July 22, 29140, McKinley Junior High School, Oak Knoll and Del Mar, Pasadena. Chairman, Lee Shippey.

Introduction Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen. We are meeting tonight to discuss the immediate need for Interdemocracy Federal Union and=d Mr. Streit's proposed Declaration of Interdependence. Before taking up these questions I shall mention briefly the Union New movement and the great questions of the ultimate goal of our social development.

Freedom and Democracy the goal of our social development is freedom - freedom of individual action, freedom of speech, religious freedom, and freedom from the fear of unjust and arbitrary oppression and persecution. By centuries of struggle and sacrifice this goal has been in its essentials achieved in the democracies of the world. We have become accustomed to this freedom, and had begun to accept it without question, as something that was given to us for nothing, something for which we do not need to struggle and fight. But events are showing us that this is not right - that the fight for freedom is not yet over. During the last few years we have seen many of the people of Germany persecuted and robbed of their freedom and their lives, and in recent months it has been the people of peaceful democracies who have been enslaved and killed.

The Great Decision - The World Government of the Future Now there is being waged a great war between democracy and totalitarianism, to decide between the free way and the slave way. And this war may well determine, as Hitler says it will, the course of the world for the next thousand years. Through the development of methods of transportation and of technology in general the world has effectively become so small that world rule is to be expected soon. The great decision which will be made before many years - surely during the present century, and possibly within the coming decade - is whether the world will be ruled by totalitarian masters or whether is will be a free democratic state. In a democracy such as ours there is little damper of loss of freedom from actions within in the country. the democratic system is, to be sure, slow and unwieldy and inefficient, but it is safe, in consequence of the fact that the important decisions are made by the people themselves. The one great danger that threatens a democratic country is the danger of attack and overthrow by the militant enemies with the lust to conquer and enslave. For a century we in America have been protected against foreign aggression by the British fleet, with its control of the Atlantic Ocean - and we have had no fear of our fellow democracy Great Britain.

Sixteen months ago, in his book "Union Now", Clarence Streit advocated that there be formed, for mutual protection, a federal union of the leading democracies of the world. this Federal Union would be pattered after the Union of the United States, and in time it would grow, by the inclusion of other democracies, until it included all the countries of the world. Looking backward, we can see the wisdom of Streit's plan. With Federal Union the democracies would have been strong enough to withstand the onslaughts of the dictators; without union, they have not been strong enough, and now most of them have fallen before aggression - Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France - or have been surrounded - Finland, Sweden, Switzerland - and only the United States and the British Democracies remain.

Mr. Streit now makes a further proposal - that, before it is too late, the United States and the six British Democracies form at once the nucleus of the Federal Union. the Union would be governed for a time by an Inter-Continental Congress meeting on this side of the Atlantic, presumably in Philadelphia. there would be 27 representations from the United States, 11 from the United Kingdom, 3 from Canada, 3 from Australia, and 2 each from Ireland, the Union of South Africa, and new Zealand. The Congress would have full power to levy war, contract alliances, conclude peace, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.

The principal argument which Mr. Streit advances in support of this plan is that for the protection of America we need the British fleet. We have seen that the French, despite their undoubted sincerity in their fight against the Nazis, were unable when overcome to resist the order to return their ships to ports where they might be used by the conquerors. there is the chance, which is perhaps a large chance, that Britain, despite the desperate resistance which she will make, will be overthrown, and that her fleet will fall into the enemy's hands. then Hitler could use the British fleet and merchant marine to bring the war to America; and he might well decide to attack his one remaining enemy, the United States, at once, to catch us while we are still only very poorly prepared, rather than wait until we have built up the great military machine for which our plans are now made. but even if we were not attacked immediately after the fall of our line of defense in England and in the Atlantic, we could expect no peace. Hitler's actions have been so consistent as to permit us to extrapolate his course in a general way. With control of the seas, he could attack the smaller democracies of the British Commonwealth, as well as the colonies, one by one, and take over most of the world. he could so harry the United States economically, in the ways discussed by Walter Lippmann in his article in this week's issue of Life, as to give us the choice only between vassalage and war.

Let us consider the arguments which Mr. Streit advances. In his statement published in the New York Times last Monday (July 15, 1940), he says: (Here are some quotations)

This is Streit's proposal. Let us now examine it and the arguments for it.

First, are the premises regarding the British fleet and its significance correct. So far as the dependence of the United States on the British fleet for protection in the Atlantic is concerned, they are. His assumptions that Union of the United States and the six British democracies would win the war for democracy, and that Union is necessary to win the war, are harder to evaluate. There is little significance to estimates of the chances of various alternative conclusions. My own guess is the following: that there is a small chance that Britain alone, with the help which we are now giving, will win for democracy; a somewhat larger chance that the dictators will overcome the British isles this summer, before Federal Union cold possibly be achieved, leaving us to cope with them alone; and a large chance that England can hold out long enough for the Union to become effective, certifying success for the democracies. If these estimates are right, then it would be wise for us to advocate immediate alliance with the British democracies along the Federal Union plan.

Now let us ask, and attempt to answer, the following questions. First, is it right, from the idealistic point of view, to form a Union of the democracies; second, is it expedient, from the practical point of view, to do this; and third, is it possible, from the political point of view, to do it.

First: Is it right to form this Union? I believe that it is. This is a war whose outcome involves the decision between freedom and slavery for the people of the world; it is a struggle between Democracy and the enemies of Democracy. We all recognize that this is our war, and that Britain is fighting our fight - just as did Norway and Holland and Belgium and France until they were overcome. Recognizing this, the President and the great majority of the people favor the policy of the government of advancing all possible material aid to Britain. It would be proper, then, to acknowledge the unity of purpose of the democracies by the formation of the Union. Moreover, it is our belief, as members of IFU, that the future peace and happiness of the world depend on the formation of a democratic world government, and this is the time to form it.

There is another thing that we must consider. this step would mean going to war, and we, as idealists, are by nature pacifists and opposed to war. But we are being forced into war anyway - we are vigorously preparing for war, and who among us believes sincerely that we are not going to have war sooner or later? We as individuals do not believe either in fighting with our fists or clubs. But we would fight a thug who attacked us. And if the thing were to attack a peaceful neighbor of ours, would we not come to his aid rather than wait until he had beaten our neighbor into insensibility and had begun on us? This is the situation of the United States. Should not our country help Britain now to fight off the thug who is attacking her and will most probably attack us when she is polished off?

Is it expedient, from the practical point of view, to form the Union? I believe that it is. One great advantage for the United States and the British democracies other than Ireland and the United Kingdom, is that no matter how hard the attack on the Irish and British Isles the fleet would not be surrendered to Hitler. A further advantage is that the United States wold be put at once on a wartime basis of production and preparation. Our preparedness program is moving more and more rapidly - every time a democracy falls before the aggressor it is sped up a bit - but we are still far from acting as vigorously as the emergency requires, and as vigorously as we are capable of acting. After Union, as now, our principal task would be to provide Britain with airplanes, mountains, and other weapons of war - but not with men, who are not lacking in England now. It would be our fleet which would see active service, although I suppose that the fleet would in main continue to guard the Pacific. The presumable attack on Germany and Italy would be mainly by blockade.

Is it possible, from the political point of view, to form, the Union? I do not know. Streit says that England would be willing, since she offered Federal Union to France as France was collapsing. But would England accept if she were the one in mortal danger? Perhaps she would. Ireland would look askance at the idea. Canada and Australia and the other British democracies would, I think, accept it. At the present moment the United States is far from favoring the idea of forming the Union and thus getting into the war. but conditions and opinions change very fast in war time. On April 9th the Nazis invaded Denmark and Norway, and tens of millions of Americans decided ina day that the United States should enter into combat with a ruthless aggressor who could thus strike down these peace - loving nations who had pursued their peaceful courses for a century. On May 10th the Nazis invaded Holland, and then Belgium, and tens of millions more of Americans began to advocate active participating in war. As word of the Nazi methods of warfare used in Norway, Holland, Belgium, and France reached this country, feeling has grown stronger and stronger.

The Netherlands Legation at Washington has declared formally that after the Dutch army had capitulated there had occurred an air bombardment of the city of Rotterdam in which 30,000 persons were killed and 70,000 injured; who can feel that our country should remain neutral in the face of such barbarism? I think that now the majority of American people favor our rendering all possible aid short of war to Great Britain. How many would favor Federal Union now I do not know. Many people are not acquainted with the idea - a program of education is needed. It would without doubt be a hard job for the public to be educated in this matter - but, I repeat, in times of great stress such as this public opinion changes very rapidly, and the events of this summer may well be such as to make it clear to everyone that we must unite at once and fight together.

Allow me, in conclusion, to read the proposed Declaration of Interdependence:

"When in the course of human events...we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred humor."

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the proposal before us. When we consider that during the last few months half the democracies of the world have been brutally and ruthlessly conquered or surrounded and enslaved by the anti-democratic dictatorial totalitarian forces of evil, that the British democracies are now fighting off the aggressors and may be overpowered and conquered during the coming months, despite the aid which we are giving them, that we in the United States are beginning a desperate attempt to prepare for the war that we see ahead of us, must we not admit that it would be the part of wisdom for us to recognize our unity of purpose with Democracy throughout the world, to form at once a Federal Union with the remaining free democracies, and thus to make a united stand which would win for the side of freedom the great Battle for the World of the Future.

Graphite. [Drawing of the bond-line structure of graphite.] Each 1/3 double-bond character.