1 PEACEFUL CHANGE OR WAR? 25Despite these cautionary notes, Toynbee appeared to accept that the
material grievances of the so-called have-not powers, such as their exclu-
sion from colonial markets and sources of supply, were justified to some
extent. Above all, he appeared to be struck by what he described as the
psychological demands of these powers: their demands for equality of
status which Toynbee described as the most ‘insistent and formidable, as
well as the most elusive and difficult’ of all their demands.^81
Addressing the issue of demands for equality in relation to the dis-
tribution of colonies, or what he and others referred to as the colonial
problem, Toynbee underlined the point that in regard to ‘any attempt to
provide for peaceful change between the sated and the hungry Powers in
the colonial field,’ what was of greatest importance were ‘native rights.’^82
The principle of trusteeship, he insisted, made it imperative that these
rights be considered. Yet Toynbee also observed that the principle of
trusteeship and ‘native rights’ were ‘sometimes exploited...as a stalking
horse from behind whose noble-seeming form a hypocritical imperialist
can slyly shoot and kill the whole idea of peaceful change in so far as it is
applicable to colonial territories.’^83
Toynbee’s conclusion in regard to the principle of trusteeship and
‘native rights,’ was that out of concern for the interests of local inhab-
itants, it would be best that any transfers of sovereignty over colonial
territories be kept to a minimum. Nonetheless, he also suggested that
a partial internationalisation of the administration of colonies, as well
as an ‘equitable apportionment’ of any ‘legitimate’ profits derived from
the colonies as between the ‘present sated and present hungry Powers,’
might go far in helping to avert a ‘catastrophic conflict’.^84
An AlternAtive to wAr
At the outset of his paper on December 17, Toynbee treated peaceful
change as a policy to be pursued in tandem with a policy of collective
security. He framed the policy of peaceful change in terms of justice and
insisted on constitutional means of treaty revision no less than he insisted
(^81) Ibid., 41.
(^82) Ibid., 44–5.
(^83) Ibid., 46.
(^84) Ibid., 44, 47–8.