FOREIGN POLICY.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 23 November 1925, Page 4

FOREIGN POLICY.

BRITISH AND AMERICAN. w HAx IS REQUIRED. inn general pence of tiie world anu L n.e aiiMui v,owning oi Uie nations tomust jOi >©i ue out: 01 uit concerns* of uemoaacies _»n-. xtiymsuy axacDornuu m <1 >ij t i &ii cAcuiiii 6 e;. A nut ailt-r tno mst 'tv at ,ve suun.u ;u] ue arnie<i to tiie teetn in .t, vain attempt to ue svcUic, tuat oui national ministries shoaiu ue ioaueu uiwi excessive uurclens 01 taxation m oiuer lo pay tor annainents wnic.ii, as „as been ©±<n ed wmi such dramatic loice, wnen useu to tiie very utmost, urine, no coniiort or tranquility eitner to victors or vanquisiied, is one oi L-aose queer irrational m which nations, indulge when they have neither the courage nor tne wisuom to iouoiv the straight ways or simple common sense.

Aft the root of this tragedy lies the fact that tne conduct- or foreign aitairs in most states nas Occli leit to overspecialised departments, and to the very small gioup of men who staff these departments, or who arc foreign Secretanes and Ministers of \A ar. Thus a sort of priesthood, protected by an the superstitions and tne taboos \v nicn frightened our cavemen ancestors, has grown up to conduct foreign ahiurs, diplomatic staffs pride themselves in the fact that they know nothing or polities and of public opinion, in rectitude and devotion to their duties, in knowledge of their work, and in •their single-minded interest- in it, they’ are unsurpassed. As servants and. advisers they are a comfort- and a 'security, and the men who 'would do anything but value them beyond words can only confess his own inability and incapacity to the world. But without a firmly controlling public opinion these departments tend to become a menace to peace. Their pride in their efficiency makes them put that efficiency before national concern, tliough they would stoutly maintain that national concern is the one thing they keep before them. In that file a they are right; the error lies in the fact that in foreign affairs the democracies so rarely and imperfectly show what that concern is. Diplomacy, is an overspecialised profession, living in a limited world oi its own, working upon its own notions of national honour, seli-. respect, and prestige, cannot in the end avoid war. Therefore it is that from time to time new ways of controlling Foreign Offices are proposed, with the object of keeping them in touch with popular psychology and the opinions of the democracies, and so severely to limit what in some States lias become the almost sovereign authority of the Foreign Offices, YVar Offices, or Admiralties. THE AMERICAN SYSTEM.

The American system of treaty ratification by the Senate, and discussion and consultation with a Foreign Relations Committee is, with modifications, necessary by reason of the special features of the American Constitution, generally taken as a basis. Roughly, what is aimed at is a committee which will be consultative, but which will leave the Foreign Secretary absolutely responsible for decisions, and then a. reference to the House of Commons of all treaties or instruments imposing obligations upon the country. To an outsider, at any rate, it does appear as though the American arrangement of absolute check could hot work if America were more closely concerned with European politics, with their give-and-take and the necessity of making, not the best conceivable, but the best possible. bargains. A twothirds majority in a body which was not responsible for negotiating, but is possessed of the power to destroy, would never work in European conditions. Lord Bryce quite properly wrote when discussing objections to the powers of the Senate "in treaty-making: “The answer is that America is not Europe.” Our European needs require, I think, that whatever be the authority. which has the power of final ratification, it must be of the same political complexion as the resnonsible Government. That ratifying authority must not be a body hostile to the Government or independent of the Government, so as to take from the Government its responsibilities, or, what is worse, leave the Government with its responsibility but deprive it of the exercise of its will. Its function rather should he to exercise a freedom of criticism and pressure in accordance with manifested public opinion. YYTiat is wanted is something that will he an instrument in the hands of the constituencies rather than in those of political parties, for the purpose of making Governments aware, of the limits of their power to do just what they like. That is the justification for the Foreign Relations Committee, which has found a place iii the Parliamentary machinery of every important European State except our own. CONTINUITY NEEDED. On general principles it is most desirable that foreign policy should not be revolutionised every time that a Government changes, but, as I have frequently pointed out, those principles are subject to many important exceptions. Supposing, for instance, that a Labour Government were to succeed a Conservative one that had been pursuing the policy of military alliance, and had been taking on obligations which alloived foreign States to pursue courses that must lead to war, it would lie the duty of the new Government to end such a policy. Then would arise the problem of how to handle such a situation, and upon all that, all I say is that the manner of doing it would distinguish an efficient from an inefficient Foreign Minister. YY r hen the present Government came into office it made th© changes for the sake of showing that it was a new Government, and that it did not share any of our progressive views, but that was a bad example, which ought not to be copied. Had a eonsiTtative committee been in existence some of these mistakes might have been avoided, because such a committee. changing its balance of views without changing the who’e of its personnel. would tend to maintain just that amount of continuity which is good, whilst making the alterations that are necessary to express the difference in outlook of the incomers. Not only would the Foreign Minister have to report his intentions to jt. and thus be prevented from doing what was obviously reprehensible, but the advice it could give from, its experience. would be invaluable to him in making up his mind as to his course of action. Y\ hat we have tc aim at is to secure for foreign po'icy some intelligent pub-lic-interest. and, at the same time, whilst in no way weakening the rosy onßhility of Ministers and Cabinets, set up some machinery which meets the Get that Governments, under democracies are not only responsible but should also be. representative. Of responsibility we hear much, of representation we hear. Mttle. hut democracy demands both.