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
Before the war, as Prof. John Bassett Moore, whose knowledge of
the records is unequaled, said to me, the State Department had no
secrets whatsoever, with the exception of personnel reports. We, too,
however, can depart from a well-established tradition, as is shown by
our diplomatic history during the war. I do not believe it will ever
be charged that in any matter big or little the American Government
sought narrow, selfish advantages. Secrecy due to such motives,
there was none. There was no American policy or enterprise that
needed concealment, apart from military policies and strategy during
a war. When I glanced over at the end of my mission in Peking the
extra-confidential cable correspondence, I was inwardly amazed by the
entire lack of anything that really needed concealing, in that closely
guarded dossier.
Yet American diplomacy did during the war fall somewhat under the spell
of the traditional methods still in vogue in Europe. We were not a
party to any secret engagements for the division of spoils after the
war, although from the time of the peace conference on, the influence
of the American Government was exercised mostly in secret, and the
agreements subsidiary to the general settlement were secretly signed.
These did not contain any apportionment of advantage to the United
States, but on the contrary were supposed to contain the nearest
approach to the equitable ideas of American policy which was, under
existing conditions, obtainable. But throughout this trying period
the conduct of American diplomacy did not rest on the foundation of a
continuous, frank appeal to the public opinion of our own nation or of
the world.
Even before the armistice some very important matters were dealt with
in this fashion. Though the permanent importance of the Lansing-Ishii
note as affecting in a concrete and specific way the definition of
rights and policies in the Far East is very doubtful, yet in its
immediate effect under all of the circumstances of the time, this was
certainly a noteworthy document to issue from the American foreign
office. Yet, its conception and execution was absolutely surrounded
with secrecy so that not even the high officials normally consulted in
such matters, with the exception of the Secretary of State himself,
were informed as to what was coming. This secrecy worked entirely in
the interest of the Japanese government. By privately giving out the
agreement in Japan and in China before the date when its publication
had been agreed upon, the Japanese government succeeded to a certain
extent and for a time, in giving this matter the appearance of a great
Japanese diplomatic victory and of a highly important concession on the
part of the United States.
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