year and statistics of the land areas inhabited by the respective populations. Outlying territories and possessions are excluded from the figures.

Population and land area in 12 countries

Source: For country populations, United Nations Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, January 1951; for world population, United Nations Statistical Papers, series A, vol. II, No. 4, December 1950; for country land areas, Bartholomew's Atlas, 1949, and United Nations Demographic Yearbook 1948, with an adjustment for Western Germany to include a portion of Berlin; for world land area, Goode's School Atlas.

The United States is obviously not the largest country in either population or land area; nevertheless it ranks high in both respects. Moreover, in considering population statistics with reference to the relative economic strength of nations, levels of health, literacy, and individual productive skill must be taken into account as well as numbers. The populations that compare favorably with that of the United States in health, literacy, and productive skills are all very much smaller in numbers.

Steel production capacity is usually accepted as one of the best measures of developed industrial strength. The following tabulation shows the production capacity for crude steel of the 12 countries ranking highest, estimated as of January 1, 1950, together with percentages of the world total.

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, World Trade in Commodities, Metals and Minerals, vol. VIII, pt. 23, No. 6, April 1950. The figure for Western Germany is for existing steel-making furnaces; legally that country is permitted to produce a maximum of 11,100,000 metric tons of crude steel annually. The figure for Japan is likewise for existing capacity, which may become subject to a limitation to be agreed upon.

The pre-eminent position of the United States in steel productive capacity is obvious from the above figures; similar comparisons for many other fields of heavy industry and for the electric power and railroad industries would point to the same conclusion.

All aspects of economic strength tend to be reflected in national income. Estimates of income for the 12 highest ranking countries are shown in the following tabulation.

Sources: Statistical Office of the United Nations, Statistical Papers, series E, No. 1, October 1950, National and Per Capita Incomes of 70 Countries in 1949, Expressed in United States Dollars, for all country income figures; the world total was estimated by the Brookings Institution on a comparable basis from the facts contained in the cited publication, and the country percentages were then computed.

The existing disproportion between the income-producing capacity of the United States and that of the other leading countries is one of the most extraordinary phenomena in the world today. It is a basic factor in many present international relationships.

The two world wars tended to accelerate growth in the United States that would probably have occurred in any event; but their effect on the relative position of the United States was even more important because of the devastation and disruption that occurred in the other large industrial countries.

Technological influences

Technology has also been a basic factor in the development of the existing world situation and of the position of the United States in relation to that of the rest of the world. The major advances in technology have been easily available and useful to the United States and unequally available and useful to other countries. The superior growth rates of the United States in productive capacity and wealth have reflected its superior ability to translate scientific advances into industrial knowledge and to disseminate considerable amounts of technical information throughout large parts of the population. But technology also has two other major areas of direct impact on interna

tional relations in addition to its industrial consequences. One has been in the development of new weapons; the other in the development of rapid communications and transport.

The new weapons, particularly the long-range aircraft and the atomic bomb, have ended the physical and military isolation of the United States while giving it the means to project its power on an immensely extended scale.

Modern methods of communication and transport have put an end to isolation in still another sense. Information travels around the world through the channels of mass communication almost with the speed of light. Confidential official information moves in code or by courier far more rapidly than formerly. Leading public figures can meet anywhere in the world on short notice. These changes have increased the speed with which events make their effects felt, have hastened the impact of events upon opinion, and have enlarged the flow of information to be taken into account by all policymakers.

Consequence of shifts in power relationship

The long-term changes resulting from growth, the impact of the two world wars, and the pervasive influence of technology have all had their effects upon the distribution of power among the leading countries.

The most striking change in the relative positions of the major states has been the emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as the two most powerful nations, the relative decline of the United Kingdom in terms of its capacity to exert a strong, world-wide influence on the course of events, the decline of Europe as a whole, and the emergence in Asia of states seeking to establish themselves as national units free from colonial controls. The new activity in Asia in world affairs, coming during a period of uncertainty and readjustment in Europe, has repeatedly made it necessary for the United States to reassess its relationships to both areas. The changing situation, moreover, contains explosive potentialities, of which the Chinese aggression in Korea is one example.

The consequences of the shifts in power relationships were not immediately apparent after the Second World War. The United States assumed that cooperation with the Soviet Union would be possible and underestimated the amount of political instability that could be expected to develop in many parts of the world. In consequence, there was a failure to maintain a sufficient level of military strength in readiness to support fully the functions of leadership that had devolved upon the United States.

For a time the illusion prevailed that the United States could do anything it wished internationally by the use of economic means. This illusion arose in part because the United States was the only one of the major nations to emerge from the war with its industrial capac

ity intact. This favorable industrial position gave a freedom of maneuver in world affairs for several years that would not otherwise have existed.

The challenge to the organization of a peaceful world by the heavily armed Soviet Union and its satellites has demonstrated that military strength must be available to support the other components of power if the objectives of foreign policy are to be attained in a world of armed force. The challenge has also demonstrated the need for close association and cooperation among the free nations if they are to survive.

The peripheral mentality to which reference was made early in this chapter still crops out in unilateral proposals and actions. Such actions neglect the relationship of the United States to other countries and its need for their support in the pursuit of objectives that can be attained only through collective action.

Leadership cannot be exercised even in a central position unless the reciprocal aspects of the relationship are accepted. The fact that the United States occupies a new position in the world is recognized intellectually in many quarters, but the psychological follow-through is not complete.

THE NATIONAL INTERESTS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE UNITED STATES

The task of conducting the foreign relations of the United States is a comprehensive one. It has no clear beginning, because it is conditioned by the past. It has no clear end, for the situations with which it deals are changed, by the very act of dealing with them, into new situations. It is a continuing activity carried out in a dynamic context. It cannot be precisely delimited. It does not break down into fixed categories. It does not permit final or absolute decisions.

In its short-term form, the task of conducting foreign relations consists of devising the multiple actions to be taken in a continuous stream of interrelated situations. These actions, or solutions of immediate problems, must in general conform to certain requirements if the pattern of action as a whole is to succeed. They must be adjusted to the limitations that check the absolute freedom of decision and action by the United States. They must work toward the objectives that have been defined as essential to the national interests. Most important of all, they must correspond with the general, longterm national interests of the United States.

The essential national interests of the United States, like those of other nations, are survival, security, and well-being. The means of attaining national interests are not the same for all countries and

may change for the same country over a period of time. Often, however, there may be a choice among three main lines of approach.

One approach is unilateral. It would concentrate on the development of internal strength and would seek to capitalize on any factors in the national position that facilitate a strong line of independent action.

A second approach relies on alliances. It assumes that any threat to survival or security can best be met by building a sufficiently strong coalition of friendly countries, thereby balancing or containing the power of any unfriendly country or group of countries.

A third approach seeks to build a universal organization for the maintenance of law and order. This approach assumes that all countries are unsafe as long as the possibility of unpunished aggression remains, and that collective measures for the putting down of aggression must accordingly be organized on a world-wide basis.

Each of the approaches has been put forward by its special advocates as the approach that should be favored to the exclusion of all others. There is no doubt that the attempt to pursue two or even all three of the approaches at the same time complicates decisions, runs the risk of conflicting actions, and is difficult of administration in every way. Nonetheless, it seems to be the sense of a majority of the American people that all three approaches are necessary under present conditions, that they must be kept in balance, and that specific policies must be devised accordingly.

In such a framework, the broadest and most long-term objective of the United States Government in its foreign relations appears to remain the attainment of a world order in which all nations, large and small, can live in peace and security and enjoy a growing measure of prosperity and well-being. This implies a world of sovereign states, each one of which is politically and economically stable, and each of which is able and willing to harmonize its interests with those of the others by continuous coordination and cooperation through an international system. Support for the United Nations remains the official cornerstone of United States foreign policy.

At the same time, the threat to world peace is at present so urgent, and the ability of the United Nations to deal with it so limited, that other measures must be taken. Obviously the primary goal of the United States in the present national emergency is to counteract or overcome the expansionist and aggressive actions of Communist imperialism. The specific means of achieving this goal include the further development of military and industrial strength; the development of regional arrangements for combined defense; and the strengthening of associated and friendly nations and governments. A further objective, related but distinct, is to assist in building up the underdeveloped regions of the world, where conditions of poverty,

953820-51- -3