I can not tell you how happy I was to learn of such a wonderful publication.  The Rotary International  publication "Seven Paths to Peace" is as relevant today (2004) as it was when it was written in 1959.  In fact, I was amazed at the wisdom contained in this book published 45 years ago.  I have been doing a lot of research into peacebuilding and peace education over the past 9 years (a passion that was ignited in me by Rotary) and I learned a lot from the book, particularly from a Rotary point of view.

It is very important for me to understand the history, current perspective and future path Rotary is following to peace.  I think this is important for all Rotarians to understand – this is a ‘must read’ for anyone genuinely interested in Rotary.  It is also recommended to non-Rotarians interested in building peace.

When you read the book, you will note that the male gender is used in general.  At the time the book was written, there were no female members of Rotary.  Please consider the male gender usage interchangeable for both genders.  

How important is this?  As you will read in the Introductory Chapter ‘Where the Paths Begin’, “… Rotarians believe that if there is failure in the avenue of international service, there may be no need for concern about the other avenues of service. …  and this book is presented in the hope and belief that there are thousands (now millions) of hands which up to now have not been lifted – but which now may be persuaded to row a new and firm course.”

Why should this book be any more relevant now than in 1959?  Two things immediately come to mind: Rotary is now doubled in size (over 1.2 million members around the world) and we have the strong contribution of female members.  We can also lever our contributions through partnerships with other like-minded organizations (eg. Lions International, YM/YWCA, religious organizations, etc., etc.).  However, the most significant change in the past decade – what makes rather considerable progress possible today is what I call 'E-peace' - that ability to magnify everything one does, and the related communication and information transfer, at least ten-fold through the use of computer and Internet, around the world instantly. E-peace surely will make community and world peace more of a reality within our, and our children's generation. For example, any Rotarian can belong to a number of Rotary On The Internet (ROTI) email listservers to facilitate peace communications and action around the world.  Rotary can have a central peacebuilding website to disseminate important peace education information.  Much of the moral support and information for our web site comes from these networks.  This book is now available on the Internet accessible to all, after almost being lost over the past 45 years (at  in html; http://www.peace.ca/RotarySevenPathsToPeace.doc for copy in Microsoft Word).

The bottom line is that peace in our families, communities and world is achievable. The Carnegie Institute conducted a study on Preventing Deadly Conflict that concluded, "It is not that we do not know what to do ... it is that we do not act." The reason that it (peace) has not been achieved is one of motivation: world and community leaders have not been motivated to raise their awareness and work together in co-operation to achieve peace. Education, awareness and knowledge of how each can make a difference will motivate people and get them to demand action from our institutions such as government.  This important book shows us how.

Happy reading, and ‘may the force of Rotary be with you’ as you help to build peace in our communities and world.

Where the Paths Begin  

THIS IS A BOOK largely about Rotarians and the “paths” they are traveling toward world peace.  Rotarians have no monopoly on the paths to peace – nor would they say there are only seven.  There are other paths to peace than those discussed within these pages, but Rotarians in the more than 50 years of existence of Rotary clubs have developed through discussion and action several concrete statements about, and approaches to, peace.

Rotarians – more than a half million of them – belong to Rotary clubs in more than 100 lands and, although each club is an autonomous body, they have what might be loosely termed a world-wide “understanding” about certain things.  In convention assembled, Rotarians have agreed that specific words express what they generally believe.  The board of directors, representing all Rotarians, also has taken concerted action about Rotary aims on peace – often on the recommendation of committees or other Rotarians.

Rotary’s one object has four parts, or avenues:

To encourage and foster the ideal of service as a basis of worthy enterprise and, in particular, to encourage and foster:

First.  The development of acquaintance as an opportunity for service;

Second. High ethical standards in business and profession; the recognition of the worthiness of all useful occupations; and the dignifying by each Rotarian of his occupation as an opportunity to serve society;

Third. The application of the ideal of service by every Rotarian to his personal, business, and community life;

Fourth. The advancement of international understanding, good will, and peace through a world fellowship of business and professional men united in the ideal of service.

Paragraph four is called “the avenue of international service”, but paragraph one implements the genius of Rotary in international service.  “The development of acquaintance as an opportunity for service” pinpoints the essential – how?   There, at the simple heart of Rotary, is the impulse that brought together Paul Harris and his friends in Chicago in 1905.  Acquaintance is Rotary’s special gift for the advancement of understanding, good will, and peace – and the simple formula of Rotary’s success in overcoming the isolation of men from each other.  Acquaintance relaxes tensions in business, creates the kindling spark of selfless contribution to the community, and becomes the basic solvent which Rotary offers for problems which separate and divide mankind.

If the foregoing seems elementary to the experienced Rotarian, it should be said that non-Rotarians also have an abiding interest in what Rotarians have done, and are doing, to create conditions in which peace can exist.  Historically, Rotarians have shared their international insights and have not hesitated to be a leavening influence.  This book is addressed to non-Rotarians, too.

Rotary International is an association of autonomous Rotary clubs, not a body which takes corporate action.  It embraces no causes except the object of Rotary and specific policies and projects which implement that object.

Impelled by the vision of, and the frightening necessity for, peace based on world fellowship, Rotarians have explored the techniques of building understanding among men of differing nations, creeds, and colors.  They have also developed, in co-operation with others, an Outline of Policy in international service which has been adopted by the board of directors of Rotary International.  Since the purpose of this book is to develop seven facets of this Policy as they apply to the individual Rotarian, additional background is appropriate.

This policy is the product of painstaking research, the result of a questionnaire addressed to Rotarians throughout the world.  Rotarians, distinguished by their interest in international service, were asked to examine their feelings and to describe their attitudes toward world affairs.  The objective was to assemble a composite statement applicable to men of all nations concerning what it means to have the international outlook of a Rotarian.

Replies to the questionnaire reflected many, and differing, aspects of rich experience.  Even to the internationally-minded, things do not look the same when seen from a village in the Andes , from the heart of an empire, or from a teeming city of Asia .  Many hours were spent by committees of Rotary International in comparing and correlating a consensus that could be phrased in a brief but comprehensive statement.

The resulting statement reveals international service as an assertion of the sovereignty of the human spirit.  This Policy connotes action.  It is addressed to the articulate and the informed and the compassionate – not to the apathetic and unconcerned:

The Responsibility of the Individual Rotarian

Each Rotarian is expected to make his individual contribution to the achievement of the ideal inherent in the fourth avenue of service.

Each Rotarian is expected to so order his daily personal life and business and professional activities that he will be a loyal and serving citizen of his own country.

Each Rotarian wherever located, working as an individual, should help to create a well-informed public opinion.  Such opinion will inevitably affect governmental policies concerned with the advancement of international understanding and good will toward all peoples …

This is only the beginning of the Outline of Policy in international service, but it clearly points to the individual Rotarian – wherever he may be.  Then, there follows an analysis of the directions in which each Rotarian will exert his leadership.  Seven paths, in effect, are commended by the experience of Rotarians from far and wide.  The value of self-examination is aided by the companionship of many searching minds.  There is no pretense of finality.  The statement is intended as a springboard – a challenge to independent thinking.

Could you choose these paths as your own and follow them in the course of service they prescribe?

A decision of such personal importance cannot be undertaken lightly.  Little is gained by one who reads through the statement, wags his head approvingly or rejects it out of hand or appraises it like the curate did his famous egg, as “good in parts”.  Read in this casual manner, the statement can be easily dismissed.

Accordingly, the remainder of the statement on “The Responsibilities of the Individual Rotarian” is not quoted at this point.  Instead, each of the following seven chapters deals with a part of it.  Each chapter opens with the pertinent section.  One by one, each of the seven paths is scrutinized in the context of prevailing conditions, problems, and opportunities for service to which it leads.  The concluding chapter, entitled “Impact”, chronicles examples of the impact of Rotary – each example another direction-sign along the paths leading to peace among men.

If Rotarians and others are attracted to these paths in increasing numbers, it could make a vast difference in the vitality and impact of Rotary.  More important, however, is the possibility that all humanity might somehow avert the calamity of war and the destruction of civilization itself.  This is why Rotarians believe that if there is failure in the avenue of international service, there may be no need for concern about the other avenues of service.

The present dilemma of mankind can be compared to the situation in which the crew of the Kon-Tiki found itself on 7 August, 1947 .  On that day the westward current, which had carried the balsa-log raft and its six-man crew 4,300 miles across the Pacific, thrust the tiny raft closer and closer to the threatening Raroia Reef.  A north wind diverted the raft for a while, but the coral reefs still “lay in ambush”.  Then the wind died away, and slowly, but inexorably, the raft drifted toward the coral wall.  The rhythm of the sea changed, rising to an angry pitch which boiled and seethed to a foaming, writhing climax at the reef.  The surf, first a dull drone, became as sharp as a drum roll, as the Kon-Tiki was dragged toward the reef.

Beyond the surf line the crew could see islands with palm trees behind a calm lagoon.  But there could be no thoughts of idyllic islands as the raft plunged toward the reef.  The crew had not the manpower to resist the tide.

If the raft disintegrated, the crew would surely be cut to death by the coral.  If the raft held, they might live to swim the peaceful lagoon.  If the tide perchance lifted the raft clear of the reef, they might live to tell the story.

The allegory is clear.  Mankind has brought civilization a long and difficult distance, suddenly to find it threatened by total annihilation – hydrogen war.  The drift toward war is unmistakable, whether it should come this year, next year, ten years form now, or whenever.  The reefs are rugged and frightening.  Is there a way around them – a course which is yet to be discovered?  Are there sufficient hands to reverse the drift toward destruction?

Yes, there is a way, and this book is presented in the hope and belief that there are thousands of hands which up to now have not been lifted – but which now may be persuaded to row a new and firm course.

1

The Path of Patriotism

He will look beyond national patriotism and consider himself as sharing responsibility for the advancement of international understanding, good will, and peace.

He will resist any tendency to act in terms of national or racial superiority.

(From the Outline of Policy in International Service.)

A PROFESSOR of Princeton University recalls his brief acquaintance with a sailor in San Francisco – a boy on his way home to Chicago after long service in the Pacific area.  The magic of the city of the Golden Gate apparently made no impression on him.  Asked why he did not like San Francisco , he pondered the question for a moment and then replied with conviction: “Well, this here town isn’t Chicago .”

“In a flash,” the professor remarks, “I felt that I understood more of the nature of nationalism than many a learned tome had ever taught me.”

Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself has said:
“This is my own, my native land.”
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burned
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand?
If such there breathe, go, mark him well
For him no minstrel raptures swell:
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim –
Despite those titles, power and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living shall forfeit fair renown,
And doubly dying shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung.

These unforgettable lines of Sir Walter Scott provide emotional overtones for that part of the Outline of Policy which states the premise for international service:  Each Rotarian is expected to be … a loyal and serving citizen of his own country.  It is taken for granted as a natural extension of the motto, “Service Above Self”.

Nationalism, often indicted for narrowness, is not really narrow in origin; in essence it is an expansive, generous attitude of which only “the wretch concentred all in self” is incapable.  One Rotarian speaking at a convention of Rotary International recalled the Latin proverb: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori (how sweet and seemly it is to die for the fatherland) and continued:

It takes a high order of patriotism to make a man willing to die for his country, but it takes an even higher order of patriotism to make a man willing to die, if need be, to make his country right when his country is wrong.  Then patriotism, when it comes to its very climax, is that patriotism we find in one of Rotary’s principles where it talks about international good will and understanding, where it gets big enough to leap across national boundaries and encompass all humanity.

Looking back over man’s journey through the ages, this same impulse to leap over local barriers is discovered from age to age.  As he crept into the shelter of a tribal cave, the primitive savage foreshadowed the dictum of the philosopher Hobbes that “the life of man without society is poor, mean, nasty, brutish, and short.”  When tribes resisting an invader submitted to a common order of battle, the seeds of a larger relationship were planted.  Later, there were moats, bridges, and walls to hold the communities inside – and the intruders outside.  With growth of communication and expanding horizons of men’s interests and enterprises, cities and states began to merge into nations.

The process is vividly personalized in Bernard Shaw’s play, Saint Joan, where the Earl of Warwick and the Bishop of Beauvais are discussing the Maid’s appeal as a menace to their feudal interests.  They marvel that a simple peasant girl could look beyond her farm and village to conceive of France as her country.  Yet indeed she did, and her countrymen rallied eagerly to her vision.  “The old order changes, giving place to new.”  Normans, Bretons, Gascons, and the rest emerge as Frenchmen devoted to homeland.

Similarly, a “new order” was articulated by a Japanese student who wrote the winning essay in an international understanding and good will contest sponsored by a Rotary club.  She wrote:

Each country has its own peculiar way of life, cultivated through her long history and acclimatized to her natural circumstance; to such a way of life only one principle can not be applied.  As the proverb says, ‘Every man in his humor’, each country is destined to have its own special character … It is absolutely necessary for all countries to understand each other’s character so as to promote mutual friendship and good will, before running the risk of opposition or strife …

Individual fundamental human rights must be respected, even if someone has a different idea from ours – because he is Man.   In the same way, the sovereignty of a country must reasonably be respected, no matter how different there way of life may be.  To expect the prosperity and welfare of one’s country alone – disregarding the happiness of others – is wrong … Only when we build up a firm, true friendship based on the generous approval of others, can we hope for the eternal peace of the world …

The path of patriotism, far from embarrassing the Rotarian, is proposed to him as the basis of international service.  It leads to wider acquaintance, based on respect and mutual esteem.  In the mind of the Rotarian there is no more contradiction between patriotism and international-mindedness than there is between being a good father of his family and being a worthy citizen of his community.  Can the one, in fact, be accomplished without the other?

A contradiction does exist, however, in some minds.  Perhaps the study of history, which Gibbon called “the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind”, contributes to this feeling.  There is a kind of patriotism which is nourished by grievances and fears, which exists mostly to foment hatred and hysteria for selfish ends, and which becomes, in the words of Doctor Johnson, “the last resort of scoundrels”.

The best defense against this kind of patriotism is a more careful examination of national pride and of the directions toward which it leads.  Would not the people of your country – any country – be happier and safer if the foe of today were transformed into a friend?  It can happen.  It is happening, and it has happened repeatedly throughout history.  For centuries the French and the English were at daggers drawn.  They disputed the supremacy of Europe in bitter warfare – on the continent and over the seven seas from the wildernesses of America to the steaming swamps of India .  Later, they became friends.  To the embattled patriots of bygone days this friendship might be incredible treason, yet both countries have benefited in security and prosperity.  Much of the progress of the great nineteenth century became possible when the enmity between England and France were laid to rest.

Probing even deeper, do we love our country because of the hatred and fear she evokes in men of other nations?  Or, is not that hostility a source of shame and sorrow?  Do we not glory in our country’s contribution to the spiritual, cultural, and material progress of mankind?  And is not the true patriot the person who enlarges the glory of his land by projecting his service beyond its boundaries?

Through much analysis, the true patriot builds a strong defense.  Looking beyond national patriotism, as suggested in the Outline of Policy, true patriotism justifies itself.  Yet, in the process of self-justification there is danger.  In the Outline, a warning immediately follows: He will resist any tendency to act in terms of national or racial superiority. 

Now, the tables are turned.  The critic is no longer outside in the person of the chauvinist.  Now the enemy is seen as coming from within – from the human tendency to seek superiority.  It is not easy to resist, so desperately we want to be right.  And it is difficult to be right without being self-righteous.

A Chinese Rotarian illustrated the harm done to international relations by thoughtless, prideful assertions of superiority – among his own people along with the rest.  He called it one of the major factors holding back the advance of civilization, the secret weapon of those who would divide in order to enslave.

The following letter, written in 1793 and sent from the emperor of China, Ch’ien Lung, to King George III of England, illustrates and ages-old, universal problem:

“You, O King, live beyond the confines of many seas; nevertheless, impelled by your humble desire to partake of the benefits of our civilization, you have dispatched a mission respectfully bearing your memorial. … I have perused your memorial; the earnest terms in which it is couched reveal a respectful humility … which is praiseworthy …

If you assert that your reverence for our Celestial Dynasty fills you with desire to acquire our civilization, our ceremonies and code of laws differ so completely from your own that, even if your envoy were able to acquire the rudiments of our civilization, you could not possibly transport our manners and customs to your alien soil. …

“Swaying the wide world, I have but one aim in view, namely, to maintain a perfect governance and to fulfill the duties of the state.  Strange and costly objects do not interest me.  If I have commanded that the tribute offerings sent by you, O King, are to be accepted, this was solely in consideration for the spirit which prompted you to dispatch them from afar.  Our Dynasty’s majestic virtue has penetrated into every country under Heaven, and kings of all nations have offered their costly tribute by land and sea.   As your ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. …”

 Yet, within our own persons we carry around this tendency to trumpet our superiority.  IT is often seen in tourists and those who live abroad, in the reception of immigrants, or in the treatment of persons of another race.  Brutal assertions of national or racial superiority are no more bitterly remembered than half-conscious gestures of condescension.  They are entered into the record of wrath that poisons international relations.

A Rotarian and his wife from Texas , U.S.A. , were traveling in France and stopped at a small village inn for the night.  The lady at the registration desk must have heard of Texas , for she smiled knowingly at the wide-brimmed hat worn by the man.  When she heard him say, “My wife and I would like a room for the night,” she reddened and stammered a little.

“You do have rooms, don’t you?” the man asked.

“Oui, monsieur, we have rooms, but they are not what you Americans say – moderne.  They are not the best, monsieur.”

“Madam,” said the man from Texas , “where we come from all you need is a blanket and a pile of hay.  We’ll be glad to stay with you.”

Of such is the record of personal humility and respect which brightens international relations.

We may be helped toward the path of genuine patriotism by reminding ourselves that, personally, we have added little to the store of our national or racial greatness, and that individually many persons of other nations and races surpass us in accomplishment.  What is within our power is a willingness to serve through developing acquaintance with them.

Rotarians enjoy special privileges in the field of acquaintance; over the world, to cite one example, there are many Rotary clubs with different nationalities represented in their membership.  Many clubs claim a score or more whose harmonious co-operation is regarded as an important service to the community, to say nothing of its broader implications for mankind.  As conceived by one pioneer of Rotary:

If Rotary had been especially constructed to serve only in this capacity, it could not be a more perfect machine.  It shocks no faith, for all religions are equally welcome within its portals.  There are no secrets, no mysterious rites to raise doubts in the minds of non-Rotarians.  And then, most happily, its great objective is simplicity itself, understandable to all men.  What a splendid banner to emblazon to al suffering world.

It should be clearly understood, however, that the abolition of national, religious, and cultural differences is not a part of the Rotary program.  On the contrary, the diversity of human expression is regarded as a matter for rejoicing, and never as a barrier to understanding and co-operation.  In a world which is shrinking with each jet-propelled second, how dull it would be if this earth’s glorious variety were reduced to drab uniformity!  Much of the pleasure – and yes, the fun – of international service is in discovery and appreciation of these cherished differences.

This is not to minimize the problems created by differences, for Rotarians in more that 100 countries and geographical regions have special reason for being aware of these problems.  From the Union of South Africa comes a story of Rotary action in the face of differences and of danger, too.  On the Wednesday following serious riots in neighboring towns, the Rotary club had arranged to sponsor a concert given by the prize-winners of a Bantu music festival.  One of the trophies to be awarded was a gift from a Rotarian in the British Isles but, under the circumstances, the question was raised whether Rotarians should attend the concert with their wives.

Upon reflection, however, club members took heart from the progress which had been achieved locally in race relations through African ward elections, sporting clubs, and a determined attack upon housing problems.  Rotarians turned out in force, with their families, for the concert.

This step was amply rewarded.  In his closing speech the African chairman asked his largely African audience:

What is this Rotary movement, and how is it that a Rotarian from Great Britain has sent us a cup?  These Rotarians believe that they must work for better race relations all over the world, and we Africans have seen with our own eyes how this group of Europeans is living up to this belief.  We Africans must help these men with their work.  We are progressing without violence.  We do not need violence.

Progressing without violence.  Could there be a more patriotic wish by any man of any country?

The path of patriotism is one path to peace; it offers opportunities for tangible, personal service by Rotarians in all countries.  Incidents occur every day which challenge the true patriot to declare his interpretation of nationalism as generous and expansive way of life.  For him, national holidays are not occasions of vainglorious boasting but reminders of his responsibility to help build respect for all peoples.  He will use all the vehicles of acquaintance available to Rotarians in creating friendships with people of all nations and races, for therein lies the hope and glory of his own beloved land.

2

The Path of Conciliation

He will seek and develop common grounds for agreement with peoples of other lands.

(From the Outline of Policy in International Service.)

A SECRETARY of state for external affairs of Canada relayed to the Golden Anniversary convention of Rotary International this report of a visit to the Afghanistan frontier:

When we got there, we found a chain across the middle of the road.  On one side of the chain was an Afghan sentry and on the other a Pakistan sentry.  The Afghan sentry was armed to the teeth.  I was not quite sure what would happen if I crossed the frontier.  So, standing firmly on Pakistan territory, I held out my hand to the Afghan sentry and smiled.  He rested his rifle on a rock, broke into a broad grin, and invited me to step over the chain.  It did this and shook him warmly by the hand.

Rotary invites and assists all men to step over the chain of national prejudice, national pride, and shake each other warmly by the hand – so, may it grow and flourish and prosper in this great work.

Smiles and handshakes are universal passports to understanding.  They relax tensions and create an atmosphere in which conciliation of disputes becomes possible.  Of themselves, however, they do not resolve conflicts.  Thinking persons ask themselves in desperate sincerity, how can nations committed to different systems of life and government be persuaded to fulfill their aspirations without recourse to violence?

A fable discloses the root of several obstacles to conciliation.  It tells of an angel who appeared at a high level conference of great powers.  The angel announced that Heaven was much distressed by their disagreements.  “The trouble,” said the angel, “is that each of you can veto what the others want.  I am instructed to grant one wish to each of you – a wish that the others cannot prevent being carried out.”

One representative responded quickly: “I wish that a tidal wave would engulf your whole country.”

“Well!” exclaimed the next diplomat, “if you want to play rough, I wish that a great plague would descend upon you and kill off all your people.”

There was a pause, and the celestial visitor turned to the third delegate.  “All I want,” said he, mildly, “is a good cup of tea, but take care of the other two gentlemen first.”

Does not this fable reflect the basis on which nations large and small approach the process of conciliation?  Without wishing the physical extermination of the other party, there is the tacit assumption that he must surrender his purposes and principles – otherwise, agreement is impossible.  For all practical purposes this attitude assumes a world in which each nation can “go it alone,” if necessary, and overcome its difficulties with other nations simply by ignoring them.

He will seek common grounds of agreement with peoples of other lands.  The expectation is not implied here that any nation will transform itself into the image of another.  The objective is a cool and dispassionate examination of actual conditions, needs, and aspirations of the peoples concerned.  Neither side is expected to concede its principles or purposes in the agreement; instead, each seeks confirmation of its goals in the benefits resulting from co-operations.  This attitude assumes that other nations – far from being external entities which can be ignored – are people like ourselves ant that, because of this likeness, agreements, solutions, and settlements can be found or created which will be beneficial to all concerned.

Too idealistic?  Not at all.  History abounds with instances that testify to the realism of this approach.  For centuries Moslems and Christians battled for supremacy.  Neither group has abandoned its goal, but conflict has been replaced generally by a mutual forbearance in the pursuit of other interests.  Russia and Britain engaged in a prolonged cold war throughout the nineteenth century, but the first and second world wars found them acting as allies.  The belligerents of the second world war have become, in several cases, close friends.

The approach taken by belligerents has something to do with results, too.  Two neighbors quarreled over the placement of a line fence.  Finally, one of them, weary of bitter conflict, sold his property.  After the sale, he explained the problem to the new owner.  “You will have trouble with your neighbor,” he said.  “He thinks the line fence should be five feet over on your land.  Be prepared to go to court with him.”

The new owner moved in.  Immediately, the neighbor approached him with fire in his eyes.  “You will have to move that fence,” he warned.  “It’s five feet too far on my land.  I’ll take you to court to prove it.”

“That won’t be necessary,” the new owner said.  “I’ve heard about your complaint, so you move the fence where you think it should go – and that will be fine with me.”

The neighbor wilted with unbelief and went away muttering incoherently.  The fence was never moved.

Rotarians have demonstrated the validity of this attitude in numerous settings of tension.  Perhaps the most remarkable was a boundary dispute between Ecuador and Peru which had gone unsettled for 150 years and had caused three wars.  At a crucial moment Rotarians of both countries persuaded their governments to permit an attempt at conciliation.  Three Rotarians appointed by the president of Rotary International met in a neutral country, and in four-and-a-half days they devised a solution which was later adopted by a conference of the inter-American organization.

War in the Chaco came to an end, partly as a result of efforts by Rotarians in the belligerent countries and in Chile .  Fierce tensions on the borders of Uruguay and Brazil were relaxed through the influence of Rotarians of the two countries who lived near the frontier.  More recently, Rotarians of Costa Rica and Nicaragua helped to prevent conflict between their countries by a campaign of friendly visits and correspondence with non-Rotarians.

The anguish produced by the partition of India and Pakistan will be long remembered.  Hordes of homeless refugees roamed the lands.  Anarchy threatened.  Restoration of order was attributed largely to the actions of individuals – many of whom were Rotarians.  As one of the few organizations where Hindus and Moslems met socially, Rotary clubs formed conciliation committees which “sent into the streets patrols consisting of leading Moslems and Hindus.  They addressed meetings and `called upon the people to abate their inflammatory attitude and to resolve their common difficulties.”

Most Rotarians, however, do not have opportunities to follow the path of conciliation in such dramatic circumstance.  They can, however, seek common grounds for agreement through personal acquaintance and discussion with other Rotarians – both with Rotarians in their own clubs and in clubs in distant places.  In these ways any Rotarians can use Rotary facilities for exploring with men of good will the real needs and aspirations of their countrymen.  Having discovered what interests are vital, the search for means of satisfying them without prejudice to the vital interests of other nations can be undertaken.  Meanwhile, the fresh insights and the constructive quest for agreement can be shared with the people of the community.

It is apparent, then, that those who would follow the path of conciliation must possess imagination and ingenuity.  One must have the temerity to imagine himself as a sort of foreign minister vested with responsibility for the international relations of his country, but free from the pressures which surround foreign ministers.  The challenge is to consider every international problem on its merits, in all its aspects.  Can you see a solution which you could recommend to your fellow citizens?

Actually, this projection of ourselves into such a role is not difficult.  Everyone does it unconsciously as he reads his newspaper or views pictures of current events.  It is much more difficult, however, to imagine all the different factors which affect any given situation or problem.  Anyone who makes the most superficial study of international relations is appalled by their complexity.  He can sympathize with the foreign minister who fumbles or hesitates in forming a policy when faced with such considerations as defense, economics, public sentiment, and alternative but mutually exclusive proposals.  Positive action of any sort is sure to offend some person or group.

The complexity of international problems, however, has a fortunate side.  Competing proposals tend to “cross-pollinate” each other and to generate new ideas.  That all nations are caught between competing alternatives implies that any nation is capable of persuasion if alternatives are sufficiently explored and matched together.  In short, international relations is not dealing with monolithic entities.  Nations are people!

The world scope of rotary provides an opportunity for each Rotarian to make a significant contribution in this “exploring and matching” process.  Within Rotary there is frankness which may be lacking in communications on the official level.  In this respect the Rotarian who explores a problem with a Rotarian in another country may gain a more flexible impression of what that country really wants.  At the same time he may be spared the disillusionment that occurs when verbal declarations are not followed by appropriate action.  Instead of feeling ill-will, he will understand.

Another advantage derived from the complexity of international affairs is the ever=present possibility of technical solutions.  We live in a technical age.  Science can be blamed as the source of many of our troubles, but science never submits to a stalemate in its quest for answers.  No group has been more resolute, for instance, in its attach upon the problem of international control of atomic energy than the scientists who produced the bomb.

Consider, for example, the case of water rights in the Punjab .  The boundary line of partition cuts across the Indus river system, leaving most of the canals in Pakistan and the headwaters and the controlling canal works in India .  Dispute over use of the waters has been one of the most serious problems dividing the two nations.  Then, engineers came up with a scheme for using the wasted waters which might satisfy both countries.  Said one of the engineers: “It’s the method of thinking that counts.  To get people to look at a canal as a canal, a problem in engineering – and not as a political controversy – that is the important step.”

To seek and develop common grounds for agreement with peoples of other lands implies a willingness to project oneself into the often seemingly incomprehensible thought patterns of other nations and the resolution to explore all sorts of complicated technical solutions.  The key word in this context is develop.  Development implies effort and time.  A number of international disputes have been under discussion for years without much progress, and public opinion, especially in the countries directly concerned, tends to become impatient.  It has been led to expect perfect – and quick – solutions.  Why?

Part of the answer to this question can be found in the system of mass communications upon which the public depends for most information and part of it can be answered by the method of negotiation itself.

Generally speaking, conference is the accepted pattern of negotiation – bringing the interested persons together around a table.  Then, the scene begins to develop; behind each national delegate is a little knot of experts representing officials not present but actively interested in the negotiations; further back are rows of interested spectators drawn from all walks of life, by motives ranging from the earnest to the frivolous.  Representatives of the press are present; television lights are glaring, and radio networks carry each syllable to the ends of the earth.  Presto!  The statesmen’s dream – “open diplomacy”.

This dream grew out of resentment against the cynical character of private negotiations.  It was believed that honesty could be preserved by submitting transactions of nations to public view.  Besides, the people had a right to know.

However, there were temptations in this picture which had not been foreseen.  The diplomat turned delegate was often revealed as an eager propagandist, full of angry tirades and more or less subtle prevarications.  If he shoed the slightest tendency to reach an understanding with an opponent, he risked being called an “appeaser” by some indignant editorialist or opposition politician.  Under these circumstances only a statesman with the stature of a Churchill would dare to urge a return to the practice of secret diplomacy.  Sir Winston declared on one occasion:

This conference should not be overhung by ponderous or rigid agenda or led into mazes or jungles of technical details zealously contested by hordes of experts and officials drawn up in a vast cumbrous array.

The conference should be confined to the smallest number of persons and powers possible.  They should meet with a measure of informality and a still greater measure of privacy and seclusion.

It may well be that no hard and fast agreement would be reached but there might be a general feeling among those gathered together that they might do something better than tear the human race, including themselves, into bits.

Does this counsel present some hope of removing the impasse which now obstructs the path of conciliation?  Proponents argue that the public would be freed from the confusion and uncertainty created by open diplomacy and consequent chronicling of a new crisis in every headline.

On the other hand, the public has a duty to be informed – a right to be present when its fate is being debated.  Proponents of open diplomacy opine with equal vigor that pressure from constituents helps to raise the level of statesmanship, that in the long pull it is the one best hope for people-to-people diplomacy.

The daring person – and it must be clear that he is the daring one – who would follow the path of conciliation must also possess patience.  Patience tempers conviction with the long breath and saving grace of common sense.  It sustains the imagination in seeking to understand the other fellow’s point of view and in the examination of difficult technical problems.  Above all, patience is needed to deal with objections of the public at delicate stages of negotiations against being betrayed – “sold down the river” – accepting anything less than perfect solutions.

The very nature of the quest for common grounds excludes the possibilities of perfect solutions.  No unconditional surrender, no victory for one side or the other can be expected.  Little is gained by taking votes if the effect is to isolate a minority and harden its resistance.  The task of conciliation is to devise alternative solutions based on whatever areas of agreement may be discovered through sympathetic efforts to understand.

Many persons are inclined to regard this task as one for mechanics – a precision job like putting an automobile together.  Better suited, perhaps, are the gifts of a gardener who knows that he can only cultivate the ground, or change the atmosphere, and thus encourage growth.  He must conform to nature, pruning a little here and fertilizing a little there.   Mechanics armed with blueprints could accomplish little in transforming a wilderness.  But a patient gardener, conscious of his limitations, can produce results.

“One of the most impressive examples of the possibilities of international co-operation,” wrote a Rotarian, “is to be seen in one of those gardens wherein we find plants, shrubs and trees from all over the globe flourishing and flowering side by side in perfect harmony and beauty, to create between them that atmosphere wherein it is generally agreed that man comes nearest to his Maker.

“There is much wisdom to be learned in a garden, and the very beginning of that wisdom is a realization that all final results depend upon proper preparation of the soil.  So it is with Rotary.  The crop we envisage is world peace and stability.  The seed to be sown – fellowship and friendship, understanding, good will, and good faith.  The soil – the minds and thinking processes of individual Rotarians; and first in importance comes the preparation of the soil. …”

3

The Path of Freedom

He will defend the rule of law and order to preserve the liberty of the individual so that he may enjoy freedom of thought, speech and assembly, freedom from persecution and aggression, and freedom from want and fear.  

(From the Outline of Policy in International Service.)

FREEDOM IS A basic element of civilized society; it is one of the principles enunciated by most governments today.  More words have been written and spoken about freedom than about most subjects – and, yet, few topics have suffered more in the hands of men who, consciously or unconsciously, have used, and are using, it as an ideological tool to advance selfish causes.  

The political, economic, and religious implications of freedom must be left to larger volumes and to more philosophical discussions, but Rotarians are deeply concerned about freedom.  They have expressed themselves in word and deed about it.

The importance attached to freedom by Rotarians is amply demonstrated by the amount of attention given to it in the Outline of Policy in international service.  Preceding the most pointed statement, quoted at the opening of this chapter, is a full delineation of what Rotarians mean by “freedom”:

The Rotary ideal of service finds expression only where there is liberty of the individual, freedom of thought, speech and assembly, freedom of worship, freedom from persecution and aggression, and freedom from want and fear.

Freedom, justice, truth, sanctity of the pledged word and respect for human rights are inherent in Rotary principles and are also vital to the maintenance of international peace and order and to human progress.

Why this deliberate emphasis?  It can be explained only by the importance that the compilers of the Outline, fortified by their consultation with Rotarians in many parts of the world, attached to the principle that is invoked.  Liberty of the individual, his dignity and freedom of thought, have special meanings for Rotarians.  When freedom is destroyed, order and progress go with it.

With the growth of totalitarian governments in Europe and Asia between the world wars, Rotary clubs became targets of persecution.  In one country a policy of total regimentation led to the disbanding of Rotary clubs.  In another, Rotarians were jailed for “dangerous thoughts” because their membership in and “International” was suspect.  In another place Rotary was suppressed by “a new political philosophy which has overcome individual thought as the structural defect of a whole epoch, and has replaced it by community-conscious thought.”

The challenge to the integrity of Rotary was confronted squarely and openly in annual convention – the only place and time where the organization takes concerted action.  At the Havana ( Cuba ) convention in 1940, a resolution declared that where freedom, justice, truth, sanctity of the pledged word, and respect for human rights do not exist, Rotary cannot live nor its ideals prevail.

Although Rotary has no secrets, no ritual, no rigid uniformity, it was in fact a symbol of freedom to dictators.  Retreat rather than advance became the order of the day in countries where governments assumed totalitarian powers and recognized in Rotary an agency that could not be controlled for the purposes of propaganda and persecution.  Before the outbreak of the second world war, Rotary was the target of official directives in several countries.

In spite of obstacles produced by daylight raids, blackouts, and flying bombs, many Rotary clubs continued to meet.  The stimulus to thoughtfulness and helpfulness increased as Rotarians picked their way among the ruins.  During the blitz itself the Rotary Club of London formed several new clubs within the territory originally assigned to it.  Around the world, great international projects were initiated for the relief of victims of war, and for aid to prisoners and extending hospitality to troops far from home.  Most dramatic picture, perhaps, of Rotary in a world at war was the report of an eye witness of a Rotary meeting that took place during an island invasion:

“In the semi-darkness of a stinking tunnel, met a group of seven Rotarians, with wounded men writhing in agony around them.  The only civilian with them was the club president who had escaped … in a small boat.  He rapped the table with his gavel, the butt of a pistol he had snatched from the soldier next to him, and called the meeting of what was left of the Rotary club to order.”

So, in the face of struggle and suppression, the concern remained for something which meant freedom.  Some Rotary clubs continued to meet secretly under other names.  One club, for instance, became a choir and named itself for the grouse – which does not sing.  Another club met regularly in a restaurant frequented by enemy officers.  The records of many Rotary clubs were seized, and the president of at least one club was imprisoned for being a Rotarian.

After the war there was a rapid revival of Rotary in countries where it had been suppressed.  The eagerness with which clubs sought the restoration of their charters after the war can be attributed partly to the stand taken by Rotarians in convention at Havana in 1940.  It was clear that, once conditions were right, nothing need delay the resumption of fellowship and voluntary service.  The much-lamented absence of Rotary clubs in certain countries does not represent any decision by Rotary International; it is the conditions in these countries which exclude Rotary.

Obviously, the Rotarian has a special reason for being drawn toward the path of freedom; namely, the preservation of Rotary, besides much else that he holds dear – perhaps all else.  Never in human history was the issue more clearly drawn.  Between a dark age of despotism and a golden age of freedom every man must choose, and often he may find that the foes of freedom are “they of his own household”.  The battle is not only along national lines.  There is a fifth column within the gates – perhaps within his own mind.  There is the temptation to defend freedom by denying freedom to those who seem to betray it.

A visitor to the unpretentious flat in Rome where lived Prime Minister de Gasperi was shocked by the blare of a phonograph in the next apartment.  It was playing “Giovinezza”, the Fascist anthem, the marching song of the party which had imprisoned de Gasperi and reduced his family to starvation.  The prime minister shook his head ruefully.  “It’s the Countess”, he explained.  “She’s trying to relieve my boredom and solitude by playing her records.  Until now, she only played them at seven o’clock when she knew I was getting up to go to the office, and again at nine in the evening when I cam home for dinner.  But since my illness she plays them all day long; ‘Giovinezza’ … ‘To Arms’ … ‘Hymn to Rome ’ … ‘The Empire’.”

“You should complain!”

“I have,” replied de Gasperi.  “I even wrote a letter to Premier de Gasperi, signed by myself and all my family.  But Premier de Gasperi answered that as head of a free government he is bound to respect individual liberties, including the right to play one’s favorite songs and that therefore he could not possibly interfere in any private citizen’s affairs.”

How far should, or can, a free society go in giving personal freedom pre-eminence?  Teachers often illustrate for children by saying that “your personal freedom ends where your playmate’s freedom begins.”  Where is that?  At what point must individual freedom be subjugated to the will of the group?

What, indeed, does freedom mean in the diverse regions of the world?

At the end of the second world war an American correspondent attended a luncheon in Europe where several Russians were also in attendance.  He found himself seated between a Russian military photographer and a Russian interpreter.  The photographer was recounting achievements of the Russian army, and the American turned to the interpreter: “Ask him what he thinks this war was all about.”

The interpreter asked the question of the photographer, and the answer cam forth like a bullet.  “Svoboda!”  said the Russian – “Freedom!”  As if to say to the American, “Didn’t you know – you poor ignorant fellow.”

“Ask him – what is freedom?” the American said.

“Freedom?” answered the Russian, hesitating, then firmly – “Freedom is knowing how to help the other fellow. …”

Around the world in scores of places men are struggling for freedom, and the goals of freedom have been confiscated by men whose actions contradict their concern.  Admitting that part of the problem is one of semantics, the fact is that freedom means a hundred different things to a hundred different people.

The problem of definition was demonstrated when representatives of 58 nations joined to explore the meaning of freedom.  They combed through history and traditions, through famous documents in the struggle for liberty around the world.  They disputed over phrasings and implications, and although after more than two years their Declaration of Human Rights was approved by 48 nations and opposed by none (10 nations abstained), the dispute is by no means over.

For the Rotarian who would “defend the rule of law and order to preserve the liberty of the individual” the Universal Declaration of Human Rights presents an interesting opportunity.  Rotary International was among the first organizations to provide copies to its member clubs for discussion.  Rotary clubs in many countries organized debates in their communities.  Studies by international service committees were published in pamphlet form.  Scores of radio stations broadcast panel discussions by Rotarians on the theme of human rights.  Schools were invited organize essay contests with prizes awarded by Rotary clubs, and the anniversary of the Declaration’s adoption (10 December) has been observed in various ways.

While defenders of freedom have made abundant use of the Declaration as an educational device for clarifying and confirming the concept of freedom, subsequent attempts to establish the rule of law through an international covenant of human rights and measures of implementation have aroused the disquiet of some.  A primary objection is that different nations have advanced further than others in giving effect to different aspects of freedom through domestic legislation and popular consent, and, under these circumstances, to agree on a legal formulation acceptable to all nations tends to produce the lowest common denominator.  If it is to be acceptable to all, it is likely to be satisfactory to none.  Such a watered-down formulation of freedom, it is alleged, might actually weaken the existing protections of human rights in some countries.

Rotary clubs which have proved their vigilance in pointing to this danger also suggest that public opinion in the community is the critical factor in preserving freedom.  International agreement on definitions of freedom and procedures of implementation have little or no meaning unless there is capacity and willingness to understand the meaning of freedom at the community level.