OPEN DIPLOMACY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 90, Issue 122, 29 May 1946, Page 4

OPEN DIPLOMACY

' I 'HE fruits of open diplomacy are now being reaped in full. The harvest is not to the liking of many people; indeed, it is probable that it satisfies none. Open diplomacy is proving to be the most difficult way of carrying on negotiations between countries. M. Molotov blames America and Britain for the delay in the framing of the treaty with Italy. The merits of his complaint need not concern us at the moment; what is of moment is that his statement of the position is not framed to secure agreement on points of detail, by compromise and arrangement, but to gather to himself strength from the not-too-well informed public. His aim may be either to secure endorsement for his own proposals or to embarrass the negotiators with whom he has been dealing. What is the riposte for this movement? Is it to reveal to the world the weakness of the case presented by M. Molotov and to deny him that support for which he is angling? If so, then it must be put over the Russian session of the 8.8. C. As the Russian people are not conscious of the pros and cons of the subject of Italy and, according to reports, are not interested in political broadcasts on international affairs, this counterblast to the Russian diplomat’s activity in open diplomacy may not be as effective as his work in countries where public opinion and criticism are freer. He, therefore, holds the advantage in open diplomacy. But does that bring the world nearer to a right conclusion? It does not promise to do so. Further, it makes accommodations in the future much more difficult than before these public Warnings and complaints have been voiced. Progress in the future is thus likely to be slower than it has been in the past. It would be much better for all concerned if the international negotiators concentrated upon the immediate task of hammering out some sort of agreement before presenting their views to the public on the proposals or on the conduct of each other. Such matters cannot be settled by popular vote: appeals to Demos, therefore, are to be deprecated.