Labour had committed itself in 1917/18 to a moderate internationalist approach to foreign affairs. It envisaged an international future where in a more open, interdependent world, countries would trade freely with each other and the salience of national boundaries would gradually diminish. In such a world, security would not be a concern; nations would be able to disarm with confidence and disputes that did arise would be capable of solution by arbitration.

If this was the vision of the future, Labour remained much more divided over its approach to the world with which it was faced. International rivalries were intense, protectionist sentiment was high and armaments abounded; the security question loomed large. What should the response of internationalists be? Should they merely blame militarists and protectionists and argue that the emergence of a more democratic and internationalist spirit would gradually dissolve such problems? Should they press for immediate progress on disarmament? Or should they accept that security concerns were currently understandable and seek to alleviate them by some form of pact or guarantee? If the latter, should intervention be organised collectively, through the League of Nations, or on a bilateral basis? How important was the military component of such an arrangement?