committed acts elsewhere than where they physically were at the time.

There are now techniques which make it possible to alter profoundly the human spirit. Furthermore, this can be done on a mass scale. Certain falsehoods are incessantly pounded, without respite, into the consciousness of those whose minds are terrorized, whose spirits are disheartened, and whose bodies are weakened from malnutrition. In the end the peoples become abnormal.

One cannot but shrink from buying peace at the price of extending over human beings the rule of those who believe that men are in fact nothing more than animated bits of matter and that, to insure harmony and conformity, they should be deprived of the capacity for moral and intellectual judgment. Man, we read in the Holy Scriptures, was made a little lower than the angels. Should man now be made little, if any, higher than domesticated animals which serve the purposes of their human masters?

So men face the great dilemma of when and whether to use force to resist aggression which imposes conditions which violate the moral law and the concept that man has his origin and his destiny in God. Another dilemma which we face is that which I might call the dilemma of maps vs. people.

Maps have an extraordinary fascination and a profound influence. They provide a temptation to seize as solutions what are not real solutions.

Up until a few years ago, the American people were educated in terms of maps of Mercator's projection. They showed the North American Continent isolated from the rest of the world by the expanse of great oceans. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, spoke of our detached and distant situation."3 That concept, originally valid, has dominated the greater part of our national life.

Now we face a world in which air is the means of communication. But air cannot be portrayed by maps alone. It is an invisible envelope that enfolds the earth without a break. So maps now need the supplement of an intelligent imagination. Some help can be got from polar maps. They help to teach that under modern conditions of communication areas which used to seem remote are in fact near.

1 Psalms 8:5.

2 Webster's Geographical Dictionary (Springfield, Mass., 1949) defines (p. xxvi) Mercator's projection as being a map on which "the earth as a whole is printed as a rectangle on which parallels and meridians appear as straight lines intersecting at right angles. All parallels of latitude have the same length as the central one, the equator (whereas actually they get progressively smaller toward the poles), and all meridians are parallel throughout their entire length (whereas actually they converge to a point at each pole)."

Address of Sept. 17, 1796; James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, vol. I (Washington, 1896), pp. 213–224. 4 Webster's Geographical Dictionary defines a polar azimuthal equidistant projection as "constructed around a central point, and the scale changes with the distance from this point. . . . The scale along radii from this center is constant while the scale expands along circles (parallels of latitude) having this point as center, in proportion to the increasing size of the circles (in a polar projection of the whole world, the antipode is grotesquely exaggerated, appearing as the outermost circle)."

Under present circumstances, divisions of land and water, of desert and mountain range, of river and of plain, have lost much of their significance. More than ever before, the human family has become

one.

Nevertheless, it is still necessary to draw lines. There are national lines, which have a meaning. But even national lines do not have an unchanging meaning. That is well illustrated by Europe. A map of Europe today looks as it did a few weeks ago. But, in fact, in Western Europe an immense change is in process. It means that while nationalities will still exist, there will be cooperation so that the boundary lines will have lost much of their former forbidding significance. A new Western Europe is being born, and maps cannot reflect the ending of age-old rivalries.

In Korea the 38th parallel became famous as a line between the free and Communist-dominated parts of Korea. But the line did not demarcate the hopes and aspirations of the people. I recall being in Korea in June 19501 and addressing at Seoul a religious gathering of thousands of refugees. They had fled from the north and crossed the parallel to the south in the hope of finding the freedom of religion which they cherished.

In Viet-Nam a line was drawn at the 17th parallel. But hundreds of thousands of refugees have crossed it, fleeing to the south. Again the driving force was a longing for religious freedom.

And there is this to be remembered: For each person who succeeds in becoming a refugee from communism, there are many more who do not want to be contained by the lines which statesmen have drawn in the hope that that would solve their problems.

In the world today, with air the means of communication, with time and space almost annihilated, geography still remains a fact. But geographical solutions rarely coincide with human solutions. That is why we do not accept the finality of a divided world.

Another dilemma that we face might be described as that of the part vs. the entire story.

It is almost always easy to find a solution if only part of a problem is known. It is my experience that those who are most positive about political problems are able to be positive only because they do not know all the relevant facts. Those who are most harsh in their judgments are able to be harsh for that same reason. When the whole of a problem is known, solutions become excessively difficult and judgments are not easily made. Tolerance has become a vital need.

There is hardly any international problem which lends itself to easy or sure solution. Those who principally know Europe readily judge that the problems of Asia are unimportant and that almost any solution will serve so long as it does not trouble Europe. Those who are principally concerned with Asia are sometimes annoyed if it is suggested that Asian problems cannot be solved without regard for Europe.

The fact is that today any problem in any part of the world ramifies 1 See Department of State Bulletin, July 10, 1950, pp. 49–50.

into almost every part of the world. There are no longer any simple problems, nor any easy solutions. A course of action for Indochina may have to be judged in the light of its repercussions in Europe, the Middle East, or Moscow, and vice versa.

I have the impression that in the days before the world became so unified it was easier to take decisions. The issues were, or seemed to be, simple. Also, they could readily be explained. Today almost every problem has many complications, so that it is difficult adequately to explain the reasons for a decision and the multiple factors which go to make up that decision.

There is a habit of mind which is sometimes called "localitis." Those who are close to a problem, or those who only see part of a problem, quickly find a solution that seems obvious. Those who know more may find that the "obvious" solution is no solution at all. Balancing scales may, from one angle, seem clearly weighted on one side. But when seen in proper perspective, they may seem to be equally balanced, or weighted on the other side.

This need for balancing many factors has some undesirable consequences. I have already alluded to the fact that it makes adequate explanation difficult. Also, it often tends to deprive decisions of the dynamic quality which is needed to make them effective. Often the mainspring of action is a sense of certainty. Unhappily, those who are best informed are often deprived of that satisfaction.

The great deeds of history were wrought primarily by men with deep conviction and dynamic faith. They were sure that they were right.

It seems today that sureness can be dependably found only in the spiritual realm but that, when moral principles are sought to be practically applied, confidence tends to vanish. Certainty is not readily found in the mundane realm, at least where there is full knowledge of the facts. The yearning for more certainty and precision than is compatible with the complexity of affairs encourages only doctrinaire or fanatical attitudes and ultimate disillusionment. Perhaps it is good if fanaticism, in worldly terms, is on the way out. Then we have the dilemma which might be called that of the spiritual vs. the material.

There are some who believe that moral considerations ought not to influence the foreign policy of a nation, that moral considerations are all right for the individual but not for the collective unity. Corporate bodies, it is argued, should be directed only by material considerations.

It is, I suppose, always true that those who act in a representative and trustee capacity do not have the same freedom as is had by individuals in dealing with their own lives and the property they own. Thus, directors of a corporation are, in general, not free to use corporate assets for charitable purposes unconnected with the welfare of the corporation. To a degree, I suppose, the same principles apply to those who are trustees for a nation.

It is, indeed, generally the case that those who represent a government operate only for the immediate and direct self-interest of the

nation they represent. That is why suspicion generally attaches to governmental grants. It is assumed that governments do not give away their taxpayers' money unless they see some specific quid pro quo. The Government of the United States has, I like to believe, a rather unique tradition in this respect. Our nation was founded as an experiment in human liberty. Our institutions reflect the belief of our founders that all men were endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights and had duties prescribed by moral law. They believed that human institutions ought primarily to help men develop their God-given possibilities and that our nation, by its conduct and example, could help men everywhere to find the way to a better and more abundant life.

Our nation realized that vision. There developed here an area of spiritual and economic vigor the like of which the world had never seen. It was no exclusive preserve; indeed, world mission was a central theme. Millions were welcomed from other lands, to share equally the opportunities of the founders and their heirs. We put our experiment on public exhibition so that all might see and follow if they would. Through the establishment of schools and hospitals, often under religious auspices, American ideals were carried throughout the world. We gave aid and comfort to those elsewhere who sought to follow in our way and to develop for themselves societies of greater human freedom.

We

These conditions prevailed for 100 years and more. Then, as our material power waxed, our spiritual power seemed to wane. appeared to be less concerned with conducting a great experiment for the benefit of mankind and to be more concerned with piling up for ourselves material advantages. Our vision seemed to contract, and our sense of mission to lessen.

We had to meet the severest test that can come to a people, the test of prosperity.

It was said by Jesus that material things will be added unto those who seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. But when that happens, then comes the great trial. For, as Jesus warned, those material things can readily become the rust that corrodes men's souls.1

Thus there is a familiar pattern. Men who feel a sense of duty to some higher Being strive here to do His will. Because of their faith, they have power and virtue and simple wisdom. They build not only for the day, but for the morrow; not merely for themselves, but for mankind. A society so founded will, when nature favors, produce wealth and luxury for many. When those byproducts come, they seem so good that they become promoted to be the all-sufficient end. So there came a time when our people were drawn away from longrange creative effort and when they struggled to get and to hold material things. Practices originally designed to reflect a faith may not have been adequately vitalized by continuing faith. I believe, however, that it can fairly be said that, since the end of World War II, our nation has recaptured the faith in which it was founded and has

'Matthew 6:33.

resumed works such as those which in the past were called "The Great American Experiment.'

With 60 other nations we have actively participated in the United Nations in its quest for peace. We have lent our moral, military, and material support to many free people. With more than 40 nations we have special mutual security arrangements. These measures are our contribution to the creation of a world which is safer and more secure for human freedom. This basic interest is the common bond between us and the other free nations.

We exert in every part of the world an influence--an influence which we try, as far as is humanly possible, to make an influence for justice and not an influence for self-aggrandizement.

No doubt we have made mistakes. But broadly speaking, our nation has played a role which I believe history will judge to have been honorable. It is a role which we could not have played unless those who exercised the power of government had believed that they were justified in putting moral considerations above material considerations. I have outlined some of the problems and perplexities which confront those who have political responsibility. I have deliberately tried to avoid being dogmatic. Rather I have sought to stimulate your own thinking. I will, however, close with this general observation:

It seems to me that a nation situated as is ours needs to follow a consistent and predictable course. We represent great power in the world-morally, intellectually, and materially. Other peoples and nations who are free and want to stay free usually want to coordinate their policies with our own. I do not speak now of coordination in detail. As to details, there are almost always differences. That is inevitable, because differences are the attribute of freedom. only despotism that produces conformity. I do, however, speak of such basic harmony as freely emerges from those who feel a sense of common destiny and who want to help, and be helped by, each other.

It is

A measure of harmony exists today throughout much of the free world. It binds together, in a spirit of partnership, many of different races, creeds, and nationalities in many parts of the world. But the harmony for which many thus grope will never be perfected and preserved unless the United States pursues a dependable, consistent

course.

There are many who, in particular cases, would like it if the United States would deviate from our basic principles to help them meet their particular problems. We rarely do so. That accounts for much of the superficial criticism we encounter abroad. But underlying these surface dissatisfactions lies, I feel, a deep, worldwide sense of respect for the United States because, even though we sometimes fall short, we do in general stand like a rock for certain principles and follow a course which, in its broad nature, is consistent and predictable. Without that, there can never be harmony and a sense of security as among the free peoples.

Obviously, a consistent and dependable national course must have a base broader than the particular beliefs of those who from time to