Secret Diplomacy: How Far Can It Be Eliminated?Reinsch, Paul S. (Paul Samuel)
Philosophy
Secret Diplomacy: How Far Can It Be Eliminated?
Reinsch, Paul S. (Paul Samuel)
Diplomacy; Europe -- Politics and government
The secrecy of the peace conference, and the revelations before and
during its sessions, concerning the secret treaties for the division of
the spoils, produced a great disillusionment in the public mind. The
fact that the United States though asked to make enormous sacrifices
in the common cause had been kept in the dark concerning at least some
of these treaties, and particularly of those which affected its own
interest, did not inspire the American public with any confidence in
the general conduct of affairs among the nations.
After the adjournment of the conference the American President and
Government still continued to take a part in the various attempts
to settle outstanding questions, particularly with respect to
the Adriatic. When President Wilson towards the end of February,
1920, addressed a note to the allied powers concerning the Adriatic
settlement, the documents and negotiations which had gone before were
entirely unknown to the public. On December 9, 1919, an agreement
had been signed by Great Britain, France and the United States,
Undersecretary Polk signing for the latter. On January 9th, the British
and French premiers had agreed with the Italian premier on a modified
plan of settlement. On February 10th, the American Secretary of State
wrote a note containing President Wilson’s objections to the plan of
January 9th. The allied premiers replied to this note on February 18th.
All these agreements and this correspondence were kept secret, nor was
President Wilson’s final answer given out for some time; only more or
less accurate prognostications appeared in the press.
The American Government at this time was at a disadvantage in not
participating in the negotiations directly; the American ambassador
at Paris was invited from time to time to hear what the conference of
premiers cared to tell him, but the proceedings of the conference were
apparently not transmitted to the American Government. The British
press at the time quite generally expressed great dissatisfaction
with the methods followed by the diplomats. The _Westminster Gazette_
wrote: “The whole of both peoples is acutely concerned in the result.
We must, therefore, register a protest against the manner in which the
negotiations are being conducted. They are being carried on in secrecy,
only broken by unreliable rumors, by the three principal governments.
The peoples have a right to know what is being done in their name, so
that they may be able to protest, if need be, against decisions which
may affect their future relations.” The _Times_ protested: “We are not
going to stand by and have our friendship and relations with America
jeopardized by the proceedings of a triumvirate sitting behind closed
doors. The American democracy, we imagine, will not be less resolved to
assert their rights and stifle this effort at secret diplomacy.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account