HERBERT FEIS, Adviser on International Economic Affairs in the Department of State; author of "Realism and Nationalism," "The Changing Pattern of International Economic Affairs," and other works
THE war confronts the whole horizon of spirit and of mind. Our own participation in it advances step by step. We do not know the cost or duration of the struggle, only that it must be won. Still the impulse survives, amidst the deepening fury, to seek the terms on which a peaceful world, more satisfactory and more stable than the one we have known, may be established. Students and public officials, responding sympathetically and almost instinctively to the feeling of the nation, join in this search. I do not know whether it was true of other wars; but certainly in this one, though laws may be silent, students are not. This being so, one more brief suggestion for the improvement of the future can add little to the distraction. This must be my apology for this article if one is needed.
My aim is to advance for critical consideration a suggestion for improving the basis of international economic relations. In essence, it is a suggestion for what might be termed a "Trade Stabilization Budget or Fund." In form it may appear to be novel. But most of its elements have in substance already made their appearance in agreements and actions of the United States.
II
The rapid and widespread defection of the nations, in the last few years, from the arrangements and agreements which in the past had come to form the pattern of international trade was sudden and unexpected. For these arrangements and agreements had seemed so solidly established...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
WHEN a dispute erupts in the realms of action and of doctrine at the same time it is ominous. An eruption of this type is occurring now over commercial policy. The lava of argument is pouring over the surfaces where national wills clash and shooting into the skies where doctrines spend their angry eternity. I will begin with the dispute over doctrine as the better way of defining the issues uncomplicated by particular local circumstances.
I
THE word "cartel" is enjoying an extraordinary and somewhat curious vogue in the United States. Its meaning, like that of many more or less technical words adopted for popular use, has become more vague while at the same time becoming more portentous. And the overtones are definitely sinister. If international finance is somehow more to be feared than the domestic variety, how much more so is this true of international cartels. People either are for cartels or against them.
THE eight-point statement signed at sea by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill formalized, among other things, the conviction that if this war is to lead to a sounder relationship between the nations of the earth, then international trade must be so regulated as to minimize destructive economic rivalries. Their statement also suggested that it is not too early to begin planning now for the peace to come. And, in fact, both governments are beginning to plan.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.