In my telegram 199 of 30th November [1], and my telegram 305 of
3rd December [2], and my telegram No. 18 of 21st January [3], I
have touched on Post War Policy and given you some indications as
to the trend of thought here.

The time has now arrived when it is necessary that I should be
more specific and should seek an indication of your Government's
attitude and your guidance as to the line you desire me to follow.

Probably the best course will be for me to give you my thoughts on
the subject.

The approach to a consideration of post war problems I suggest
should be-
(1) How important are they.

(2) How urgent is it to formulate a definite policy in regard to
them.

(3) What should that policy be.

With regard to (1) victory when it comes will have been achieved
by the efforts, sacrifices, and sufferings of the ordinary people.

They are entitled to their reward.

This reward is best expressed in Roosevelt's Four Freedoms. [4] If
these are realised it means to the ordinary men and women an
opportunity to live under decent economic conditions with a
reasonable measure of social security.

If this war is followed by a period of disillusionment and
frustration such as followed the 1914/18 War, unrest and social
upheaval will be rampant culminating in another world war which
will destroy civilisation.

My answer to the first question therefore is that post war
problems are of transcending importance.

With regard to (2) if the conditions we desire to achieve are to
be brought about there are two essentials-
(a) World security must be ensured and nations freed from the
paralysing burden of armaments and from [basing] [5] national
economics on considerations of defence.

(b) Drastic alterations must be effected in international
financial and economic structure which as it functioned before the
war could not support the needed expansion of world trade and
economic activity.

For the accomplishment of (a) and (b) international co-operation
on a scale never previously contemplated will be required.

To obtain this co-operation must of necessity take time as will
the working out of detailed arrangements to give effect to any
broad principles upon which agreement has been reached.

To delay until victory before commencing these tasks would, to my
mind, be fatal and would defeat the possibility of achieving our
objectives. This view is strongly supported by Sumner Welles (my
telegram 199 of 30th November, 1942).

Apart from the fact that to leave issues of such moment to
eleventh hour improvisation would be criminal, the atmosphere once
victory is achieved would be far less favourable to success.

With the end of the war nations will again assess everything in
terms of their own individual interests, privileged and vested
interests will resume their fight for their own selfish ends both
openly and underground.

Only by getting agreement between the United Nations before the
war is over to broad principles and setting machinery in motion
for carrying out the detailed planning is there, in my view, hope
of ensuring the necessary far reaching and imaginative action.

My answer to the second question is that there is the utmost
urgency.

With regard to (3) the objectives of our policy would be-
(a) To ensure the security of, and to remove fear of aggression
from, all nations.

(b) To provide the means for dealing with political questions
between nations and for just settlement of differences when they
arise.

(c) To promote co-operation between nations in regard to economic
and social questions.

A short note on each of these objectives is contained in
paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 of my telegram No. 18 of 21st January,
1943.

The immediate issue that has to be determined before any approach
to the United States or to the U.S.S.R. can be made is how do we
visualise security being provided.

There are two possible ways this can be provided for apart from
individual nations having to ensure their own security. These two
methods are-
(a) By a group of nations, e.g. the United Nations, undertaking to
police the world by their own national forces.

When the present war ends the United Nations will be very closely
linked by their common sacrifices and efforts. The United Kingdom,
the United States, and the U.S.S.R. will have great national
forces which must maintain world peace during the immediate post
war periods. Can anyone, however, predict with confidence that
this close unity will continue. Can anyone ensure that the three
great powers will continue to play their part in relation to world
affairs, e.g. America; or that antagonisms and differences might
not grow up between them, e.g. the U.S.S.R. and the United
Kingdom.

Further, under this method we would be faced with the problem that
proved insoluble at the Disarmament Conference of determining the
relative strengths between the armed forces of different nations.

(b) By the establishment of an international authority supported
by adequate force. This presents many obvious difficulties. Taking
as an axiom that some plan has to be devised which will have as
its objective the maintenance of peace in the world, I do not
believe that these difficulties are any greater or in fact as
great as those we would have to overcome in organising a system of
co-operation between the armed forces of individual nations.

The predominant position the air has now achieved renders the task
less difficult. A start could be made by an international air
force which, incidentally, would have the advantage of paving the
way for solution of civil air problems which, it seems probable,
can only be done by internationalisation.

Having started with the air, the general system of security could
be built round it, but this would take a little time. This could
be afforded by the United Kingdom, the United States and the
U.S.S.R. undertaking to maintain the peace of the world for a
definite period after the war. These three powers would, I
believe, be prepared to undertake this obligation and their doing
so would be acceptable to the rest of the world provided that it
was for a limited period with a definite objective.

In my view the provision of security and freedom from fear of
aggression can best be assured by accepting the principles of an
international authority supported by adequate force.

If this view is not accepted the alternative method contemplated
must be laid down with precision as progress cannot be made with
regard to international economic co-operation until the policy
with regard to security is defined.

With agreement on a clear cut scheme as to how security problem is
to be dealt with, the way would be open for consideration of post
war economic policy and the means whereby maximum international
cooperation can be assured. A great deal of first class thinking
is going on, both here and in the United States, e.g. the
International Clearing Union and Buffer Stocks [schemes] and work
in regard to communications and transport. All of this thinking
and work, however, wants drawing
together and co-ordinating. This cannot be left until after the
war when, in default of agreed plans, shortsighted nationalistic
policies will tend to strain the cohesion of the United Nations. I
feel that an authority should be created at the earliest possible
date to deal with all economic reconstruction problems; possible
model of the proposed relief administration might be taken.

Subject to decisions on (1) post war security, (2) the early
creation of an authority to deal with economic questions, the
broad outline of the post war organisation as I see it would be-
1. Relief authority. You have already been advised with regard to
this. [6]

2. Economic authority. This would have to be on a world wide basis
as economic and social questions cannot be localised.

3. Regional Councils. These would be organised on a regional basis
and would deal with political and other questions of particular
interest to the area concerned.

These councils, I suggest, might be (a) Europe, (b) Far East, (c)
Middle East, (d) Pan-America. On further consideration I do not
favour the idea of British Empire or U.S.S.R. being constituted as
Regional Councils.

4. World Council. This, I suggest, should be composed of
representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States, the
U.S.S.R. and China plus three representatives of each of the
Regional Councils. This World Council would probably have to have
a special executive dealing with security.

5. The above may appear somewhat far reaching. In my view,
however, our best chance with the Americans is to take a bold
course. I believe that they will be more receptive to an
imaginative and clear cut proposal, however ambitious, than to
suggestions for co-operation in progressively working towards a
solution. This line of approach would also, I feel, have more
chance of success with the Russians. In any case won't we be
forced by world opinion as soon as the war ends, if not before, to
produce a bold plan?
After the war of 1914-18 the world was so sick of war that it
demanded that measures should be taken to ensure that it would not
recur. This demand produced the League of Nations plan. Whatever
else that plan may have lacked it was not deficient in boldness.

It provided for outlawry of war, progressive disarmament and
peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. After the tragedy
and suffering of this war I do not believe that the world will
accept any lesser objective.

Your so called hard headed practical man will of course take the
line that failure of the League of Nations has shown the futility
of these over-ambitious projects. This argument I will not accept.

The machinery we created in the League of Nations failed. The
necessity of realising the objective for which the League of
Nations was established is stronger than ever. The task of
statesmanship is to point out the way by which it can be achieved
and to enlist the support of the peoples of the world in giving
effect to it.

BRUCE