America's Rôle in the League of Nations

Whatever may be the present attitude of the people of the United States toward the League of Nations, it now seems clear that the Government of the United States has come to feel the necessity for such an international organization. For several years past, official American coöperation with the League has steadily increased. The situation has now developed to a point where the current formulae for explaining the official attitude are to some extent misleading, and it may serve a useful purpose to trace the changes which have occurred since 1920, to survey the situation as it now exists, and to forecast some of the probabilities for the future.Let us start with the fact that the United States has not ratified the Covenant of the League of Nations and has not accepted the place provided for her in the Assembly and the Council of the League. It is beside the present purpose to explain that fact, to attempt to say whether it is due to drift or to design, or to offer any argument for changing it. Whatever the seven millions of voters who constituted President Harding's majority in 1920 may have desired at that time, the Government of the United States has since interpreted their votes as a determination that the United States should not accept membership in the League, and it has proceeded on the theory that that issue is closed. But if this fact is to be taken as the starting-point, there still remains a question as to the account to be taken by the Government of the United States of other important facts, viz., that the League of Nations continues to exist, that more than fifty governments are vigorously pushing its work and effecting through it their coöperative action, and that much of the organized international life of our time is centered at Geneva.