Taiwan Today

The spectre of secret diplomacy is again beginning to haunt the chancelleries and conference halls in many countries of the world after a few decades of comparative quiet ever since President Woodrow Wilson laid it with his magic wand of "Open covenants openly arrived at." Like many other ghosts it receded into the background for a while under the magic spell, but once more rears its head as soon as the charm is gone. The ball started rolling when a certain section of the British press began to agitate last autumn for the revival of secret diplomacy as a method for the settlement of outstanding international differences and the easing of world tension. This method was first applied on an elaborate scale at the Bermuda conference where, in the words of Miss Anne O'Hare McCormick of The New York Times, in spite of briefings twice a day for more than 150 newspaper people, many of them experts in foreign affairs ... the only item of news divulged in six empty sessions was the announcement that President Eisenhower was to speak before the United Nations." Then came President Eisenhower's assurance in his speech before the UN General Assembly that "The United States ... is instantly prepared to meet privately with such other countries as may be principally involved, to seek an acceptable solution to the atomic armaments race," and that "We (meaning the United States) shall carry into these private or diplomatic talks a new conception." (italics not in the original) In a note handed to Ambassador Charles E. Bohlen at Moscow on December 21 last, the Soviet Government informed the American Government, "As to President Eisenhower's statement on the confidential or diplomatic talks concerning his proposal, the Soviet Government expresses its readiness to take part in such negotiations." (italics not in the original) Through these transactions, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the USSR have committed themselves to a course of action which promises to open up another chapter in the sordid history of diplomatic give-and-take. The revival of secret diplomacy cannot be permitted to go unchallenged because of is inherent danger to peace. In Winston Churchill's rabid desire to strike a bargain with the slave-drivers of the Kremlin before he lays down the reins of government to die, he pays scant attention to the necessity of public enlightenment and tells members of the fourth estate unceremoniously that "they have got to learn that the tendency for keeping the world press out of international conferences between heads of states is likely to increase with the march of time." These words are worthy of a Machiavellian dictator, but hardly of the first Minister of a cabinet which calls itself responsible. No wonder that they "irk" even the British press and are "viewed with deep concern" even by Churchill's own countrymen, as The New York Times caption says in publishing Mr. Drew Middleton's special despatch from London reporting the British reaction to the call for secrecy. No wonder that The Daily Telegraph's commentator "Peterborough" was moved to describe those remarks as "the most provocative passages" of the whole speech. What makes the practice of secret diplomacy so offensive to the conscience of decent men and women is the careless ease with which underhand deals are made in the course of confidential talks at the sacrifice of the vital interests of third and non-participating parties. Diplomatic history is replete with painful instances in which secret arrangements are made between two powerful rivals to patch up their differences for the time being at the expense of their weaker neighbors. But the most astonishing fact about those secret arrangements is that they always lead ultimately to wars between the original rival Powers with or without the involvement of other countries. If mankind is able to profit by the lessons of history at all, we should know by now that the return to secret diplomacy will simply hasten the outbreak of another general war instead of retarding or pre­ venting it. For the appetite of the aggressor is never satiated but only whetted by concessions, which are the stock-in-trade of diplomats engaged in secret negotiations; more and more concessions lead to increasing strength on the part of the aggressor until he is sure of certain victory over his enemy in a final showdown, or the latter is forced to fight as a last resort. In either case, the outcome is not peace but war. Winston Churchill has a "special fondness for the secret diplomacy of the days before World War I when a few words spoken at a dinner table, a look or a gesture, influenced great events," observes Mr. Drew Middleton in the news dispatch already quoted. Likewise, Miss Anne O'Hare McCormick also says, "Evidently Sir Winston likes secret meetings." This Churchillian predilection for behind-the-scenes transitions lends itself to abuse when it is joined to the Russian aptness for the same trick. "The Russians have always "liked secret diplomacy,'" remarks another New York Time veteran correspondent, Mr. James Reston. "They did well with it at Yalta, at Potusdam and at Dumbarton Oaks-better than they ever did with their 'open diplomacy' elsewhere." When one remembers the British desire to buy peace from the Kremlin at any price and the Russian determination to have the puppet Peiping regime recognized as one of the "Big Five" with a seat in the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, the dangers of a secret deal, whereby Soviet Russia would promise to turn off the heat for the time being in the present global struggle between Communism and Democracy in exchange for the recognition of the puppet Peiping regime as a respectable member of the family of nations, would be very great indeed. The Soviet Government has harped on the necessity of seating the Peiping puppets in the United Nations and any future "Five-Power Conference" in notes to the Western Powers and in the latest statement on President Eisenhower's atomic energy pool proposals. If any dishonorable bargain is to be struck between the democracies and the USSR, the admission of the Chinese Reds to the UN is most likely to be the price which the Free­ World will be asked to pay. If that should happen, World War III would be inevitable for the simple reason that the Moscow-Peiping axis plus other Russian satellites would then be strong enough to throw down the gauntlet to the United States in open challenge. Therefore, it behooves the United States as the indisputable leader of the free nations to resist both the British and the Russian pressure to take part in secret deals which smack of appeasement and increase the stature and prestige of the Peiping regime. If, unfortunately, the United States should listen to the specious arguments of the British appeasers and the Russian aggressors and con­ sent to another Yalta in the vain hope of obtaining "peace" through vital concessions such as the admission of the Mao Tse-tung puppet regime to the world organization and its diplomatic recognition by the American Government, the day would soon come when more American blood would be shed to defend American homes in a last-ditch battle with the Communist borders. But if the United States stands resolutely opposed to dishonorable concessions to the Kremlin, real peace may yet be preserved by speaking and acting from strength.