Semantics in international relations.

The tricks which politicians have played with language through the ages to lead and to mislead people is the subject of a large literature. Usually the discussion is confined to the past rather than the present for the simple reason that current circumlocutions must not be recognized as such if they are to be effective. He who prematurely turns the spotlight on contemporary verbal legerdemain is likely to be not only without applause in his own culture, but also to be regarded as an ignoble fellow casting aspersions on Sacred Things. No better illustration of the phenomenon could be found than in the language of contemporary international affairs.

I do not know, for example, who invented the "isolationist-internationalist" dichotomy, nor whether he was aware that the imposition of such a framework succeeded in obscuring the whole issue and in largely preventing any intelligent or relevant discussion. Once a frame of reference of this sort is accepted, it partakes of the framework of nature itself and discussion in any other terms seems unrealistic. Yet a little examination readily reveals the essential obfuscation of the issues by this categorization. By the use of a word like "isolationist," to designate the opponents of a particular international program that comes to the front in the late thirties, one party distracted attention from the details of their policy and imputed to their opponents an imaginary position.

The phrase "isolationism" implies a policy of nonintercourse of any kind with other countries, a situation which probably cannot exist under modern conditions and which, in any event, has not existed in the western world for centuries. A highly developed system of diplomatic, trade and other relations has, of course, existed ever since the appearance of national states. No one, perhaps, is opposed to such relations, although there may be questions about particular proposals. Very few people are opposed to more adequate world organization for the same reason that very few are opposed to good weather, health, peace, prosperity, or happiness. Extremely proper and crucial questions may, however, be asked about types and methods of organization. To designate all who question a particular proposal as isolationist is merely using the word as an epithet. This use of the word enables its user to digress from the issues and eloquently to attack a position which nobody holds.

To designate, for example, the policy and practice of the United States during the last century as isolationist is absurd. For one thing, the United States through the Monroe Doctrine formally notified the world over 100 years ago that it would as a matter of policy intervene in certain international areas and affairs which were deemed to affect its interests. Rightly or wrongly, that policy has had the overwhelming support of the American people. Furthermore, we have gone beyond that policy on at least three occasions during the past fifty years to engage in wars in the eastern hemisphere, to say nothing of our participation in peacetime international arrangements such as the World Court following the first World War. Whatever view one may take of the merits of these enterprises, they are hardly isolationist.

The isolationist-internationalist issue can, therefore, be regarded only as a device which has distracted attention from sober consideration of the real issues and problems of international organization. Some of these have to do with fundamental questions of physical and cultural regions, resources and technology, and our knowledge of organizational techniques, rather than with questions of the survival of defunct empires, the designation of good men, bad men, the superiority of "our way of life," and the whole traditional moralistic-legalistic attitude. These are not questions of internationalism versus isolationism. In short, the whole frame of reference within which current discussion of international policy is carried on is at best based on ignorance of the real issue, and at worst based on intellectual fraud.

GEORGE A. LUNDBERG, "SEMANTICS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS"