Quincy Wright and the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace

Marie-Claude Smouts, Centre d'Etudes et de RecherchesInternationales

Etel Solingen, University of California, IrvineRoger Tooze, University of WalesAnatoly Torkunov, Moscow State Institute of

International Relations

Raimo Vayrynen, University of Notre DameOran Young, Dartmouth CollegeYuan Shibin, Foreign Affairs College (Beijing)Zhu Feng, Peking University

Printed and bound in the United States of AmericaISSN 1075-2846

Back issues and microforms are available from William

S. Hein & Co. Inc., 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, NY14209.

Back Isssues

© 1998 Lynne Rienner Publishers. All rights reserved. Nopart of this publication may be reproduced or transmittedin any form or by any means (including photocopying)without the permission of the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or person­al use is granted by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., pro­vided that the base fee of $3 per article per copy is paiddirectly to the Copyright Clearance Center, 27 CongressStreet, Salem, MA 01970, USA. For those organizationsthat have been granted a photocopy license by CCC, aseparate system of payment has been arranged.

Global Governance is indexed or abstracted inCurrent .•Contents/Social & Behavioral Science,International Bibliography of the Social Sciences,International Political Science Abstracts, PoliticalScience Abstracts, Sage Public AdministrationAbstractslSPAA, Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCl),Social SciSearch, and Sociological Abstracts.

Global Governance (ISSN 1075-2846) is publishedfour times yearly (in Jan.-Mar., Apr.-June, July-Sept.,and Oct.-Dec.) by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 180030th Street, Boulder, CO 80301-1026. Periodicals

Postage is paid at Boulder, CO and additional mailingoffices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes toGlobal Governance, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 180030th Street, Suite 314, Boulder, CO 80301-1026.

Annual Subscription RatesSubscription orders and inquiries should be sent toLynne Rienner Publishers.

For libraries, universities, academic departments,research centers, and commercial, industrial, govern­mental, and other multiple-reader institutions, the rate is$92 per year. For individuals, the rate is $42 per year,and payment must accompany orders. For delivery out­side of the United States and Canada add $8 for surfacemail or $20 for air mail.

Managing EditorDebra David, Wellesley College

Editors

Roger A. Coate, University of South CarolinaCraig N. Murphy, Wellesley College

Editorial Committee

Jacques Fomerand, United Nations UniversityW. Andy Knight, University of AlbertaJean Krasno, ACUNS-Yale UniversityW.B. Ofuatey-Kodjoe, City University of New YorkMJ. Peterson, University of Massachusetts, AmherstThomas G. Weiss, Brown University

Editorial Board

Clement Adibe, DePaul UniversityGudmunder Alfredsson, Raoul Wallenberg InstituteS. James Anaya, University of IowaMichael Barnett, University of Wisconsin, MadisonEdith Brown Weiss, Georgetown UniversityJoseph Camilleri, La Trobe UniversityPartha Chatterjee, Centre for Studies of Social Sciences

(Calcutta)Parta Dasgupta, Cambridge UniversitySeiji Endo, Seikei UniversityEdward Green, Pan-American Health OrganizationAJ .R. Groom, University of Kent at CanterburyTakashi Inoguchi, University of TokyoChrister Jonsson, University of LundWalter J. Kamba, University of NamibiaMargatet P. Karns, University of DaytonPaul M. Kennedy, Yale UniversityRobert O. Keohane, Duke UniversityLeonid Kistersky, The National Institute for Strategic

Studies (Kiev)Keith Krause, Graduate Institute of International Studies

(Geneva)

Paul Krugman, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCharlotte Ku, American Society of International LawRiina Kuusik, Concordia International University

Estonia

Slefanie Lenway, University of Minnesota

Tatyana A. Medvedeva, Siberian State University ofTransport

Valentine Moghadam, Illinois State UniversityChung-in Moon, Yonsei UniversityPhilip Nel, University of StellenboschOlga Pellicer, Instituto Tecnol6gico Autonomo de

Mexico

John Quah, National University of SingaporeElizabeth Riddell-Dixon, University of Western OntarioAdam Roberts, Oxford UniversityAlfredo C. Robles, Jr., University of the PhilippinesJohn G. Ruggie, Columbia UniversityBruce Russett, Yale UniversityMichael G. Schechter, Michigan State UniversityNico J. Schrijver, Vrije Universiteit, AmsterdamJoan Seymour, United Nations HeadquartersMihaly Simai, Institute for World Economics (Budapest)

The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for

Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48-1984. §

GLOBAL GOVERNANCEA Review of Multilateralism

and International Organizations

Vol. 4 No.4 Oct.-Dec. 1998

----- ~ ------

Contents

Changing Approaches to Development Aid:The Effect on International Stability

Per Pinstrup-Andersen

From Property Regime to International Regime:An Ecosystems Perspective

Thomas Princen

Organizing for Effective Environmental CooperationM. J. Peterson

The Subsidiarity Model of Global Governance in theUN-ASEAN Context

Sorpong Peou

Division of Labor Among International Organizations:The Bosnian Experience

Georgios Kostakos

Quincy Wright and the Commission to Study theOrganization of Peace

Robert P. Hillmann

REVIEW ESSAY

The U.S. Origins of Organized Global PoliticsLeon Gordenker

Volume 4 Index

,:l~Ii"'i!.i1:ji';1'IIi!I

11

381

\,

~'I11395

I,,j

415

11

j;1

:1:i439

n

'I

11a461

ilII"

ii'II'485

'I

I,II

501

il

,.

"

;1

515

!J

11IiIl

I.1

.

IIIii

Global Governance 4 (1998), 485-499

Quincy Wright and theCommission to Study

the Organization of Peace@J

Robert P Hillmann

Inthe late 1930s, as it became apparent that the world was once againabout to experience war on a global scale, a small group of people inthe United States and Great Britain viewed this event as an opportu­

nity to create a world government. They referred to this global system asthe "new world order."1 Among the supporters of this concept in theUnited States were holders of some of the top political offices in the fed­eral government, including President Franklin Delano Roosevelt,2 Secre­tary of State Cordell Hull,3 and Under-Secretary of State Sumner Welles.4

To facilitate the creation of this world government, several organiza­tions were established. They were closely associated with one another, andmany of the people involved served on several committees simultaneously.SThe nature of the groups was chameleon-like, and organizations wouldchange their names and objectives at the drop of a hat.6 One such groupwas the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace (csoP). Its mem­bers included people who were considered top in their respective fields­professors from Ivy League universities, officers of large corporations, andattorneys from some of the most respected law firms in the country.?

The commission was aided in its efforts by many highly placed indi­viduals in the U.S. government, particularly in the Department of State.sPresident Roosevelt also took an interest. Commission member Clark

Eichelberger met with the president on more than eight occasions to dis­cuss the organization's work on behalf of world government.9 At two ofthese meetings, Eichelberger reported that he personally handed FDRcopies of commission reports that outlined their ideas of what this newworld order should look like.lO Eleanor Roosevelt agreed so completelywith the ideas and goals of the commission that she eventually became amember. I I

Money and other kinds of support flowed freely to the commission'scoffers.12 The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) agreed to air, free ofcharge, weekly addresses by commission members and their guests. CBSalso offered them two full days of free air time, over its Columbia Network,to broadcast the results of their work to the entire nation.13

485

486 Quincy Wright and the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace

The commission's influence on the soon-to-be-created UN is beyondquestion. In 1949, John Foster Dulles remarked that "the commission ...made an indispensable contribution to the creation of the United Na­

tions."14 The introduction to Building Peace, an anthology of the commis­sion's reports published in the 1970s, accounts for the group's influentialrole as follows:

It might not have been a mere coincidence that when the conference toeStablish the United Nations took place in San Francisco in 1945, forty­seven members of the Commission were there as members of the Inter­

national Secretariat, members of the United States Delegation, or consul­tants to the United States Delegation. The Chairman of the Commissionpresided at the meetings of the consultants, and the director of the Com­mission chaired a committee of consultants representing various nationalorganizations which were especially interested in problems of humanrights and dependent peoples. It is not surprising, therefore, that whenone compares the Commission's report with the final text of the Charterof the United Nations, one can find a remarkable resemblance between a

number of the Commission's proposals and the text of the Charter, espe­cially with respect to maintenance of international security (e.g., interna­tional air-force contingents), trusteeship (including the special problem ofstrategic areas), human rights, and economic and social cooperation. IS

The four individuals most responsible for the formation of the commissionwere James T. Shotwell, Quincy Wright, Clark Eichelberger, and ClydeEagleton.

James T. Shotwell, professor of history at Columbia University, wasthe founder and chairman of the commission. 16Shotwell, along with mostof the other commission members, was involved wi'th several internation­alist organizations. In addition to duties as commission chair, he was alsopresident of the League of Nations Association17 and director of the divi­sion of economics and history of the Carnegie Endowment for Interna­tional Peace.18 (By coincidence, the president of the Carnegie Endowmentwas a Columbia University colleague of Shotwell's, Nicholas Murray But­ler, the university's president.)19

After World War I, Shotwell served as a delegate to the VersaillesPeace Conference. He also helped outline the terms of the Pact of Locarnoin 1925 and the Kellogg-Briand Pact in 1928, and he was a director of theInstitute of Pacific Relations from 1927 to 1930. He would eventually beappointed as an assistant to President Roosevelt for organizing the UN(1943) and was the chairman of consultants to the U.S. delegation at theSan Francisco UN Charter Conference in 1945.20

Quincy Wright, professor of international law at the University ofChicago, supervised the section of the commission that explored the cre­ation of a political international organization.21 He served on the centralcommittee of the World Citizens Association, along with Frank Aydelotte,

-

Robert P. Hillmann 487

another member of the commission.22 In addition to these organizations,Wright served on the executive committee of the Chicago Council on For­eign Relations.23

Thanks to his prominence as a professor of international law at theUniversity of Chicago, Wright's opinions on matters of international con­cern were widely respected. This was particularly true at the Departmentof State in Washington. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, Wright corre­sponded with Secretary of State Cordell Hull on topics of internationallaw. Hull's respect for Wright was such that-in January 1939, on the sec­retary's recommendation-President Roosevelt offered Wright the post ofU.S. national commissioner on an international commission.24 After the

United States entered into the war, Wright became an official consultant tothe Department of "State.25 Today, Wright is recognized as the author ofone of the most important pieces of work ever written on the subject of in­ternational relations.26

Clark Eichelberger was the director of the commission.27 A formerstudent of Wright's at the University of Chicago,28 Eichelberger was a di­rector of the League of Nations Association.29 He also helped form theCommittee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies.3o During the war, heworked for the State Department and afterwards was a consultant to theU.S. delegation to the San Francisco conference.3l

Clyde Eagleton served as chairman of the commission's studies commit­tee.32 He was a professor of international law at New York University andserved on the executive committee of the League of Nations Association.Eagleton was also a consultant for the State Department during the war.33

Shotwell, Wright, Eichelberger, and Eagleton began recruiting mem­bers for the group in early January 1939.34 Recruitment efforts continuedthroughout spring and summer 1939. The commission had more than sixtymembers by September.35 Among the group were

• John W. Davis, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations36• Allen Welsh Dulles, of Sullivan and Cromwell, a prestigious law

firm37

• John Foster Dulles, also of Sullivan and Cromwe1l38• Frederick V. Field, who was known as the "Wall Street Red"39

• Philip Jessup, of Columbia University40• Thomas W. Lamont, senior partner at J. P. Morgan4l• Corliss Lamont, of Columbia University (Thomas W. Lamont's son)42• Owen Lattimore, of the Institute of Pacific Relations43• Clarence K. Streit, author of Union Now44

• Sumner Welles, under-secretary of state45

The entry of Britain into World War II gave the project a new sense of ur­gency. On 2 October 1939, its members announced their plans to form a

488 Quincy Wright and the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace

commission of enquiry on the organization of peace.46 By 2 December1939, the administrative structure of the organization was in place, withWright, Eagleton, and John Foster Dulles serving on its studies commit­tee.47 This committee outlined four areas in which they would concentratetheir efforts:48 the so-called problem before us; principles and institutionsfor organizing peace; transition problems following the war; and the roleo(the United States.

Areas of Concentration

The Problem Before Us

"The problem before us" looked at the world of 1939 as the commissionmembers saw it. In their view, the world had become a much smaller

place,49 and the ways in which people and governments interacted had alsochanged. They believed, as a result, that the world was becoming moreinterdependent in many ways-in economics, society, religion, and thesciences.5o

They considered nationalism to be the single greatest threat to thisnew interdependence: "Our general thought was that we must recognizethe inadequacy of the sovereign state as it has been under the present con­ditions of economic and cultural interdependence and that consequentlythe world faces the alternatives of empire a la Hitler or world federation,which is the only method compatible with democracy."51 Wright summedup the commission's feelings on this subject when he wrote: "My pointwas that excessive loyalty to certain sacred cows, such as sovereignty, na­tionality, neutrality, and domestic jurisdiction is ruining civilization."52They also studied the effects of war in general, World War I and its after­math, and existing international organizations. 53

Principles and Institutions for Organizing Peace

Under the heading of principles and institutions for organizing peace, thecommission outlined its plans for the future. The topic was further brokendown into four areas of study: the world we want, political internationalorganization, economic international organization, and social and culturalorganization. 54

The world they wanted was to be a socialistic paradise. Social andeconomic justice would apply not only to individuals but to nations aswell. In their view, the state that "has resources, whether by fortune orconquest, must share them with others less fortunate."55 They also notedthat "the day of laissez-faire is as far gone in the community of nations aswithin the state."56

Robert P. Hillmann 489

The section on political international organization, supervised byWright, was one of the most important areas of the study. It was here thatthe structure of the world government was outlined. Having learned theirlesson from the League of Nations debacle, the commission approachedthis attempt at creating a global government more cautiously. Rather thantrying to simply create a political world body like the League of Nations,this time economic and social issues would be treated independently of thepolitical union. This was done to permit these areas to develop without in­terference from those who would oppose a world government.57

Interviewed by William Lovell of the United Press Association inearly November 1941, Wright described the new world order that he andthe commission envisioned.58 The world organization that he described

would be similar in some respect~ to the League of Nations but muchstronger, because not only would the United States be invited to join, butthis time it would participate. 59 In fact, all nations would be invited to join,and those that declined would be subject to certain disadvantages.6o Likethe League, the new organization was to have three branches: legislative,administrative, and judicial.

In the judicial branch, a world court was to be given compulsory ju­risdiction over national governments and would have subordinate courts toassist it. 61Existing international law provided that a treaty between nationscould be changed only with the consent of all signatories. Under the newsystem, any nation that objected to all or part of a treaty-whether or notthe nation was a party to the treaty-could ask the world court to changeit. 62 In another radical departure from the norm, it was suggested that theworld court's jurisdiction should be extended to include the regulation ofindividuals in certain criminal matters.63

The new world government was also to have the power to make lawsthat all nations would be bound by, without the unanimous vote of the na­tions involved. No state would be able to legally reject such laws.64 It wasalso asserted that "it would be desirable to bind states by votes taken inthe international organs, without awaiting ratification by the states throughtheir legislatures or other slow-moving process, within certain fields."65

The question of who was to be given representation in this world or­ganization was another issue addressed by the commission. Some feltthat national governments should not be represented at all.66 Wright,however, was a little more liberal on this point. He said, "Although I be­lieve that nations should also be given a representation and perhaps func­tional international organizations, my conception of an assembly wouldbe that every important group with a distinctive public opinion oughtto have some representation whether that group is national, regional oruniversal. "67

Some areas in which the world organization was to have jurisdictionincluded communications, markets, health, money and exchange, social

-----

490 Quincy Wright and the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace

issues, barriers to trade, raw materials, and armaments.68 Curiously, thecommission also stated that its authority should extend to "control of eco­nomic depressions."69 The edicts of this world body were to be enforcedby a joint U.S.-U.K. naval force.70

In addition to the global system, Wright promoted the establishmentof a number of regional systems, including a united states of Europe71(also referred to as a European union),72 an Asian cooperation, and an or­ganization of American states. He did not foresee including the SovietUnion in any part of the system.73

The commission proposed this regional system because of a percep­tion that countries close to one another would be more interested in and

more likely to respond to events occurring within that region.74 They ex­pected the regional systems, a.~a result, to have a more direct influencethan the world system over their member nations.75 They also thought thatthe regional systems could be used to further break down the concept thata nation could act independently of the world organization.76 Membershipin more than one such system would be permissible.77 This was not a newconcept, however: the League of Nations had also been developing an ideaalong these lines.78

Each of these regional systems was to have its own military force. Na­tional forces were either to be reduced to a point where they would nolonger be able to function as a military force or simply be outlawed. Mem­bers of the regional military forces were to owe their allegiance to theirregional system and not to their national governments.79

The commissioners believed that the troops for these internationalforces could be found with no trouble. Citing the foreign legions as an ex­ample, they maintained: "There are always many men whose love of ad­venture or idealistic interest will draw them into such a career. Such men

have motivations which make it easy for them to be loyal to the interna­tional authority irrespective of national origin. There should, however, beregulations such as distribution of men of several nationalities even in thesmaller units to assure that such recruits would retain their loyalty to theworld order. "80

The regional systems, modeled after the British Commonwealth, wereto be primarily juridical in nature, with few other governmental organs.Commissioners wanted these courts to have extensive jurisdiction in mat­ters of controversy between nations and the power to declare null and voidany national legislation that contradicted internationallaw.81 Wright, orig­inally, was opposed to the idea of creating a regional system of the Amer­icas. In a letter to Cordell Hull, he expressed his concern that Latin Amer­icans, whom he considered to be peculiar people, would naturallydominate such a system, particularly its courts. This, he felt, would resultin undesirable ideas being given sanction in its courtrooms.82

Robert P. Hillmann 491

Transition Problems Following the War

The commission realized that the existence of a new world order and the

demise of national sovereignty could not simply be announced at the endof the war. They envisioned a period of transition, during which the na­tional, regional, and global institutions necessary for the operation of theworld government were to be established. To ensure a peaceful transitionof power from national governments to the world body, the commissionconcluded that those countries that made the largest contributions to thewar effort should have political contr01 of the world during the transitionperiod. In its second report, the commission named the four countries thatwould fulfill the role: the U.K., the United States, China, and Russia.83

War-torn areas were to be completely rebuilt. Political order wouldalso have to be reestablished in much of the world. In many cases, wholenational governments would have to be constructed; in others, it would bea question of which government would be returned to power. 84 The com­mission noted that "a wide choice is left to peoples as to the form of gov­ernment which they wish, but it cannot be an unlimited choice; it cannotbe a government which would be independent of international law or freeto employ its resources against the world government."85

Social and economic reconstruction would also be necessary. Nationalborders could no longer be used to protect the economic interests of its cit­izens. In the view of the commission, "the economic changes required mayindeed mean temporary loss for some groups, but they will mean rescuefor many, and in the long run gain for all. Groups which anticipate lossthrough such change should consider the needs of human beings every­where, and seek compensation where they can show losses, rather than at­tempt to block necessary international arrangements."86

The duration of this transition period was not specified in the com­mission's early reports. "It is not necessary to estimate in advance the timerequired for this process," the commission stated, "but it is essential to es­tablish the community means of control for the period."87

The Role of the United States

The commission realized that "nations, like individuals, will unwillinglygive up their liberty."88 This was particularly true in the case of the UnitedStates. The League of Nations failed, in the view of the commission, be­cause the United States did not participate in it. And they placed the blamesolely on the U.S. Senate, stating: "An opinionated Senate has been thechief obstacle to the establishment of a universal rule of compulsory ju­risdiction."89 Not wanting to repeat the mistakes made after World War I,they decided to pay special attention to the United States.

492 Quincy Wright and the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace

The commission was unsure the American people would have theforesight to see that a world government was necessary. So they decidedearly on that "one of the purposes of the Enquiry is to help the Americanpeople think their way through the problems of the fundamental bases ofworld peace and the responsibility of the United States." Thus, they deter­mined that "conclusions cannot be given to the country before they areready; but the problem can be stated and progress can be reported."9o

To accomplish this goal, the commission would use the free air timegiven to it by CBS to instruct the. American people in the necessities ofworld government.91 Transcripts of these broadcasts were to be printedand distributed at no cost. Local groups were to be encouraged, with cashprizes as an incentive, to evolve their own ideas on world peace.92

The commission had nothing but contempt for the U.S. Congress, par­ticularly the Senate,93 because of the Senate's refusal to ratify the Treatyof Versailles and, with it, the League of Nations. Yet the Senate was theone group most feared by proponents of the new world order-it had thepower, once again, to prevent the United States from submitting to a worldgovernment. Several ideas were suggested to address this problem. Oneidea was to try to educate Congress on the benefits of world government.Another was to set aside lucrative political jobs in the new internationalgovernment for its congressional supporters. Perhaps all proposals con­cerning the world body should be presented to Congress in such a way thata simple majority vote would suffice. Or bypass the legislative process al­together, if the Constitution needed alteration, and have the people voteon it.94

The problem of circumventing the Constitution plagued Wright foryears. As late as 1947, he was still trying to figure out how to get by it. InMay of that year, Wright wrote to John Sloan Dickey, president of Dart­mouth College, to congr·atulate him for an idea he had come up with tonavigate around it. Dickey's idea was that, with a majority vote inCongress, the president had the constitutional power to make internationalagreements. Although Wright liked the idea, he went on to say: "The mainargument against developing it as a practicable agreement-making proce­dure is the prejudice which the Senate and some public opinion has infavor of the two thirds rule method. It occurred to me that possibly a jointresolution of Congress, recognizing the constitutionality of this proceduremight be an adequate substitute for a constitutional amendment, and mightbe much more easy to achieve."95

Anglo-American Union

By February 1940, historian Harry Elmer Barnes and others had gotten windof the commission and its activities and had written an article denouncing it,

Robert P. Hillmann 493

"Tin Cans and Peace." The outcome of any work produced by the com­mission was predetermined, they wrote, because its membership was madeup entirely of people with interventionist convictions. After naming sev­eral of the commission members-Shotwell, Eichelberger, Lamont, Ayde­lotte, and Wright-they went on to say that "these names stand for theLeague and collective security. They are to be found on the interlockingdirectorates of the numerous committees and associations mothered byNicholas Murray Butler and his Carnegie Endowment for InternationalPeace. Though their views have never been shared by a majority of theAmerican people, they have tried with unlimited funds to set themselvesup as the sole guardians of peace."96

Although Barnes and his associates were correct in their assertion thatthe commission's membership was entirely made up of supporters of U.S.intervention in the war on behalf of Britain, there was more to it. Through­out Wright's papers and the commission reports, one theme is soundedagain and again-Anglo-American union. Many of the commission mem­bers, including Wright, were active in the Anglo-American union move­ment. Wright first became involved in it in 1934, when fellow Universityof Chicago professor Charles E. Merriam introduced him to B. HubertCooper of the James Bryce Fellowship and its related association, the En­glish-Speaking Union.97 Commission member Clarence Streit, author of abook called Union Now,98 headed up a project from 1938 to 1945 calledUnion Now with Great Britain.99 Dana Converse Backus advocated a po­litical union between Britain, the British Dominions, and the United

States.IOO In February 1941, he stated these views explicity in the sectionhe wrote for the commission about postwar conditions:

• Only a union of the British Commonwealth and the United Stateswill have cohesive force arising from the similarity of their peoplesand the identity of their democratic philosophies, sufficient to jus­tify the risk of limitation of sovereignty.

• We must not again let the overwhelming preponderance of powerslip away from ourselves and the British Commonwealth.

• Any Peace Conference which is not Axis dominated will be Anglo­Saxon dominated and this situation must remain as the concrete

foundation for any future international superstructure.101

Clark Eichelberger was invited to visit the U.K. in late summer 1941. Histravel expenses were covered by the British government, and the U.S. Em­bassy arranged for him to stay in a first-class room at the Savoy Hotel inLondon. While there, he was able to confer with members of British orga­nizations that paralleled the commission and the League of Nations Asso­ciation. Eichelberger attended a meeting of the British Research Sub­Committee on International Organization, for example, on 20 September.

494 Quincy Wright and the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace

Historian Arnold Toynbee was one of the more vocal members of this group,and Eichelberger noted afterwards that their ideas were very similar.102

In his book Tragedy and Hope, Georgetown University professor Car­roll Quigley discussed in detail the history of what he called Anglo-Amer­ican power structure. The British half of this power structure came fromthe "Round-Table Grotlps," the American side from what he referred to asthe "Eastern Establishment." According to Quigley, the idea of creatingan Anglo-American union originated with them. Not surprisingly, most ofthose he names as beil)g associated with this power structure also hap­pened to be members of the commission.103

The Anglo-American union that was planned never came to fruition,at least not as a political entity. There are several probable explanationsfor this, including the fact that the United States came out of the war in amuch stronger position than Great Britain. It is also possible, however,that its proponents believed that the goal of an Anglo-Saxon-dominated in­ternational superstructure had been achieved, thus making the politicalumon unnecessary.

The Commission Today

The Commission to Study the Organization of Peace was formed almostsixty years ago to facilitate the creation of a somewhat socialist worldstate. This is still the goal of its members. After World War II, the com­mission survived with about ninety people on its membership rolls. Theirbackgrounds are similar to those of the original members-university pro­fessors, lawyers, business executives, and experts in the field of interna­tional relations. The last chairman was Louis B. Sohn.104

Richard N. Gardner is one of the more recent members of the com­

mission to have risen to a position of prominence. He was U.S. ambas­sador to Spain from 7 October 1993 to 12 July 1997.105 His professionalbackground and his views on world government reveal a striking similar­ity between his personal profile and that of Wright and the other earlymembers of the commission. Gardner is a recent holder of the chair in law

and international organization at Columbia University. He held State De­partment posts in the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton administra­tions. In addition to the commission, Gardner has been associated withseveral other internationally oriented organizations, among them the In­ternational League for Human Rights, the Council on Foreign Relations,and the Trilateral Commission. 106

Gardner's view of national sovereignty also reflects those of his pre­decessors on the commission. In an article published in Foreign Affairs, hewrites that "the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the

bottom up rather than the top down. It will look like a great 'booming,

Robert P. Hillmann 495

buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality,but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, willaccomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."IO? On 17September 1996 at a conference on the legacy of FDR, then AmbassadorGardner delivered a spee~h entitled "Franklin Roosevelt and World Order:The World We Sought and the World We Have." 108 In this speech, the am­bassador outlined the new world order that he says FDR hoped to imple­ment following the war. What he described was, in reality, nothing morethan a restatement of the findings from the commission reports.

The commission's plan for a socialistic world state has not yet mate­rialized. Roosevelt's death in April 1945 and Stalin's distrust of the Westdelayed it. Many of the international organs that were to serve as the en­forcement tools of the global government were put in place, but the ad­ministrative and military powers needed to enforce this version of worldsocialism were never granted to the UN as planned.109 This may not havebeen to the liking of the overwhelming majority of commission members,but one preferred exactly this outcome-John Foster Dulles.

In letters to Wright in December 1939 and February 1940, Dulles out­lined a world order that consisted of a global organization that was con­sultative in nature and a place for heads of state to meet. He also thoughtthere should be regional arrangements and monetary agreements, and hesupported the concept of free trade. But he envisioned no world policeforce, and he considered a world socialist system impossible to operate.110

It is the Dulles vision of world order that Gardner described as "the

world we have." And it is the plan for a new world order described by theCommission to Study the Organization of Peace that he and many otherstoday want to replace it with.

Conclusion

The Quincy Wright Papers, reports of the commission, and other sourcescited in this article pose an interesting question for scholars of interna­tional relations today: What is the true nature of the driving force behindthe ongoing globalization process?

My reading of the wartime reports suggest that Carroll Quigley cameclose to the mark in his description of an Anglo-American power structuredominated by the big banking houses in the United States and GreatBritain. Large universities and media conglomerates, such as CBS, alsoappear to have been major players in this game of global domination.

One of the more intriguing aspects of this group is just where it actu­ally stands in the political spectrum. Is it communist, capitalist, or some­where in between? Quigley thought that the commission was capitalistic­in the tradition of the British roundtable groups-but that it would

l

496 Quincy Wright and the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace

cooperate with communists or anyone else if that would further its ends. II II am not convinced of this. The political leanings of Wright and his col­leagues were, with a few notable exceptions, center-left and socialist in na­ture, and their worldview was one of extreme internationalism. In this re­

spect, they more resembled followers of Fabian Society philosophy thanthe roundtable groups.

Finding answers to these and other questions concerning these peopleand the new world order they advocate will not be easy if Quigley is cor­rect in his assertion that this group wishes itself to remain anonymous.112In this case, we will have to go elsewhere to find the information we arelooking for. One excellent source is the personal papers of the individualswho designed the new world order earlier in the century. But these papersare scattered across the United States and the U.K. Some are easily acces­sible, including the Quincy Wright Papers (at the University of ChicagoLibrary), the James T. Shotwell Papers (at Columbia University Library),and the Nicholas Murray Butler Papers (also at Columbia University Li­brary). Others may still be in the possession of family members, and somemay no longer exist. In any case, it will require a joint effort on the part ofinternational relations scholars in both the United States and the U.K. to

piece this puzzle together. ~

Notes

Robert P. Hillmann is a graduate of Loyola University of Chicago, with a bache­lor's degree in history. He studied the Quincy Wright Papers in 1997 and 1998 atthe University of Chicago Library, where they are held in the university's archives.

1. Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Building Peace: Reportsof the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, vol. 2, A Statement ofAmerican Proposals for a New World Order, June 6, 1941 (Metuchen, N.J.: Scare­crow Press, 1973), p. 795.

2. Commission of Enquiry, 2 October 1939, p. 1, box 5, folder 12, QuincyWright Papers, University of Chicago Library.

3. Cordell Hull to Quincy Wright, 3 November 1938, box 13, folder 19,Wright Papers; Wright to Hull, 27 October 1938, box 20, folder 2, Wright Papers.

4. Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Building Peace, vol. 1, p.XVlll.

5. Clark M. Eichelberger, Organizing for Peace: A Personal History of theFounding of the United Nations (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), p. 114.

6. Ibid., pp. 125-126.7. Members of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, box 5,

folder 12, Wright Papers; Structural Organization of the Commission to Study theOrganization of Peace, 2 December 1939, box 5, folder 12, Wright Papers.

8. Eichelberger to Wright, 8 February 1940, box 5, folder 12, Wright Papers;Hull to Wright, 3 November 1938, box 13, folder 19, Wright Papers; letter fromthe U.S. Foreign Service (American Embassy-London), 10 August 1942, box 5,folder 12, Wright Papers.

9. Eichelberger, Organizing for Peace, pp. 224-248.

Robert P. Hillmann 497

10. Eichelberger to Wright, 16 January 1941, box 5, folder 12, Wright Papers;Eichelberger, Organizing for Peace, p. 115.

11. Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Building Peace, vol. 1,p. XVII.

12. Harry Elmer Barnes et aI., "Tin Cans and Peace," 24 February 1940, box5, folder 12, Wright Papers.

13. Commission of Enquiry, pp. 2-3,' Wright Papers; Barnes et aI., "Tin Cansand Peace," Wright Papers.

14. Louis B. Sohn, introduction to Building Peace, vol. 1, by Commission toStudy the Organization of Peace, pp. xii-xiii.

15. Ibid., p. xii.16. Ibid., p. xi.17. See letterhead of League of Nations Association, in Eichelberger to

Wright, 8 February 1940, box 5, folder 12, Wright Papers.18. See letterhead of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in

Shotwell to Wright, 1 April 1940, box 5, folder 12, Wright Papers.19. Who's Who in America, vol. 20, 1938-1939, p. 471.20. See entry on James Thomson Shotwell, in Britannica Online.21. Wright to Professor William Rice, University of Wisconsin, 29 January

1940, box 5, folder 12, Wright Papers.22. See letterhead of World Citizens Association, in Roger S. Greene to

Wright, 28 December 1939, box 5, folder 11, Wright Papers.23. See letterhead of Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, in Adlai E.

Stevenson to Wright, 19 December 1935, box 20, folder 2, Wright Papers.24. Hull to Wright, 24 January 1939, box 20, folder 2, Wright Papers.25. Foreword to the index, p. 2, Wright Papers. (The index runs 55 pages.)26. William C. Olson and A. J. R. Groom, International Relations Then and

Now (London: HarperCollins Academic, 1991), pp. 114-115.27. Structural Organization of the Commission to Study the Organization of

Peace, Wright Papers.28. Wright to Committee on Admissions Cosmos Club, 2 February 1943, box

13, Eichelberger folder, Wright Papers.29. See letterhead of League of Nations Association, in Eichelberger to

Wright, 8 February 1940, box 5, folder 12, Wright Papers.30. Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley, FDR and the Creation of the

u.N. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 18.31. Who's Who in America, vol. 25, 1948-1949, p. 724.32. Structural Organization of the Commission to Study the Organization of

Peace, Wright Papers.33. Who's Who in America, vol. 25, 1948-1949, p. 706.34. Professor Charles G. Fenwick, Bryn Mawr College, to Wright, 15 January

1939, box 5, folder 11, Wright Papers.35. Members of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Wright

Papers. This list does not name all those who were on the commission.36. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time

(New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 952.37. Allen Dulles to Wright, 11 December 1939, box 5, Dulles folder, Wright

Papers.38. John Foster Dulles to Wright, 19 December 1939, box 13, Dulles folder,

Wright Papers.39. Members of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Wright

Papers; Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 944.

I

498 Quincy Wright and the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace

40. Wright to Eagleton, 8 December 1939, box 5, folder 11, Wright Papers.41. Members of the Committee to Study the Organization of Peace, Wright

Papers.42. Report by Corliss Lamont, 28 December 1942, box 5, folder 14, Wright

Papers.43. Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Building Peace, vol. 1,

p. xvi.44. Ibid., p. xvii.45. Ibid., p. xviii.46. Commission of Enquiry, Wright Papers.47. Structural organization of the Commission to Study the Organization of

Peace, Wright Papers.48. General Outline of Studies, 26 December 1939, box 5, folder 12, Wright

Papers.49. Second Draft of Statement, 22 June 1940, p. 4, box 5, folder 12, Wright

Papers.50. General Outline of Studies, pp. 1-2, Wright Papers.51. Wright to Shotwell, 1 July 1940, box23, Shotwell folder, Wright Papers.52. Wright to the Daily Maroon, 16 February 1940, box 94, Maroon folder,

Wright Papers. (The Daily Maroon-now called the Chicago Maroon-is a studentnewspaper published at the University of Chicago.)

53. General Outline of Studies, p. 1, Wright Papers.54. Ibid.55. Second Draft of Statement, Wright Papers.56. Ibid., p. 10.57. Shotwell to Wright, 1 April 1940, box 5, folder 12, Wright Papers.58. "Sees U.S.-Britain Union for Peace," Baltimore News-Post, 8 December

1941, war extra edition, p. 2. The extra edition may not appear in microfilm col­lections of the News-Post but is available in reprint from M-C Associates-GatewayBooks, Mile Marker 104, Rte. 50, Salisbury, MD 21802, tel. (410) 860-9750.

59. Ibid.60. Eagleton Outline, 9 March 1940, p. 1, box 5, folder 12, Wright Papers.61. Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Building Peace, vol. 1,

p.42.62. Second Draft of Statement, pp. 22-23, Wright Papers.63. "Sees U.S.-Britain Union for Peace," Baltimore News-Post; Commission

to Study the Organization of Peace, Building Peace, vol. 1, p. 42.64. Eagleton Outline, p. 1, Wright Papers.65. Second Draft of Statement, p. 36, Wright Papers.66. Frederick C. McKee to Wright, 18 March 1940, box 5, folder 12, Wright

Papers.67. Wright to McKee, 20 March 1940, box 5, folder 12, Wright Papers.68. Eagleton Outline, p. 1, Wright Papers.69. Second Draft of Statement, p. 23, Wright Papers.70. "Sees U.S.-Britain Union for Peace," Baltimore News-Post.71. Ibid.72. Wright to McKee, Wright Papers.73. "Sees U.S.-Britian Union for Peace," Baltimore News-Post.74. Eagleton Outline, p. 2, Wright Papers.75. "Sees U.S.-Britain Union for Peace," Baltimore News-Post.

76. McKee to Wright, Wright Papers.77. Eagleton Outline, p. 2, Wright Papers.

Robert P. Hillmann 499

78. Wright to McKee, Wright Papers.79. "Sees U.S.-Britain Union for Peace," Baltimore News-Post.

80. Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, "Building Peace," vol.1, pp. 116-117.

81. Wright to Rice, Wright Papers.82. Wright to Hull, Wright Papers.83. Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Building Peace, vol. 1,

pp. 12-30,61, esp. 22.84. Ibid., pp. 43-44.85. Ibid., p. 45.86. Ibid., pp. 57-58.87. Ibid., p. 30.88. Second Draft of Statement, p. 19, Wright Papers.89. Ibid.

90. Commission of Enquiry, p. 2, Wright Papers.91. Commission of Enquiry, pp. 2-3, Wright Papers; Barnes et aI., "Tin Cans

and Peace," pp. 2-3, Wright Papers.92. Barnes et aI., "Tin Cans and Peace," p. 2, Wright Papers.93. Second Draft of Statement, pp. 16,25, Wright Papers.94. Post War Condition, 15 February 1941, p. 3, box 5, folder 13, Wright

Papers.95. Wright to John Dickey, 12 May 1947, box 7, folder 14, Wright Papers.96. Barnes et aI., "Tin Cans and Peace," p. 1, Wright Papers.97. Cooper to Merriam and Wright, 28 May 1934, 4 June 1934, 12 June

1934, box 7, folder 13, Wright Papers.98. Julius Elbau to Wright, 7 February 1940, box 7, folder 13, Wright

Papers.99. Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 582.

100. Post War Condition, p. 2, Wright Papers.101. Ibid., p. 4.102. Eichelberger, Organizing for Peace, pp. 160-161, 172-173.103. Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, pp. 130-131,950-956.104. Encyclopedia of Associations, 32d ed. (Detroit: Gale Research, 1997),

pp. 1734, 2623.105. Committee to Study the Organization of Peace, Building Peace, vol. 1, p.

XVI.

106. U.S. Mission to Spain, "Former Ambassador Richard N. Gardner," (on­line) http://www.embusa.es/embaj ada/amboeng.html.

107. Gardner, "The Hard Road to World Order," Foreign Affairs 52, no. 3(April 1974): 558.

108. U.S. Mission to Spain, "Franklin Roosevelt and World Order," (online)http://www.embusa.es/embajada/turineng.html.

109. Ibid.

110. John Foster Dulles to Wright, 19 December 1939 and 19 January 1940,box 13, Dulles folder, Wright Papers.

Ill. Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 950.112. Ibid.

GLOBAL

Volume 4 Number 4 Oct.-Dec. 1998

Changing Approaches to Development Aid:The Effect on International Stability

Per Pinstrup-Andersen

From Property Regime to International Regime:An Ecosystems Perspective

Thomas Princen

Organizing for Effective Environmental CooperationM. J. Peterson

The Subsidiarity Model of Global Governancein the UN-ASEAN Context

Sorpong Peou

Division of Labor Among International Organizations:The Bosnian Experience

Georgios Kostakos

Quincy Wright and the Commission to Study the Organization of PeaceRobert P. Hillmann

REVIEW ESSAY

The U.S. Origins of Organized Global PoliticsLeon Gordenker

Volume 4 Index

The AcademicCouncil on theUnited Nations

System (ACUNS)Idb, The Uni.ted NationsW Umverslty (UNU)

~LYNNE RUNNER PUBLISHERS

1800 30th St., Suite 314Boulder, CO 80301