MR FRASER AND OPEN DIPLOMACY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25940, 5 September 1945, Page 4

MR FRASER AND OPEN DIPLOMACY

By W. Downie Stewart

When Mr Fraser was questioned recently in Parliament about the right of the Dominion to sign the Japaneseinstrument of surrender ihe replied with great propriety that “ in no circumstances would New Zealand quarrel with the British Government on international affairs.” Of course, he did not mean by this that he would meekly acquiesce in whatever decisions the British Government made; what he probably meant was that he would not wash dirty diplomatic linen in public in the deplorable manner adopted recently by Australia. “ I am concerned.” said Mr Fraser, “that our unity with the United Kingdom should be maintained above everything else,” and he urged that not even the semblance of a divergence should appear between ourselves and the United Kingdom on matters of foreign policy. All this is in the best New Zealand tradition, for, after all, if we are a family of nations, surely we should settle our domestic disputes in private. On the other hand, when Mr Chifley boasted last week that “Australia has now won its second big diplomatic battle in a week, one would think he was negotiating wi'h some hostile foreign power rather than settling a matter of procedure with Britain. It is true that the Australian press is reported to have approved of the insistence on Australia’s rights; but nothingcan excuse or justify publicity being given to the hectoring and arrogant tone adopted by Dr Evatt or the public accusations of lying indulged in by him. Had he and his colleagues held their peace an amicable settlement would have been reached without giving our enemies cause for derision. Mr Fraser’s attitude was far more dignified and he was careful not to comment on the bad taste of his Australian colleagues. 11. But was Mr Fraser equally correct when he went on to discuss the general question of diplomacy? “ I hope,” he said, “Ihat there will be less necessity for keeping anything secret because the more open diplomacy is the better. This statement was applauded by both sides of the House. It sounds democratic and plausible, but are not the arguments against open diplomacy overwhelming? Surely the incident just quoted of Dr Evatt s ferocious public attack on Britain is a lamentable example of theevils of open diplomacy. Will Mr Fraser contend that all that was said and done at the Prime Ministers’ Conference in London could be made known to the public? If so, our most secret plans would have been made known to the Germans. Yet that was a true conference of diplomats. and all that was made public was harmless. The discussions that must precede agreement between nations are often most delicate. If negotiations are conducted in public and differences arise neither side dare back down for fear of appearing weak Under private discussion each side can try out its strength and retreat when it finds it has gone too far without “ loss of face ” as the saying goes. The parties can give and take like sensible men in business negotiations, and they are not committed until finality is reached. The popular idea that diplomats or statesmen are sinister figures plotting and scheming behind closed doors is ludicrous. The whole art of the diplomat is to keep his temper and be patient, but he cannot do this if passions are aroused by public discussions and full press reports. In fact, unless negotiations are conducted in private they are almost sure to be futile.

It is of course quite legitimate to urge that all treaties and national commitments, once they are settled, should be made public and filed with whatever bureau replaces the League of Nations. Another safeguard for democracy is the rule that treaties must be ratified by the Parliaments concerned. Of course even these precautions cannot prevent clandestine so-called “ gentlemen’s agreements ” between nations that lend themselves to chicanery; but it is wise to set a standard of good behaviour between nations. Nevertheless there is all the difference in the world between making results public and making negotiations public. Even President Wilson, who began by advocating open diplomacy, saw that he had gone too far. Hence he hastened to explain that he approved of publicity only for treaties as finally negotiated and said that seergey was indispensable for the negotiations themselves. Probably Mr Fraser spoke in the heat of debate and on further consideration would agree with what is here said. At least let i*s be thankful that he held aloof from the petulant and boastful indiscretions of Dr Evatt