Great Debate on Foreign Policy Still Rages for Five Professors

The Great Debate is over, five College professors agreed this week. Yet their own theories on future foreign policy--on "where do we go from here?" indicate that the debate still persists.

A majority of the professors supported large sections of current American policy, but opinions varied widely. The most extreme views were held by Pitirim A. Sorokin, professor of Sociology, who called for "the immediate cessation of the Korean War by the withdrawal of our troops, complete disarmament, and a clause written into the constitution of every country outlawing war."

Sorokin admitted that his plan for peace might not be practicable. "If not," he continued, "all the easy palliatives of Hoover and Taft lead to full-scale destruction. It is better to prepare for full war than subscribe to these."

U. S. Just as Aggressive

"What we need," said Sorokin, "is a new creative foreign policy. America has a real chance in human history to construct this kind of a policy. There is still a chance." The U. S. would be making a start, he feels, by sharing atomic resources as well as food.

Behind those proposals in Sorokin's feeling that "our government is no less aggressive than the Soviet government. We are already 75 percent totalitarian." It is not the Russian or American people, he contended, but the rulers who are behind all the trouble.

"They are cynical and hypocritical, and in periods of disintegration, like our own, they become more brutal than over."

War would not be so bad, Sorokin said, "if Truman and his Politburo fought Stalin and his Politburo." Sorokin favors starting the draft at 60 and working downwards. "It is the old, conscienceless, reasonless fellows who are cynically sacrificing our youth. The 18-year-olds are the last people I would pick."

Back to Caves

If there were a third World War, he believes that "it would take about half of the human population. People would be going back to caves, not as youths, but as old men with all the life drained from them."

The other four professors questioned did not differ nearly so much as Sorokin with current policy. They indicated that most faculty members would endorse the broad outlines of America's present foreign program. But immediate concern was expressed by Charles R. Cherington '35, associate professor of Government, who said that the coming year will be the most vulnerable time for the United States.

"After that we will have fortified Europe--not with four, but more likely 24 divisions."

The die has already been cast, Cherington commented; only a hard core of isolationists remain. Indeed, he believes, that America's chief strength lies in having accepted the role of leader in the Western world.

Pacifism Not Inherent

"We have committed ourselves to the defense of Western Europe," Cherington said, "and we must provide leadership and example to activate the people of Europe." This commitment, he feels, was assured by Eisenhower's report, for "pacifism is not an inherent part of the American system of values."

Regarding the future, Cherington maintained that an effective world government will not be possible for a long time to come--"only when the Russian government has been completely transformed from its present state. Right now world federalism is palpably absurd; it would be like an alliance between the 13 Colonies and imperial Spain."

Arthur N. Holcombe '06, Eaton Professor of the Science of Government, disagreed with Cherington on world government. According to Holcombe, world federalism has been, and still is, one of our major objectives.

Resolving the Great Debate

"Unconditional surrender in the last war meant nothing," he said, "if we now neglect the ideals for which we were fighting. America is throwing away her opportunities. To insure peace, we must strengthen the U.N. since we are no longer in the pre-atomic age for which it was designed."

The Great Debate has been resolved in Holcombe's mind differently than in the minds of many others. "The United States is sending troops aboard to give pledges--not to defend Europe. Eisenhower has shown that we are not interested in rearming Germany."

The Cold War is over, Holcombe feels. "We lost it when China moved into Korea," but he believes that Americans have exaggerated the warlike disposition of the Soviets. "They won't provoke a general war."

As far as the ideological conflict with Russia is concerned, Archibald MacLeish, Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory, said that "time is on our side." "If we can avoid a police state--McCarthyism--we may well have a fairly pleasant period of peace ahead of us. Russia has frozen itself into a static state, while we have the fundamental strength and resiliency of self-government behind us."

Taking the Responsibility

The policy of containment, MacLeish noted, is an ambiguous position in foreign policy. "A ring of force would insure peace, but it must be an effective ring. Passive containment will not work; it won't hold back the stooges."

MacLeish commented that the important question at present is "how much are we going to accept our responsibilities now that the debate is over?" He added that "Mr. Hoover holds as much ground as he did in the beginning of the debate: none at all."

The primary objections to Hoover's isolationist theories are not military, MacLeish said. "These can be disposed of in two sentences." What is important is that "temperamentally, we must follow our convictions. We cannot cower in cellars."

"The Russians," according to Mac- Leish, "are motivated too much by self-interest to consider war. It would be a terribly costly business." Political and social infiltration, he believes, will be their chief methods of encroachment in the near future.

MacLeish hopes that, to combat this, the trend will be toward world government. This will not be possible, MacLeish feels, while Russia remains "in the tin can in which she lives."

Bundy Backs MacLeish

McGeorge Bundy, lecturer on Government agreed with MacLeish that containment was toe passive a foreign policy. "What is necessary is active opposition to Soviet imperialism. You can't just build the dike and then put your thumb in it."

In line with this theory of resistance, Bundy feels that MacArthur should move across the 38th parallel--perhaps at first on tactical maneuvers. If these succeed, he should keep going to Pyonyang. "Otherwise they're getting off awfully cheap," Bundy commented, "and aggression shouldn't pay."

The re-armament of Europe advocated by Eisenhower, Bundy said, will have two results. It will deter the Russians and will strengthen the will and confidence of Europe. "It is the natural continuation of the Marshall Plan.