Слике страница
PDF
ePub

E. PRESIDENT WILSON'S WAR AIMS

I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

Who, then, makes war? The answer is to be found in the chancelleries of Europe among the men who have too long played with human lives as pawns in a game of chess, who have become so enmeshed in formulae and the jargon of diplomacy that they have ceased to be conscious of the poignant realities with which they trifle. And thus war will continue to be made until the great masses who are the support of professional schemers and dreamers say the word which shall bring not eternal peace, for that is impossible, but a determination that war shall be fought only in a just and righteous cause. (The London Times, November 23, 1912.)

For illustrations of how some wars have been brought about see Cambridge Modern History, vol. XII., chap. 16; 'Diplomatist', Nationalism and War in the Near East (Oxford), pp. 177, 230; Fernau, Because I Am a German (Dutton), p. 144; and Dickinson, The Choice Before Us (Dodd, Mead), p. 248. To what extent does the quotation from The Times describe the true state of affairs?

How far can it be said that "secret diplomacy" is responsible for the present war?

See Ponsonby, Democracy and Diplomacy (Methuen); Ponsonby, 'Democracy and Publicity in Foreign Affairs' in Towards a Lasting Settlement (Macmillan); Neilson, How Diplomats Make War (Huebsch); Morel, Ten Years of Secret Diplomacy (Labor Press); Dickinson, 'Democratic Control of Foreign Policy', Atlantic Monthly, August, 1916; Bullard, 'Democracy and Diplomacy', Atlantic Monthly, April, 1917; Macdonell, 'Secret or Constructive Diplomacy', Contemporary Review, June, 1916; Brown, 'Democracy and Diplomacy', North American Review, November, 1916; Hyndman, 'Eng

land's Secret Diplomacy', North American Review, May, 1916; Turner, 'Control of Diplomacy', The Nation (N. Y.), June 8, 1916.

In November, 1916, Lord Robert Cecil, debating the Greek situation, said:

We are perfectly conscious of the many mistakes we make, of the many deficiencies of which we are guilty, but I cannot believe that anything which waters down the responsibility of the Government is likely to improve it. We must do what we think right. We must carry on the government of the country, badly I agree, but as well as we can do it, and we cannot share that responsibility with the House of Commons or with anybody else—not during the war. That seems to me the only position we can take up.

The only English paper to comment on this was the Manchester Guardian which declared (November 2, 1916) that Parliament had less control than the War Committee of the French Chamber and Senate, or the Budget Committee of the Reichstag.

All that is open to Parliament is to put questions, which if they are really pertinent are likely to meet with impertinent answers; or to initiate on the Foreign Office vote a discussion which will range over every topic under the sun that can be associated with the Foreign Secretary and which is as ineffective as it is discursive. (The New Europe, November 9, 1916.)

I think there is in the public mind a profound illusion as to this socalled secret diplomacy. Secret diplomacy is not, as I have tried to explain, a criminal operation intended to cover up dark transactions which lead to division among mankind; it is merely the practice of ordinary beings in the ordinary course of life which they conduct to the best of their ability and under the ordinary rules governing private individuals in the doing of such work as they have got to do. It is an extension of that to the intercourse between nations and I do not believe the rules governing the two are fundamentally different, although luckily in private life we do not always have to issue subsequently Blue Books explaining and recording all the letters which have passed between controversialists, or giving all the reasons which produced unhappy differences of opinion in the domestic circle. (Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons, August 17, 1917.)

Discuss the issues raised in these quotations.

Should there be a Foreign Affairs Committee in England to hear ministers on the conduct of foreign affairs?

What are the present arrangements of European countries and the United States for treating international questions? (See text-books on government-the subject has been discussed by eminent authorities like Bagehot, Bryce, Sidgwick, etc.—and the Appendices in Ponsonby, Democracy and Diplomacy, giving extracts from a Parliamentary paper describing different systems of controlling international affairs-Miscellaneous, No. 5, 1912, Cd. 6102.)

Does the arrangement in the United States-i. e., the concurrence of the Senate in treaties-insure that, in Mr. Wilson's phrase, "diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view?"

Cf. Corwin, The President's Control over Foreign Relations (Princeton University Press); Wriston, 'Presidential Special Agents in Diplomacy', American Political Science Review. August, 1916; President Wilson's Missions to Europe; his exchanges with Bernstorff and Germany in the submarine controversy; the negotiations preceding the acquisition of the Virgin Islands (Danish West Indies), and the LansingIshii agreement.

It is against secret policies in which the national liability may be unlimited that the only genuine protest can be raised; for such policies are the very negative of democracy and the denial of the most fundamental of all popular rights, namely, that the citizen shall know on what terms his country may ask him to lay down his life. This justification of popular control does not presuppose the publication of diplomatic negotiations. On the contrary, it rests on the assumption that the People and Parliament will know where to draw the line between necessary control in matters of principle and the equally necessary discretionary freedom of the expert in negotiation. (A. F. Whyte, The New Europe, August 23, 1917.)

Is this test a valid and sufficient one?

Was England's entrance into the war contrary to the principle here set forth?

Is it advisable that there be alignments according to political parties on questions of foreign politics?

How far is a more democratic diplomacy dependent upon recruiting the diplomatic service from men who are in touch with what the masses in their country are thinking and wanting?

Have improved means of communication made this consideration of less importance?

Is the United States with its "shirt sleeve" diplomacy the superior of England in this respect?

See MacNeill, Parliament and Foreign Policy (Council for the Study of International Relations); The Foreign Office and the Foreign Service Abroad (Ibid.); Satow, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice (Longmans); Ponsonby, Democracy and Diplomacy; and especially, A. F. Whyte, 'A Note on Diplomacy', The New Europe, May 3, 1917, and succeeding discussions in this journal of a new school for diplomats.

And so it was with something like stupefaction that they [the English people ] discovered, one day in August, that they were called upon to honor the obligations contracted in their name. (The War and Democracy, p. 3.)

Was the surprise referred to a proof that the Government of the United Kingdom was undemocratic or a proof that the great mass of people had overlooked a duty of citizenship by neglecting the study of foreign relations?

Was anyone who had made a study of British foreign policy (from materials accessible to all) surprised at the British Government's taking the course it did in July and August, 1914?

That the people of Europe have, in fact, even in countries otherwise democratic, no control over foreign policy will hardly be disputed. But the question remains, how does this come about? In detail, the answer will be different in different countries, according to the details of constitutional machinery and parliamentary procedure. But one fundamental fact applies generally. The people in no country have cared to know or control. In England, and no doubt in other countries, it is plainly true that the advent of democracy has meant, so far, not more but less interest in foreign policy.

But, after all, in the English system any matter can be made public and brought under control, if the people are determined to do it. And in England it must be admitted that, if this has not been done, it is because the people have not cared to do it. A Foreign Secretary would have had to give information, if it had been made clear that otherwise there would be a vote of censure. And improvements in the machinery of our parliamentary government, useful and necessary as they may be, will not ensure democratic control unless the people are determined to have it. Will they be determined? I cannot say. But after the

experience of this war, it does not seem likely that they will revert to the illusion that foreign policy does not concern them. (Dickinson, The Choice Before Us, pp. 243-244.)

Do you agree with this estimate that an increase in education is more important than an improvement in machinery, at least so far as England is concerned?

See Sir Gilbert Murray, 'Democratic Control of Foreign Policy', Contemporary Review, February, 1916 (also chapter VI in his Faith, War, and Policy [Houghton Mifflin]); The War and Democracy, chapters I and VI, and Rogers, 'Popular Control of Foreign Policy', Sewanee Review, October, 1916 (also published at The Hague by the Central Organization for a Durable Peace in Recueil des Rapports de l'Organisation Centrale pour une Paix durable).

How do you account for the fact that the American people are less interested in foreign politics than in domestic problems? What is the remedy?

Can public opinion influence foreign policy more effectively in the United States than in France or England?

Should a statesman, like the British Prime Minister or the President of the United States, act

(a) [as he thinks the public at the moment wishes the country to act, or

(b) [as he thinks the public would wish the country to act if they knew and took into account all the facts of the situation in his possession, or

(c) [as he thinks himself the country ought to act?

What course do you think President Wilson has followed? Are any modifications in our treaty-making arrangements or administration of the President's power over foreign affairs necessary in order to have a more popular control over foreign policy?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CORWIN, The President's Control over Foreign Relations (Princeton University Press).

DICKINSON, The Choice Before Us (Dodd, Mead).

'DIPLOMATIST', Nationalism and War in the Near East (Oxford). FERNAU, Because I am a German (Dutton).

« ПретходнаНастави »