Page images
PDF
EPUB

tus, Prince of Elis; Apollo, in his car of day, preceded by Aurora and surrounded by the Seven Hours. There was the Master of Games, the Greek chorus and processional, and the athletes. Aurora was depicted scattering her flowers in the path of Apollo, while the Greek chorus sang the hymn to the Delphic Apollo. The athletes ran and leaped, threw the discus, and wrestled. Apollo crowned the victors, while the maidens pelted them with flowers.

The Second Victory, called "Pax Augusta: Rome," presented the Pretorian Guards, the Vestal Virgins, consuls and senators, priests and Agrippa. There were the flute players and children playing ball with Etruscan dancing maidens.

The Third Victory," called "The Nativity: Palestine," was an introduction to the Fourth, called "The Field of the Cloth of Gold." The English standard

tion represented the canal completed, and through it advanced representatives carrying flags of each of the twenty-one American Republics, marching stately onward to Peace.

The final "Victory" was called "Peace Universal." It was led by the dance of children and by the flight of doves from the four corners of the field. A white-clad host also, with gradually increasing ranks, came marching. They wore the olive wreath, carrying green garlands and the Flag of Peace. Meeting in the center, they encircled the dais and sang the World's Doxology

of Peace.

No hitch appeared to mar the episodes. Together they painted a picture always to be remembered by those who were fortunate enough to see.

NE NEED of the international peace movement is

bearers with St. George and the dragon, the French expert knowledge along the lines of economic,

bearing aloft the lilies of France, the two kings, Francis

I and Henry VIII, entered and saluted each other. There was a canopy with two thrones side by side. The two kings dismounted and took their places. There was a carnival dancer. There were two tourney-riders on caparisoned horses. The riders tilted. First, the French rider was unhorsed; then the English rider. Between the two actions the French king arose and toasted the English king, greeted by acclamation from the spectators. After the second action the English king returned the compliment amid the acclamations of the English. The two kings remounted and rode off together, followed by the English and French, mingling happily together.

The "Fifth Victory," called "Friendly Relations: The United States," pictured Columbia and Britannica, the United States and Japan, and closed with what was perhaps the most picturesque of all, "The Last Grand Council," suggested by the meeting of the American chieftains in September, 1909, in the valley of the Little Horn, Montana. The old chief came alone to the center of the field. Smoke signals arose from the adjoining hills; runners announced the coming of the chieftains. Indian women followed and lit the council fires. They smoked the pipe of peace. The white brother came. They greeted each other with solemn eloquence. They

social, and political research-an international engineering and accounting service. It must have newspaper and magazine publicity, all those things that are classifiable under the heading of "general promotion." Peace workers need to know as much about international behavior as statesmen. In fact, they and the statesmen must often work together. Peace workers heretofore have been too content to discuss principles without reference to the facts. There may be times when peace workers will not agree with their statesmen; but an uninformed peace worker is at a disadvantage in the presence of the informed statesman. Peace workers, to be effective, must be technicians, devoting their energies not only emotionally but technically to the service of the organized peace movement. Under normal conditions the peace workers should be a kind of auxiliary to the diplomats. Their aim should be to put the weapons of facts and figures into the hands of officials and to use them directly in behalf of international peace. Manifestly, no facts or figures will be worth while unless they are obtained by investigation of the most scrupulous accuracy and collected by the highest professional skill. Peace engineers, outside as well as inside the Foreign Offices, are the demand now as perhaps never before.

HE MURDER of Germany's Foreign Minister, Dr.

said a farewell. Then all marched away, leaving the TRathenau, takes from Germany an able statesman.

chief standing alone, until at last he, too, followed.

But if this Indian scene were the most picturesque, the most beautiful of all, called Pan America, represented the two Americas united by the Bridge of Water, the Panama Canal. The Atlantic and Pacific were depicted by a dancing drama with sea-colored scarfs, called "The Meeting of the Waters." The final forma

The killing of Erzberger was thought to be a blow of a very serious nature to the German Republic; this of Rathenau a danger indeed. We do not share this view. The writer was in Berlin a year ago, when Erzberger was shot down. He went on to Bavaria, the home of the monarchists and soldiers, and found that even in that section of monarchial Germany the common people, be

cause of their resentment at such a butchery, were the more than ever inclined to accept the Republic. We are, therefore, not surprised that Berlin has been able to overcome all anti-Republican demonstrations as a result of the murder of Germany's efficient Foreign Minister. The people of Germany are as opposed to the methods of the assassin as are the people of any other civilized country. If it is true that a group of monarchists are guilty of this the latest foul sample of the assassin's art, no group in Germany will suffer so much as the monarchists.

[blocks in formation]

NEEDED and inspiring example of the practice of peace" is before us in the building of the Pan American Union, Washington, D. C. It is there that

States, and of central European countries were in attendance. A code for the administration of the court has been drawn up and approved. The code provides for the division of the activities of the court into conciliation and arbitration, first outside the law and second within the law. We are told that under date of July 10 the Council of the International Chamber of Commerce approved the creation of the court. While this is the first court of its kind in Europe to settle disputes between business men of different countries, it is but the inevitable expression of the chief accomplishment of civilization, namely, the application of the principles of law to otherwise irreconcilable disputes.

the Washington Conference was held. Just now the T

governments of Chile and Peru are trying there also to heal their differences according to the principles of right and mutual accommodation. The present conference, like the other and larger, is meeting upon the invitation of the President of the United States. The first session of the delegates, meeting May 15, was opened by Secretary Hughes. This conference of delegates aiming to adjust a boundary dispute of long standing between Chile and Peru, means something. It is another indication of the slowly developing solidarity of sentiments within the Western World. There is every possibility that the long-standing dispute over the unfulfilled provisions of the Treaty of Ancon is about to be ended. But, more important, American opinion both in North and South America has received a new impetus in the direction of reason. It was proper that the United States Government should say in its invitation: "Direct and candid interchanges, sincere desire to make an amicable adjustment, the promotion of mutual understanding, and the determination to avoid unnecessary points of difference in order that attention may be centered upon what is fair and practicable-these are the essence of the processes of reason." Our Western World has been furnished with "a needed and inspiring example of the practice of peace." We dare to hope that its lesson may not be entirely overlooked by our contending friends. across the Atlantic.

[blocks in formation]

HE PESSIMISTS are having their day; of that there can be no doubt. We have a veritable literature of disillusionment. A gentleman visiting the Philippine Islands describes an old pagan ex-head-hunter Ifagao, full as a tick, crying in his native tongue, "The whole world is drunk! The whole world is crazy!" There is a book before us accusing our nation of being too big, our cities too big, our business too big, our heads too big. The book defends the thesis that democracy is the negation of everything that is fine and distinguished. The book rather widely denounces representative government, the Protestant sects, and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The book goes on to show that the only remedy for all this bigness and blare is a return to medievalism. If we would solve our industrial problems we must return to the medieval guilds. Our big cities must give way to "small, self-contained, largely selfsufficient units." Our own judgment is that the world will not return to the scholasticism of the medieval age, with its center in theology. Our ecclesiastical "problems" have, in our judgment, ceased to be problems. Of course, art must be natural, manifold, expressive of the joy in the human spirit. Religion, in its various forms, will go on playing its part toward the fulfillment of the principle that men should love their neighbors as themselves. But the world does not return; it goes ahead.

HE EDITOR of the ADVOCATE OF PEACE and his wife

Twill attend the Twenty second International Peace

Congress, in London, July 25-29. They will spend
some time at The Hague, after which they plan to visit
Berlin and Prague.
Berlin and Prague. They will attend the Twentieth
Conference of the Interparliamentary Union, in Vienna,
August 28, 29, 30, after which they will return via
Jugoslavia, Italy, Switzerland, and France, sailing from
Cherbourg September 21.

THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN

RELATIONS

By CHARLES E. HUGHES

(In this article appear the views expressed by Secretary Hughes in an address recently before the University of Michigan)

R ECENT DEVELOPMENTS abroad have marked the passing of the old diplomacy and the introduction of more direct and flexible methods, responsive to democratic sentiment. Peace-loving democracies have not been willing to rest content with traditions and practices which failed to avert the great catastrophe of the World War. Public criticism in some instances overshot

the mark and, becoming emotional, enjoyed the luxury skilled diplomats of Europe were charged with having become "enmeshed in formulæ and the jargon of diplomacy”; with having "ceased to be conscious of pregnant realities." More potent than the critics were the exigencies due to the war, which required the constant contact and direct interchanges of responsible leaders. The aftermath of problems has made necessary the frequent use of similar methods permitting concert, flexibility, more frequent informal intercourse, and decisions which, if not immediate, are relatively speedy. The international conference attests the new effort to achieve the necessary adaptation to new demands. An eminent chronicler of European conferences tells us that he has attended over five hundred international meetings since 1914. There has been a corresponding stirring in foreign offices, modifications of the old technique, and a new sense of responsibility to peoples.

of a bitter and indiscriminate condemnation. The most

THE PLACE OF THE UNITED STATES

It would be a shallow critic who would associate the United States with either the aims, the methods, or the mistakes of the traditional diplomacy of Europe. To her "primary interests," as Washington said, we had at best "a very remote relation." We have had no part in the intrigues to maintain balance of power in Europe and no traditions of diplomatic caste. From the outset-from the first efforts of Benjamin Franklin American diplomacy has deemed itself accountable to public opinion and has enjoyed the reputation of being candid and direct. It has opposed circumlocution and unnecessary ceremonial. Its treaties have been open to the world. Indeed, instead of being burdened by the artificialities, reticences, and intriguing devices of an organization essentially aristocratic, instead of holding itself aloof from the current influences of politics, the organization of our instrumentalities of foreign intercourse has rather suffered from too much regard for politicians and too little attention to the necessity for special aptitude and training. But, while we have thus been immune from most of the destructive criticism visited upon Old World methods, we also feel the pressure of a heightened demand for popular control, and it is essential that we should carefully consider the relation of public opinion to the conduct of our foreign relations, its proper aims, the special dangers in this field if public opinion is unintelligent or misdirected, and the condi

tions of the wholesome exercise of its authority. In the sphere of international action, the people have peculiar obligations as well as power, and education for citizenship implies a just appreciation of civic responsibility, when peoples are dealing with each other as peoples and not merely determining domestic policy and settling internal disputes.

PUBLIC OPINION

President Lowell has reminded us that, in asserting the final control of public opinion in popular government, the opinion to which we refer must be "public" and must really be "opinion." It imports the conviction. of the people as a whole that the prevailing view, expressed in the manner appropriate to our institutions, should be carried out. It embraces deep-seated convictions due to the influence of tradition, authority, or suggestion. In new conditions, where familiar standards are not involved, it is developed in a rational process, by consideration of what are supposed to be the facts of the particular case.

It becomes at once apparent how difficult it is to develop true public opinion in relation to matters of foreign policy. There are, of course, certain viewpoints of the American people which are readily recognized, as they represent accepted postulates formulated and approved by generations of American statesmen and which could be changed only by a revolution of opinion. But in a host of matters-indeed, in most cases-there is no such criterion. There are complicated states of fact which cannot be understood without an intimate knowledge of historical background and a painstaking and discriminating analysis of material. There are situations of controlling importance which are wholly unknown to the general public and which cannot be appreciated without the special information available only to officers of the government. The people cannot judge wisely without being informed, and the problem is how to inform them. Lack of accurate information does not imply any check upon the dissemination of what passes for fact or the withholding of comment or criticism, however mistaken in its assumptions. The multiplied facilities of communication are always in use and the processes of conjecture and suspicion go on uninterruptedly. In dealing with the problem of developing sound opinion, the fundamental consideration must always be that misinformation is the public's worst enemy, more potent for evil than all the conspiracies that are commonly feared.

DIFFICULTIES IN MAINTAINING PERSPECTIVE

Moreover, the difficulty of maintaining a true perspective and a distinctively American opinion in the field of foreign affairs is greatly increased by the natural and persistent efforts of numerous groups to bend American policy to the interest of particular peoples, to whom they are attached by ties of kinship and sentiment. The conflicts of opinion and interest in the Old World are reproduced on our own soil. Then there are the various sorts of propaganda by which organized minorities and special interests seek to maintain a pervasive influence.

Whatever the advantages of our governmental ar

rangements and I should be the last to underestimate them I think it should be candidly admitted that they have the effect of limiting the opportunities for the responsible discussion which aids in the understanding of foreign policy. The conduct of foreign relations pertains to the executive power, and the executive power of the nation is vested in the President, subject to the exceptions and qualifications expressed in the Constitution. The President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, has the power to make treaties and to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls. The President has the exclusive authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers. The Executive is thus intrusted with the conduct of diplomatic intercourse with foreign powers. At the very beginning Mr. Jefferson said: "The transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether. It belongs, then, to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are especially submitted to the Senate." Practice under the Constitution has abundantly confirmed the initiative of the President in the formulation of foreign policy.

HANDICAPS OF THE PRESIDENT

The wisdom of this disposition of power has been fully demonstrated; for, in view of the nature of the task, the delicacy of the negotiations involved, the necessity for promptness, flexibility and unity of control, this authority could not well be lodged elsewhere. But the separateness of the executive power under our system, while it has advantages which have been deemed to be of controlling importance, deprives the Executive of the opportunities, open to parliamentary leaders, of participation in parliamentary debates. Official communications are made by the President in the discharge of his constitutional duty. The Department of State, which is the instrumentality of the Executive in connection with foreign affairs, makes its public announcements. The Secretary of State appears before committees from time to time and gives the information which is asked. But there is lacking the direct personal relation to the discussions of the Senate when foreign affairs are under consideration. The Secretary of State, acting for the President, may negotiate an important treaty, but he has no opportunity to explain or defend it upon the floor of the Senate when its provisions are under debate. The knowledge which is at his command is communicated in formal writing or merely to those members who sit upon the appropriate committee. The advantage of oral explication and of meeting each exigency as it arises in the course of discussion, and thus of aiding in the formation of public opinion in the manner best adapted to that purpose, is not open to him. There are numerous situations in which an opportunity for the Executive, through his department chiefs, to explain matters of policy would be of the greatest aid in securing an intelligent judgment. As President Taft said, "Time and time again debates have arisen in each house upon issues which the information of a particular department head would have enabled him, if present, to end at once by a simple explanation or statement." This is especially true in relation to foreign affairs, where the department

concerned has sources of information which generally are not available to others.

NEED OF ADDITIONAL FACILITIES FOR CO-OPERATION I should not favor a change in the distribution of power or any modification of practice which would encourage the notion that the Executive is responsible to the legislative branch of the government in matters which under the Constitution are exclusively of executive concern. I should also deplore any method so contrived as to facilitate antagonism between the executive department and legislative leaders or which would merely provide opportunities for the censorious; but, speaking in my private capacity and expressing only a personal opinion, I do believe in multiplying the facilities for appropriate co-operation between responsible leaders, who understand their respective functions, in a manner suited to the full discussion of great international questions when these fall within the constitutional competency of the Senate. To enable cabinet officers to vote in either house of Congress would require a constitutional amendment, and I should not favor it, but it is quite consistent with our system that the head of a department should have the opportunity personally to be heard where important departmental measures and policies are under consideration. Indeed, the propriety of this method of promoting a better understanding was recognized at the outset, and instead of being foreign to our system it found for a time a place in our original procedure. You will remember that the long-continued abstention from such appearances followed the refusal of Congress in 1790 to hear Hamilton when he desired to make in person his report on the public credit. Mischiefs will not be cured by methods which make misapprehension easy. Every facility should be provided, consistent with our system, which will aid in avoiding misconstruction, allaying suspicion, and preventing unjust aspersions. The remedy for misunderstanding is explication and debate, and the opportunity for thus informing the public judgment in a responsible manner should not be curtailed by any unnecessary artificiality of method.

CONTACT WITH THE PRESS

The paramount importance of contact with the press is fully recognized, but, in the nature of things, this contact for the most part must be informal. Occasional public announcements are expected, but the representatives of the press desire to write in their own way and to obtain material by their own inquiries. What is desired is not control of news, but accurate information.

To meet this demand, the President himself meets the correspondents twice a week, and department heads still more frequently. The Secretary of State has two press conferences each working day at which either the Secretary or the Under-Secretary is present. The officers are not quoted, but there is frank disclosure of facts and aims within the widest possible limits. There is thus the most direct contact with those who are the principal purveyors of information and the chief educators of the public. This is our substitute for parliamentary interpellation. It is in this manner that, in substance, account is rendered to the final authority.

NATURE OF DIPLOMACY

But open diplomacy must still be diplomacy, and it cannot be open at the cost of losing its essential character and of frustrating its proper purposes. By diplomacy I mean the art of conducting negotiations with foreign powers, and when we refer, with suitable discrimination, to open diplomacy we have in mind the appropriate publication of international engagements, and, with respect to negotiations, the absence of intrigue, the avoidance of unnecessary secrecy, candor and directness. The diplomacy of the United States has been, and is, open diplomacy.

The management of negotiations with foreign powers, however, has its essential conditions, which relate: (1) to the interest of one's own State; (2) to the requirements of honorable intercourse between States; and (3) to the maintenance of international good-will. These conditions impose a measure of reticence in the course of negotiations, with which the most high-minded negotiators cannot afford to dispense.

WASHINGTON'S VIEWS

Thus Washington, maintaining the right of the President to refuse information with respect to pending negotiations when he deems its disclosure incompatible with the public interest, said:

"The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success must often depend on secrecy; and often when brought to a conclusion a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions which may have been proposed or contemplated would be extremely impolitic; for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations, or produce immediate inconvenience, perhaps danger and mischief in relation to other powers."

Even the most democratic governments must desire to succeed in their negotiations, and there is no reason why democracy should turn upon itself and deprive its agents of its essential means of defense. Premature disclosures may prevent the accomplishment of the most enlightened aims, giving opportunity for the insidious efforts of selfish interests as well as favoring opposition abroad. If both the peoples and governments concerned were in complete accord, there would be no need for negotiations, and when they are not in accord and are endeavoring to reach a basis of agreement, it is fatuous to suppose that negotiations can be conducted without prudent reservations on each side. The observations that are sometimes made on this subject seem to presuppose the existence of some dominant external authority which can impose its will, whereas the peoples concerned are themselves sovereign, and if they are not to resort to force they must have opportunity to reach an agreement mutually satisfactory. The wholesome pressure of world opinion for peaceful solutions is quite consistent with such a conduct of negotiations as will make peaceful solutions possible.

OBLIGATIONS OF HONORABLE INTERCOURSE

As the parties to the negotiations deal with each other upon the basis of the equality of States, they must recognize the obligations of honorable intercourse between equals. The confidence with which suggestions are re

ceived must be respected. Each must be free to make tentative suggestions and withdraw them. There must be opportunity for the informal discussion which does not represent the final stand of governments, but reflects the proper desire to ascertain to what extent there is accord and the state of mind of each party to the controversy. It is an essential condition of intercourse that representations made by one government to another or the publication of the details of negotiations must rest upon the express or implied consent of both parties. Any government that refuses to recognize this basis of intercourse would find its opportunities for suitable adjustment of controversies seriously impaired and its influence and prestige greatly diminished.

Often

Moreover, the maintenance of international good-will during negotiations is of vital importance. While it is assumed that democracies are peace-loving, it cannot be forgotten that the activities of democracies frequently make it difficult to arrive at a good understanding. The press in each country, in large measure, is likely to voice extreme demands and to resist accommodations. the pseudo-patriotic spirit is developed, most probably in the interest of local politics, and efforts are made to prevent settlements by inflammatory appeals to passion in sirable that such endeavors should not be facilitated by one or more of the countries concerned. It is most deinformation of mere proposals, arguments, and tentative positions; by disclosures which, at the best, pending the efforts at adjustment, can but afford glimpses of the situation. At least we may appreciate the fact that peoples cannot deal directly with peoples; that there must be agents of negotiation; and that when these are selected as wisely as may be practicable there must be a reasonable freedom to enable them to secure results. They cannot adequately perform their task under a fire of criticism or successfully conduct negotiations which. are practically taken out of their hands and directed by a clamorous public.

LIMITS OF SECRECY

With all these considerations, it remains true that there should be no secrecy for its own sake; that general policies should be made clear; that particular aims should be appropriately disclosed; that there should be public announcement of all proceedings to the extent consistent with the essential requirements of negotiation; and that nothing should ever be done by our diplomatic agents which, so far as its actual character is concerned, could not be publicly proclaimed and justified as being free from artifice and deception and in full accord with American principles.

The attitude of the public toward foreign relations is almost as important as the securing of adequate information-that is, there should be a suitable appreciation of the objectives of diplomatic effort. There is, of course, the fundamental matter of national security, and the instinct of self-preservation causes a quick response to any appeal on this score. Indeed, the danger is not that the people will become indifferent to the essential conditions of their security, or will lack information as to any policy or procedure which actually threatens it, but that the endeavor will be made to frustrate peaceful settlements which are eminently judicious and which really promote the safety of the country, upon the ground that in some

« PreviousContinue »