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
Mr. Balfour in his speech of March 19, 1918, which has already been
referred to, indeed speaks quite convincingly of the advantage of
confidential relations and of secrecy in negotiations, but he goes so
far as strongly to deprecate a demand for information on the part of
Parliament. In that he certainly shows a measure of anti-democratic
bias, as when he says, “Do not suppose that we can do the work better
by having to explain it _to a lot of people who are not responsible_.
That is not the way to get business properly done.” He therefore
rejects the idea of a parliamentary committee of control in the matter
of foreign relations. He agrees, however, that the existence of secret
treaties is an evil, although he thinks that it may be at certain times
necessary, because the associated treaty power may desire it. He is
mildly deprecatory, at best.
Count Czernin, speaking to the Austrian delegations on June 24, 1918,
concerning President Wilson’s fourteen points, stated that he has no
objection to the introduction of the principle of “open covenants,”
although he confesses that he does not know by what means effective
adherence thereto can be assured. Concerning diplomatic negotiations,
which he treats simply as a matter of business, he points out the
advantages of secrecy from the point of view of trading. Moreover, if
there were full publicity, the general public might passionately oppose
every action involving any concession as a defeat. This would not be
conducive to peaceable relations.
There are those who believe that the chief evils of secret diplomacy
would be avoided if ample opportunity were given for discussion in
representative assemblies, if there were a parliamentary committee
keeping constantly in touch with the conduct of foreign relations,
and if treaties and declarations of war could not be made without the
consent of the national legislature. Some advocates of democratic
control go so far as to reason that a decision to make war and thereby
to order the shedding of human blood, should not be made without a
national referendum vote.
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