Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Has the United States Overextended Its Commitments to Resist Communism?

Louis Fischer
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Vol. 342, American Foreign Policy Challenged (Jul., 1962), pp. 59-68
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1033161
Page Count: 10
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($40.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Has the United States Overextended Its Commitments to Resist Communism?
Preview not available

Abstract

The United States, given the present world situation, is undercommitted, not overcommitted, in foreign affairs. The United States has entered the twentieth century. With the help of the United States, West Europe has, also. Africa, Asia, China, Latin America remain in the nineteenth century, some areas in the eighteenth century. Japan is industrially and technologically in the twentieth century and socially in the nineteenth or an earlier century. There are in the United States, to be sure, vestiges of earlier ages. The present world conflict arises from disparities in development between camps. In terms of relations between the major camps, the major crises since World War II offer a formula: Where either the United States or the Soviet Union was so committed in a given situation that the entry of the other would have resulted in a third world war, the other did not enter. The United States and the Soviet Union would both be well advised to commit themselves to working out a single standard of international morality. By banning imperialism, by whatever name it is called, an eventual banning of the bomb could be effected. By stopping Communist incendiarism in the less-developed regions of the world, more imagination and substance could be directed toward raising living standards for all. By this course, the United States could safely reduce its commitments and, at the same time, do yet more good.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
59
    59
  • Thumbnail: Page 
60
    60
  • Thumbnail: Page 
61
    61
  • Thumbnail: Page 
62
    62
  • Thumbnail: Page 
63
    63
  • Thumbnail: Page 
64
    64
  • Thumbnail: Page 
65
    65
  • Thumbnail: Page 
66
    66
  • Thumbnail: Page 
67
    67
  • Thumbnail: Page 
68
    68