The foreign policy of the United States appears to have two primary political objectives: the maintenance of peace, if possible; and, if this becomes impossible, the maximization of military effort against its enemies. This duality of purpose raises a number of perplexing questions. If we could assume with Clausewitz that the making or avoidance of war simply involves a choice between means—the endbeing given—, then these questions would disappear. As it is, we have to recognize that in fact the pursuit of peace may well involve actions which tend to diminish United States military potential and that attempts to maximize military potential may well increase the possibility of war. Under these circumstances only a compromise solution seems sensible. We must consider best how peace may be maintained, but be ready to reject those methods which would leave the United States defenseless in the event that war cannot be avoided.

In the Autumn of 1946, Georgi Aleksandrov, Professor of Philosophy in the University of Moscow and Chief of the Administration of Propaganda and Agitation in the Central Committee of the Communist Party, was one of Moscow's success stories. Only thirty-eight years old, he had already reached the top rung of the academic ladder. He was, besides, a key figure in that liaison of politics and science upon which the Soviet Government leans so heavily in mobilizing the creative energies of its population for the magnification of the State. In his post as Chief of Propaganda and Agitation for the Communist Party, Aleksandrov was responsible, under Andrei Zhdanov of the Politburo, for the fanatical indoctrination of party-workers and party-members and for spreading the gospel of Marx-Leninism through the broad massesof the people. He was an active member of the editorial board of Bolshevik, long a principal intellectual weapon of the party and government. When Culture and Life was inaugurated as special organ of Zhdanov's savage campaign to purge every branch of art and learning of elements not wholly imbued with aggressive Marx-Leninism, it was foreordained that Aleksandrov should be the moving spirit in the new publication. The Academy of Social Sciences, established in 1946 as the highest agency of political instruction, began its career under his leadership.

Throughout the ages moralists have expressed horror at the way princes and sovereign states behave toward each other. Behavior which would be considered immoral by any standard can obviously be detected in all realms of life; but nowhere does the contradiction between professed ethical principles and actual behavior appear so patent and universal as in the conduct of foreign relations. Governments spy on each other and lie to each other; they violate pledges and conduct wars, often at the cost of millions of lives and untold misery. No wonder, then, that in western democracies if not elsewhere indignation over such practices should be voiced with vehemence. In our day it frequently expresses itself in wholesale denunciations of the multi-state system on the ground that sovereign states cannot deal with each other except by the use of immoral means, derogatorily called power politics. Some draw the cynical conclusion that morality has no place in international politics, while others would have men fulfill their moral duty by substituting world government for the present immoral political system.

In judging a boundary from a geographer's point of view many physical as well as human aspects come under consideration. Stress has shifted from one aspect of the problem to another according to the particular bias of the times.

At the time of the Paris peace conferences, geographers shared the general opinion that the linguistic factor should receive the greatest consideration in determining boundaries between national states. Language was regarded as the best criterion for drawing boundaries which would recognize what was called at that date “the right of self-determination.” It was a new factor in diplomatic negotiations. Shift of emphasis from physical features to cultural characteristics as bases for boundary lines reflected the popular swing toward self-determination.

The 38th parallel in Korea marks a critical segment of the ‘international frontier’ between the two worlds into which our one globe seems to be dividing. South of the line is the American-sponsored and U. N.-approved Korean Republic. North of the parallel is the Soviet-backed Korean Peoples” Republic. Both of these governments claim jurisdiction over all of Korea. Both seem to follow the most extreme aspects of the political philosophies of their backers. Thus Korea, a long-unified nation, has, on its liberation from Japan, been split by a purely geodetic line. This line is found on maps but is not evident in the geographic landscape. One may well wonder about the choice of such a line, its geographic character and its present and future function.

The Russian Research Center was established February 1, 1948. It is supported by the Carnegie Corporation on a grant covering the period until July 1, 1953. The Research Center is an integral part of Harvard University and the senior members of its staff are all members of the Harvard faculty. Although the Center is not directly concerned with instruction, there is close cooperation with the Soviet Program of the Committee on International and Regional Studies, and a number of members of the Center staff teach in this program.

A PROJECT of collaborative research concerning major world trends affecting international relations has been launched this year at the Hoover Institute and Library. This project has been made possible by a three-year grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.1

Beneath the original planning for the project lay the conviction born of wartime experience, that a deeper understanding of the dynamics of international relations could be obtained by pooling the contributions of the social sciences and related disciplines and by taking account of practical experience in the international field. The need for new and more penetrating approaches to international relations had been put by Arnold Toynbee in a few challenging words: “There is nothing to prevent our Western Civilization from following historical precedent, if it chooses, by committing social suicide. But we are not doomed to make history repeat itself; it is open to us through our own efforts, to give history, in our case, some new unprecedented turn.” Natural scientists, as well as social scientists are agreed that any “new unprecedented turn” must be sought in deeper understanding of relations among people and among nations.