THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1936 A TEST FOR DIPLOMACY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22372, 19 March 1936, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1936 A TEST FOR DIPLOMACY

Cynics are having the time of their lives as they look out upon the international medley. Humorist's, too, would find in it a rich store of material for jest—if the issues were not so tragically serious. As things are, it is the men of quietly reflective mind, men of whom Viscount Cecil is a distinguished example, that fully appreciate both the folly that prevails and the urgent need for practical wi'sdom to set the world right. For those inclined to ridicule there is ample subject for scornful laughter. M. Litvinoff, to take an instance of the moment, makes a long speech in the League Council defending the Franco-Soviet pact as conforming with the Covenant and the Locarno Treaty and blaming j Herr Hitler for the present uneasiness. About this he is demonstrably right, but many overhearing him—not to mention those at the council table—cannot forget that Soviet Russia, for which he speaks when •fulminating against "the idea that withdrawal from the League or brutal infringement of international j treaties should confer upon a State j the privilege of dictating to the whole of Europe its conditions" was in a near yesterday acting in almost precisely the same way. Russia stood apart from the League in a scorn quite as thorough-going, and made no bones about breaking solemn promises of good behaviour to other countries.. Nor did M. Litvinoff then see any harm, apparently, in trying to dictate to the whole of Europe, even to the whole world. Now "the Soviet is even more interested than others in the maintenance of peace," but then this selfsame Soviet was openly bent on carrying murderous class-strife everywhere and glorying in the shame of it. Circumstances have wrought a conversion in Russian diplomacy. What guarantee is there of its enduring, should circumstances change again? But when the cynic would throw a brick at Russia he might as well bethink himself of other nations given to such' transformations. Why not be as ardently attentive to Germany? All for peace Germany now is, yet the resounding echoes of recent Nazi outbursts make the new enthusiasm seem a little strange. Indeed, General Goering's balcony oratory in the Rhineland, if it be not idle nonsense, is a disavowal of sincerity in seeking peace: "We will talk peace with others, but what we do at home does not concern them!" —which, being necessarily interpreted as referring to the Rhineland, demilitarised by an agreement to which Germany was a voluntarily contracting party, is as aggressive as it is untrue. Berlin is smiling at the Leader-Chancellor's alleged triumph in winning for Germany a place in the London conference: so much for the prevailing German view of diplomacy as governed solely and sordidly by motives of merely national ascendancy. Diplomacy may have to be, in certain circumstances, a battle of wits, but in this year of grace it need never be a battle without a code of honour. Unless the German delegates, like Dr. Luther and Herr Stresemann at Locarno, are -superior to the quarrelsome pressure of colleagues and ignorant clamour of crowds at Berlin, their visit to London will be undertaken in an entirely wrong spirit. Will they join in an honest effort to establish peace, or conspire to present specious excuses for treaty-breaking and for Germany's being a law unto herself? It is to be feared that German diplomacy will take another ■step downward to utter degradation. For the cynic's grim pleasure there is France too. She joins with Belgium in insisting on Germany's perfidy in voiding the Locarno Treaty and in urging the submission of ( the Franco-Soviet pact to the Hague Court. For both contentions France has good ground, immeasurably better than Germany's for breach of the treaty and refusal to let the Hague Court pass judgment on anything; but not so very long ago French statesmen were at pains to manufacture reasons why covenanted obligations to the League should be set aside for fear of losing Italy's friendship. That was poor service to international honour, a foul blow at the very institution to which France so much. Little wonder that the League 'suffered a shock! And Britain, in the course of those negotiations, bore herself none too well: the Hoare-Laval compact to placate Italy may have been right in intention, perhaps justifiable as expediency, but it was wrong in method and too loosely related to the troth plighted to other peoples. How fares Italy in this same test? The only answer rs one to Italy's enduring discredit. And Japan ? Again the cynic has cause for ridicule. Unless London can produce some frank and friendly understanding better than yet another demilitarised zone, diplomacy will deserve all the bad things said about it.