(2 of 4)
"There is a solidarity and interdependence about the modern world, both technically and morally, which makes it impossible for any nation completely to isolate itself from economic and political upheavals in the rest of the world, especially when such upheavals appear to be spreading and not declining.
"There can be no stability or peace either within nations or between nations except under laws and moral standards adhered to by all. International anarchy destroys every foundation for peace. It jeopardizes either the immediate or the future security of every nation, large or small."
Franklin Roosevelt did not advertise these words as a renunciation of a foreign policy that dated from 1920. But since the U. S. turned its back on the League of Nations, the U. S. has been sternly devoted to a policy of isolation and a theory that U. S. safety is best served by a 100% laissez faire attitude toward all international quarrels. After more than 15 years that policy was last spring embodied in a permanent Neutrality Act, just in time to die. For isolation to the U. S. means isolation from Europe and 1937 put isolation in a new light by raising a new problem in the Orient. Having failed to apply the Neutrality Act to the War in China, the President may have made it virtually impossible ever to use that law again, for henceforth other nations can legitimately cry "Why pick on us?" Last week, therefore, he went but little further in renouncing the theory behind it. He went still a long way further, however, in suggesting a contrary policy to replace it.
Quarantine. "It seems to be unfortunately true that the epidemic of world lawlessness is spreading.
"When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease. . . .
"War is a contagion, whether it be declared or undeclared. It can engulf states and peoples remote from the original scene of hostilities. We are determined to keep out of war, yet we cannot insure ourselves against the disastrous effects of war and the dangers of involvement. We are adopting such measures as will minimize our risk of involvement, but we cannot have complete protection in a world of disorder in which confidence and security have broken down. . . .
"There must be positive endeavors to preserve peace.
"America hates war., America hopes for peace. Therefore, America actively engages in the search for peace."