BRITAIN CAN STILL LEAD: BUT SHE MUST BE BRAVE AND BOLD

New Zealand Listener, Volume 12, Issue 294, 9 February 1945, Page 8

BRITAIN CAN STILL LEAD: BUT SHE MUST BE BRAVE AND BOLD

HE present war is bringing about some major changes in the aspect of the world, but during the stress of the fighting they are, I think, receiving less attention than future historians are likely to give them. Herodotus, the father of history, who lived from 484 to 425 B.C., took the perennial conflict of Europe and Asia as the central theme in world affairs, It is surprisingly easy to view subsequent events as a repetition of the same theme with variations. The defeat of Carthage by Rome in 201 B.C., following on Alexander’s conquests, brought about eight centuries of western domination. Then followed another eight centuries terminating in the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453. During this time the greatest centres of civilisation and power were Asiatic, either geographically or in racial. origin. Now our histories, not unnaturally, are written from the standpoint of western Europe. This has led us to give the name of the Dark Ages to what was in fact one of the most brilliant periods of human history. Haroun al Raschid, known to most of us as the more or less legendary Calif of the Arabian Nights, ruled in the eighth and ninth centuries over a vast empire extending from India to the straits of Gibraltar. And in this empire, art and poetry, philosophy and science reached a very high level of development. In China at the same epoch many poets, some exquisite, some profound, produced works which only a few countries have ever surpassed, and that rarely. Even in western Europe, the Mohammedans almost became supreme. In France, it is true, they were defeated, but in Spain they ruled for centuries.

History Changes Its Course The 15th century began a reverse Process. The western hemisphere was acquired by the countries that faced the Atlantic. Spain and Portugal, France and England, and the civilisation of North and South America became an extension of that of western Europe. First Portugal, then France, Holland, and finally Great Britain, acquired power in the East Indies and influence in China. At the same time the culture of the East declined, while that of the West not only Produced the supreme works of Renaissance literature and art, but made a sudden leap upwatds in the discoveries of science. The supremacy of the West th in power and culture came to seem unshakable. But there are signs that in the not distant future there will be more of an equilibrium between East and West. Japan’s premature bid for power, it is true, is fortunately being defeated. But when the war is over China will be established on a footing of equality with the great powers of Europe and America, while India’s claim to independence will probably have become irresistible.

Now India, China, Japan, and the Dutch East Indies contain about half the population of the world, and will never again, after the present ferment, subside willingly into a subordinate position. We must expect that these countries will have again the importance that they possessed in remote times and that they have lost since Vasco da Gama opened the way for their subjection to western imperialistic enterprise. Western Europe, half of a peninsula in the great land mass of the eastern hemisphere, has had an almost monopolistic importance in culture, but can we be sure that it will continue? From Dante and Shakespeare to Bach and Beethoven and Einstein — all that was best in art and literature and science during ‘the last 600 years came out of this small region. And what was true of culture was true also of political and military power. Now the great centres of power are moving eastward and westward, to Russia and the United States, and it is to be expected that the centres of culture will move likewise. In such a movement from the standpoint of civilisation as a whole there is nothing to regret. Indeed it is probable that what is good in the culture of Western Europe will acquire a new freshness by migration, just as Greek ideas did when, at the Renaissance, they acquired a new ‘home in the west.

Still a Job For Britain What will be the role of Great Britain in this new world? The glories of the past cannot alone content us. With Shakespeare and Newton we have been supreme in poetry and science. Until 1776 we were the leaders in all liberal movements. We were the first to abolish the slave trade and slavery. From 1824 until the first World War we protected the western hemisphere from the imperjialistic ambitions of the Old World. And from 1832 onwards, we showed how to achieve democracy without revolution. But if all our great achievements were to be in the past, the outlook would be rather bleak from the point of view of British patriotism and of the British desire to play a worthy part in world history, in the future as in the past. I think, however, that this desire can still find full satisfaction, though perhaps in somewhat altered forms. Although we cannot play quite the same part in the world as we played in the 19th centuryy since America and Russia surpass us not only in population and in natural resources but in industrial development, there is still a form of leadership, and a very important one, which will be open to us if we have the necessary courage and breadth of outlook. We have certain immense advantages over most other nations. I think we may say we are more unified internally, our party strife is less bitter, we are more tolerant towards each other, and much less inclined at home to substitute violence for the ballot-box. Owing to these fortunate circumstances, which are attributable not so much to congenital virtues as to the fact that since 1066 we have never had to endure occupation by foreign conquerors, we are in a better position than any other European nation to find a practical solution of the greatest ,social problem of our time-namely, the

combination of democracy with central control over the economic life of the community. From the 17th century to the Russian Revolution of 1917 it was against the excessive power of monarchs that the forces of progress were mainly directed. In this conflict Democracy was the battlecry. But now owing mainly to changes in industrial technique, most of the progressive parties in the world have come to feel that political democracy alone is not enough. It cannot prevent world-wide depressions such as that which occurred between the two, world wars. It cannot cure the evil of large-scale unemployment. And it cannot by itself generate efficiency in war. It is now almost universally agreed that these objects can only be secured by a degree of bureaucratic interference with industry and expenditure which would in former times have been anathema to almost all men of liberal outlook.

"The Old Liberal Watchwords" Enthusiasm for new programmes of economic centralisation has made large sections of opinion unduly blind to the need of preserving the fruits of past victories. In some circles to proclaim one’s self still an advocate of political democracy is to incur the suspicion of being a hide-bound Conservative. I regard this attitude as profoundly mistaken, and I look to Great Britain to provide a practical refutation. Freedom and toleration, the old Liberal watchwords, have not lost their importance, though in a new environment they must be sought by new methods. Central control without democracy leads to tyranny. Political democracy without central control, if attempted in the years after the war, would lead to chaos and starvation for millions of people. We in Great Britain have a better opportunity than anybody else of showing in practice how to introduce the necessary central controls without sacrifice of political democracy and with an absolute minimum of interference with personal liberty and initiative. We have this opportunity for various reasons. First, because as’ already mentioned, we are more unified than most Continental countries. The struggle between parties and classes is less bitter, and the long tradition of mutual toleration is more firmly established. Second, because we have a longer tradition of Parliamentary institutions than any other country, and the practice of representative government is more firmly rooted in our habits. Third, because under the exigencies of the war we have already travelled the greater part of the journey that has to be made, and have done so under a predominantly Conservative administration. Income Tax and Death Duties have practically abolished the idle rich. Fifty years ago when I was an undergraduate there were at Oxford and Cambridge large numbers of young men whose sole aim was to have a good time. They saw no reason to do any wotk since they expected to pass all their days in idleness on unearned

incomes. Nowadays this class has ceased to exist, and no one supposes that it will revive after the war. "And not only unearned incomes, but earned incomes also are no longer large. Since there is little hope that taxation will grow appreciably less when war ends this change must be regarded as permanent. The forces that could formerly have offered a die-hard opposition to economic control are theres fore so much weakened that they are unlikely to prove effective no matter what party is in power after the war. Order With Liberty The great problem of our time is to secure order and central direction, without regimentation and without killing the opportunities for personal initiative. In our internal problems I am quite sure that we have a better chance of solving this problem than any other nation has. But the problem has also an international aspect and here, though our opportunity is splendid, the grounds for confidence are less. The Congress of Vienna after the fall of, Napoleon adopted the principle of legitimacy as its guiding star. Everywhere, as far as possible, the Governments which had existed before the French Revolution were to be restored, however unpopular they might be. It would be disastrous, in my opinion, if we were to adopt this antiquated principle, whether openly or covertly in the Congress that must take place to settle the affairs of Europe when the Nazis have been defeated. We should have against us America and Russia, the liberated populations, and the just claims of democracy. After the fall of the Kaiser the watchword was self-determina-tion. Up to a point this is a good principle, but it is, if not limited by other principles, too elastic to produce a stable world. It creates a number of small powers whose continued existence can only be secured by guarantees on the part of the great powers which they can hardly be, expected to give without some measure of control. What is to be the (continued on next page)

aw [N this talk, which was broad‘east recently in the BBC Home Service, BERTRAND RUSSELL, one of the leading philosophers of modern times, traces the various changes that have taken place among world powers over the last 2,000 years and outlines the part he feels Britain can play in the postwar world. a 4

(continued from previous page) guiding principle in the European settlement is not yet clear, but I hope, not without some reason, that it will be collective security combined with the greatest amount of national independence that is compatible with this principle. Here, also, we have a great opportunity where rational interests and the welfare of mankind go hand-in-hand. We can, if we are wise, make up what we have lost in material power by a gain in moral leadership. In this new role our country can be as great and as beneficent as it has ever been in the past, and what is best in our patriotic emotions can find full scope.