Voices of Europe; Salvador de Madariaga and William Allen Jowitt

Voices of Europe produced and recorded by Milton Mayer in cooperation with the University of Chicago under a grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National Association of educational broadcasters on this program. Milton Mayer will conduct to interview the first is with Don Salvatore are the majority AGA and the second with the Earl of jollity and now Milton Mayer. So although our day Madariaga of Oxford once of us is one of the most eminent political philosophers of our time. That his philosophy is a living end up fighting philosophy is indicated on the one hand by his exile from his native country and the expropriation of his property there by Francisco Franco and on the other by the

fact that the Spanish dictator has never been quite willing to be pride of him of his Spanish citizenship founder of the College of Europe in Belgium. Professor Madariaga makes his home have Oxford where he serves as a lecturer at the university and where I'm interviewing him today don't sound or I suppose there's such a thing as a moral man. Maybe you don't think there is but is there such a thing as a moral society. I think that it is. Or perhaps I should say I think there should be. My feeling is that just as a moral man he saw him just stand there which helps us to live even though we don't always live up to it. A society that would not have as its standard to be a moral society or the gender date in this

point so ultimately. Well if that is no model standing for the word Society named Eve nations have no modern standards we not them not as moral standards this world society of the planet Earth is going to be destroyed. But those are the real when you use the go for moral standard. I suppose we could translate that expression into moral ideal and I do understand that the moral man and the moral society exist only ideally and have never existed historically and will never exist historically. It is if we do that we must never lose sight of the comparison with the Human beings are a 100 percent from our own human being as it never existed except Jesus Christ and Francis of Assisi or half a dozen people of that guy bar the important thing is

less that a man should be always the right than a man who has done wrong should be able to say I have done wrong and the important thing in international relations therefore is that there should be a possibility of building a nation that is wrong that is why if you do this you would be wrong if you do this you would be right if you are going to be able to do that then we are going to the vet up into the national jungle and then owing to the age bomb we are going to do the story for her. There are more of a society here understand you like a moral mayor is to be judged not by what it does but by its current sions about what it does. Ultimately But on the other hand if the man keeps doing wrong and in the merely reading about it we should be bound to the both of

them to come to the conclusion that that he not only he is in Modeler but that he is a hypocrite. We must now and then see that he hits the feast trying all the time to get in or with Mrs. Wishart come to the conclusion really is not the right of him but it is not in the nature of the case. I take it that a perfectly moral man such as Jesus must necessarily be crucified by society at large. It is not necessary at all. We live in the case of Jesus that was the reason why he was crucified was not because he was small but because of because he dry it dry to reach for fiction to people who were patients of fiction. And in any case to come back to our international scene might have been what he's wanted. He is are a complete

readjustment of the forces of international politics under the bases of this idea that the world the society has to have an ethical standard and can discover such an ethical system. Michael what you see here is that oh we have around have built our own international society on false pretenses. We have been the United Nations where the United Nations is to all of us. He doesn't acknowledge the existence of the different kinds of Dion's face the differences in rhythm of civilization and so on. I do nothing of the show. Get out of this committee until we have a Washington saying we will do for the revolutionary way grabbed the United Nations but started on an entirely different idea grouping nations in a more

organic way by continents by faith. I certainly would see the United States as a group. South America is another little Europe. There's another little peace love as another. That's another rule and perhaps two or three groups in nature and each of these groups there ought to be an internal international organization to follow the close leader with more knowledge of the locals. So that at the top we still having these Huell John we'll be adding one yard. We sure have relatively small town council bonding as we might call it which with perhaps only two other people would be able to who much better than these and always assume that members of all everything knows nothing. I think that with this system we should be able to organize international morality much better now but at the base of that

there must be international and in particular I do not acknowledge that any nation has the right to say since I may need this for my subsistence for my survival I must that is an argument I think we start from the register. But isn't this just this argument inherent in the very existence of nations. When my government does that they believe a nation must agree and that in order to exist he doesn't deserve to exist. That's a hard argument on Salvador. Let me take let me take the nation a. A free country relatively as we as we know societies are threatened by a nation which is an aggressive slave society a nation and he has held

a colony colony see for a great many centuries. Cowardly C is indispensable to the can to new existence. The economic existence were to say of a nation a which as I say is threatened by nation B. Him I do understand that. Nation A is to let colonies see go free at this juncture when you will have to put concrete names on that money. My If you keep it up struck me I should say that even a nation needs to use the holding office way on account of the sea and the colony. C is in rebellion against the sway of nation a nation has a has no right to claim that.

And her her sway over the sea is indispensable for her sort of systems are sort of viable she must manage to survive without holding sway over seas. That seems to be pretty obvious but that I should get around it if it will be in this other way today or into the H bomb the atomic system and the long range missiles. No nation can insure its defense of its own accord not here in the United States not even Russia can ensure they are the fans without the help of world nations. For instance if the United States could the WHO ARE the question sure of their own defenses without other nations they would have been happy or they wouldn't have bases all over the world as a whole and therefore no nation today can defend itself against another nation in a complete way without the help of other nations. Therefore from the defense point of view an individual nation exists no longer

and therefore we must come back to what I was mentioning minutes ago to the idea of the for the nation a nation. Saw any such example as you suggest leaving us now to world affairs to the world for the nation. We must organize our world for the nation or freed nations. Leaving outside the nations such as the communist nations that do not allow freedom of thought we were going nation freedom of ideas communications and these were for the nation. We would see to it that this inflations such as the one who this guy would have thought would be nothing away will consume. My question don't solve the door is this the without regard to future contingencies to future possibility. Here I am hypothetically an Englishman today. My country holds Cyprus and says that without regard to

morality it must continue to hold Cyprus because it requires this line of defense for the transmission of the oil on which its economy depends in the face of the threat I suppose of Russia. What is to be my attitude as an Englishman. Am I to defend my country or not. It's rather an interesting example to give because you will start by one thing where there was a Mars Society where I live. I have carefully read what you say the name of the boat so I and I have been struck by the fact that both sides both those who think that the English from their sofas go. And those who think of England with things I speak in the name of morality be the second the second school of English thought that they must

give Cyprus because the Turks don't want in or he's the one Cyprus that would release because that would be very dangerous for Turkey. And the Greeks would never dream of letting go. So it was with the turkey and therefore the the East Timor one of the best moral solution in the form of relief for Cyprus to be here for England but I hold the view with the that an Englishman of today realising the position that has been created for this cover of the H-bomb and other things of the same kind should have as its moral stand that question of cyclists must be good to Natal which is the need is to present a deal of what I said before who I don't particularly like myself but it is the neatest form of what I mentioned before for THE NATION OF THE NATION. The last question or so are there or is it possible

for a society to be more or. With universal suffrage. No it is because of universal suffrage requires of people should have majorities in Parliament and the parties you know damage or this environment will as experience show will do will be things to get their majority is indeed necessary and by them mostly and even misleading the electorate or if necessary or sought by you it is either they can buy booze or by following them with rooms even when the rooms are in March. I believe that for society to morrow each will organize itself more organic and namely that these smaller societies within their within their organizational life should get their order was a bishop and the smaller society is to

gradually. Raise the presentation of the very top. My formulae in this case in which I think gives the best summary of what I think of all these matters is this. I do not think the nation is this some arithmetic with citizens. I think the nation is the integration of existence. You feel. It is institutions that should be represented beginning with them. And not rules. In the people. Michael Lewis this democracy based on the list of suffrage I called statistical democracy and that should be for something more like more like holding a gun to. The mob. Thank you doso William Allen Jowett was elevated to the peerage of being one in the year 1951 at the

completion of six years as Lord Chancellor of England the Earldom of Jowett was created for eight years what is known as a Labor peer. Born in 1885 the son of a clergyman is trained as a lawyer. Enter Parliament first as a liberal and then as a Labor member and successively from 1929 to 51 in coalition and in Labor governments of England. He was solicitor general paymaster general minister without portfolio during the war. He was the first minister of national insurance at the end of the war and then the large chancellor are the chief legal officer during which he is incidentally also the

president of the British travel and holidays Association and he lives on a farm a considerable farm outside of verray St Edmunds in south eastern England. A few years back. Lord Jowett wrote a book and titled The Strange Case of Alger here in a way which slowly on his reading of the record of the case of Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers he reached the conclusion that here this had not been proved guilty without however his taking the position that this was necessarily innocent.

I think I could not find a more important man a more important minded interview on the subject of national security than William Alan Gell your lordship. I don't like to ask you a two part question. I want to know in a society such as in who owns our Americas what the limits are of the individual's rights against society and what the limits are of society's rights against the individual. Well there's a very large Christian lives star with the last part of the year says it is the limits of this is his rights against the individual. Well I should differentiate very sharp there between the case where the

individual is going to be trusted with some kind of was secret and the other cases where there's no question of it is secret being involved in the former case I should be and this is has the right and indeed the duty not doing trusted secrets to anybody against whom there can be in his vision as to his trust with what is. Need be nothing to be said against the man. It may be simply a case of association. You take the case of a young man whose hairdo is limited to real school and college and it gets to nothing whatever can be said. He's living at home with his parents. If I found the parents were active communities

then even although I got nothing whatever against the young son I should take care not to interest him with important states you know I should consider that the association which he had associated through the loophole that was disqualified him from being in the position of CC. Well now there's the simple case of a man being in possession of secrets but after all the vast majority of cases are not the one with the vast majority of cases. I would say this. Of course he has the right to prevent anybody taking active steps to sever. Due to an injury and has the right to take active steps to prevent it in body advocating that other people should sever But having said that

firmly believing the society exists for the individual and not individual cases I should consider. Society is very unwell is if it pushes things too far. In our country we are very proud of the institution would you wear a seat in a park or where we are large. All the orders whatever they believe that maybe it is they may be agnostic as they may be communists they may be what you like to claim you so that everybody. We think that image wise and causing people to bottle the view that the man who points out that the society as it exists has many defects is by no means of theirs you see on the other hand is the means through will be improved. It seems possible I think to draw definite line here. Same with the

facts of somebody's good case. Yes I can believe that and I know that most of our difficulties arise not in principles but in cases. But I am a little worried about my own position. If Let us say I am more worried we should be more cruelly the case an extremely violent critique of the present order of society. But on the other end I didn't advocate it's a virus overthrow and still if I said that is that the that the present order was intolerable. My audience said to me Well what would you recommend and I shrugged my shoulders and said well that's up to you if it's intolerable What are you going to do about it. You see what I'm getting here.

I see what you're getting here as the mandate and who would be in reality reaching out of the over through TV depicting sources in a deplorable state and would be suggesting new sort of solution. Such a man are they should not be allowed to speak. If on the other hand he depicted as he is being very wrong and indicated some line on which it might be reformed. Then how ever much I might deceive you I do think it is right that he should be given news opportunity to make his case because I firmly believe that the string of Des pins not on the suppression of billions but on our lying opinions to be outed and then ensuring that the opinions are wrong. Yes but I'm I'm still worried and I think as you can well understand

with some reason because of our recent experiences in the states with what we're afraid constitutes suppression of criticism suppression of independence in the Pend thought and the suppression of the right of free you know Association in some of these cases people who have not been shown to be revolutionaries or to have advocated or practice the overthrow of the government by force or violence them in some economic fashion. Been exiled from society they have been branded as rare Zora's revolutionaries and they have become rather hire about were the night that is. I think that's a very great pity. I wouldn't go so far as a say

the minority is always right but I'm her dessert and I'm right in saying that the minority is not always wrong and I believe improvement does come from a minority who in their region generation to disregard it and thought nothing of it in future it used or realize to have had the voice of truth in them. That war I think we should be rightly not to suppress the media. Maybe in Israel it is the history of time to suppress of Binyam but always hated and always see yourself for the strings of my society is such that it can exist in spite of the fact that there is a right to express contrary of billions and short of the greatness of your country and mine depend upon there we are.

Resist her. And the reason they must involve is that individuals have the right honestly and to express their opinions. Ever unpopular they may be that our rule is one of the chief reasons for the existence of society to insure to individuals that they do have that right. And therefore although I quite agree that the time must come when the society has the right to say you shall not say this or you will not do this. Yet I do hope that our society and yours will be slow and reluctant to go that extremes to have you in England your our ship had any serious experience with this problem in the last shall I say 10 years. We've never had any problem at all except the problem which has arisen about the position of secrets.

We we've had it not only in government circles but of course also in the case of contractors who are doing the work for the good in such a case we are just the contract is to show others who is going to be entrusted with the secrets and we have a very adequate system of the universe carefully about all those people with varied give you an illustration from the old days we used to have. We still have on the stage you are in a village called Blessed. And in the blast from a word denial of the truths of the Christian religion ever decently and honestly those views were expressed that constitute the best there was and that in the process of years we realized that the mere fact of a honest expression

of believe in Christian doctrines which are not Christian is not less. It should not be discarded. It you're not visible for us. The truth of the Christian religion is brought out by controversy. It is the very fact that these people deny the truth which has made Christianity in a stronger position in some respect that it was when everybody used to pretend to be Christians but in fact did not comport themselves in accordance with which and I think the same thing is true of politics. Let everybody express his view would be very very slow indeed to prevent him from so there must come a time when you know the state has the right to do so just as they must govern with the individual feels strongly that he must

resist the dictates of the state. The total given comes this. These problems have certainly not confronted us with in the last two months. The last 30 years. Thank you Lord. Voices of Europe was produced and recorded in Europe by Nelson Mayer in cooperation with the University of Chicago under a grant from the educational television and radio center. This program is distributed by the National Association of educational broadcasters. This program has been introduced by Marvin PIs Now this is the and E.B. Radio Network.