Mr. Hoover's Proposals

In the political ding-donging of internationalists v. isolationists, the Democratic Party is sitting pretty: it gets credit for favoring "world cooperation" without having to make any specific commitments. But Republicans, accused of being "isolationists," are constantly pressed to define exactly how much "cooperation" they are for. This may, in the end, be good for them--since Republicans, forced to think, may wind up with much clearer ideas.

One Republican who has already contributed some concrete principles to the postwar discussion is Herbert Hoover. This week, in Collier's, Elder Statesman Hoover and Hugh Gibson, his onetime Ambassador to Belgium, completed a series of four notable articles.

Realists Hoover & Gibson--internationalists with reservations--believe that the U.S., however much it favors freedom and democracy, should not attempt to force its ideas on any peoples who are otherwise minded. They do not believe (with an aside to Republican Wendell Willkie) that we now have "one world in the terms of political and social or philosophic and religious outlook."

Thus, they think, the U.S. must deal with governments and social systems as they are. Messrs. Hoover & Gibson favor "cooperation" and "joint action" by all nations, urge some sort of "world institution" to preserve the peace. This is far distant from a world supergovernment, and Mr. Hoover seems glad of it.

The Peace--and After. Right now, Hoover & Gibson urge, some of the leading United Nations should be selected as "Trustees of Peace," who would, as soon as fighting ends, maintain world order, restore international law and set up the permanent "world institution."

As in his previous writings, Hoover argues for a "conditional peace" first. During this period, the Axis nations would surrender their arms, demobilize armies, return loot and repatriate prisoners.

But the United Nations would not attempt military occupation of Axis countries--nor, to avoid future hates, would they attempt such drastic solutions as the dismemberment of Germany. Instead, they would grant their enemies the right to resume trade and shipping, would restore prewar commercial treaties, would themselves begin to disarm in preparation for a return to real peace.

Following the "conditional peace" would come a transition period, when Axis war leaders would be punished, reparations and debts settled, final boundaries determined. Small nations would form federations; disarmament would be completed. A permanent world institution would be set up to administer international law, protect minorities, reduce world-trade barriers and guard the freedom of sea and air.

Mr. Hoover & Mr. Gibson do not attempt the presently impossible job of defining their world institution in concrete terms, but they do point out in detail why they believe the League of Nations failed. Presumably, the world institution would be something like the League of Nations--with Hoover & Gibson improvements.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.