"PERFECTION" v. "REALITY"

The Protestant churchmen at Cleveland (see col. 3) made a tremendous concession when they waived their moral and practical doubts of Dumbarton Oaks.

This bow to an imperfect world came only after intense and elevated debate between those who preferred a faulty beginning to none at all, and those who felt that the Protestant churches of the U.S. would fail in their duty if they compromised with the crude expediency of power politics. Leading the debate were two distinguished antagonists: John Foster Dulles and Charles Clayton Morrison, editor of the Christian Century, who rejected the label of "perfectionism" but perfectly stated the perfectionist case.

"Invitation to a Wake?" In a well-timed issue (Jan. 10) of the Christian Century, Editor Morrison wrote down the substance of what he was to say:

". . . Since the Dumbarton Oaks plan was announced . . . Europe . . . has reverted to power politics. . . . Postwar Europe, as recent developments reveal, is to be based on naked power politics, operating within a balance-of-power framework . . .

"In the presence of such an actual situation as this, what becomes of Dumbarton Oaks? It is left the palest of ghosts. It slips through the corridors of the world's chancelleries so insubstantial a wraith that no man can lay hand on it and say, 'Here is a living, breathing, corporeal body!' . . . For what purpose, then, are the delegates going to Cleveland? Is it an invitation to a wake? . . .

"Those who tried to make the mass of Americans believe Dumbarton Oaks would provide a true federation of all nations and peoples for the building of a lasting peace have faced an almost impossible task. In desperation they have been driven to saying: '. . . Take this, bad as it is, and later make it what it should be.' Yet while they said it, they have known that . . . there is no basis whatever for belief that nations which in this hour of peril will not offer anything better in the form of world organization than this military alliance will change their policies in the future. . . .

"But Dumbarton Oaks is not perishing today on account of [its] weaknesses. Conceivably, they could be corrected. . . . Dumbarton Oaks is a ghost-project today because the common sense of the common people has asserted itself to ask one question: What kind of peace is this Dumbarton Oaks charter asking us to guarantee? Until that question can be answered in a way to satisfy the moral demands of the American people, any effort to make them rise to enthusiastic support of Dumbarton Oaks is just so much time wasted. . . . Win a decent peace, a reconciling peace, and a true 'general international organization' for its maintenance will become not only possible but inevitable. But let that peace degenerate into a vicious scramble for power blocs, for puppets and satellites, for empire, for trade advantages, for strategic frontiers, and the Dumbarton Oaks scheme will pass from its present state of suspended animation into final death."

Invitation to the Arena. In the conference's only full-dress speech, Mr. Dulles faced up to the current failures of collaboration in Europe. He observed that Joseph Stalin could be blamed for putting his power-political materialism above all else, Winston Churchill for putting his Empire ahead of the world's good, Franklin Roosevelt for retreating into "lofty generalities."

But, said Lawyer Dulles:

"Supposing all that is true, what of it? It is because such things are usual that we need organized collaboration. . . .

"The fact is that this nation has not yet adjusted itself to the working conditions of collaboration. A majority of our people now accept, in the abstract, the proposition that international trouble anywhere is of potential concern to us. They agree that, since this is so, it logically follows that our Government ought to take a responsible part in dealing with troubles elsewhere. But, actually, they inspire our Government with fears that it cannot collaborate and still retain the confidence of the people. . . .

"We cannot expect our Government to seek to cooperate on world problems unless that is what the American people want and unless they want it sufficiently to be tolerant of results which, in themselves, will often be unsatisfactory. . . .

"This 'tolerance' ... is not a compromise of our ideals. Rather, it is the acceptance, provisionally, of practical situations which fall short of our ideals. The vital word in that sentence is the word 'provisionally.' We cannot agree to solutions which fall short of our ideals if thereby we become morally bound to sustain and perpetuate them. That would be stultifying. It is the possibility of change which is the bridge between idealism and the practical incidents of collaboration. That possibility is an imperative for Christians. . . .

"Our Government should adopt and publicly proclaim its long-range goals. . . . Our Government should not merely talk about its ideals. It must get down into the arena and fearlessly and skillfully battle for them.... It must be made clear that collaboration implies not merely a spirit of compromise but equally a right on the part of every nation to persist in efforts to realize its ideals."

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