AN ENIGMA OF BRITISH POLICY

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 61, 4 December 1937, Page 15

AN ENIGMA OF BRITISH POLICY

Sir Robert Vansittart, Little Known to the Public, is One of the Six "Key" Men Who Shape Britain's Foreign Policy and All Were Educate d at Eton

EYEN THOUGH ETON is by common consent England's premier school, it is a tribute to its formative abilities that the six ''key" men of British foreign jjolicy were all educated there. Britain's diplomatic battles in faet, like Waterloo, are being won — or lost— on the playing fields of Eton, writes Godfrey Lias in the Christian Science Monitor. Mr. Anthony Edcn, the Eoreign Seeretary; Lord Halifax, who, as Lord Privy Seal, generally looks after the Eoreign Ofiice when Mr. Eden is away; Lords Cranborne and Plymouth, Parliamentary Under-Secretaries for Eoreign Affairs; Sir Eobert Vansittart, Permanent Under-Secretary at ri-o Eoreign Office since 1930, and the Hon. Sir Alexander Cadogan, Deputy Under-Secretary, who stands next to Sir Eobert, are all old Etonians. If we like, we can add a seventh in the person of Mr. Hugh Dalton, who was Parliamentary Ulider-Secretary in the Labour Cabinet of 1928-31. The first' four of this batch of prominent old Etonians received their appointments from Mr. Stanley (now Earl) Baldwin, who hails from the rival school, Harrow. They were confirmed in their posts by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who was at Eugby. The other Parliamentarian of the septet, Mr. Dalton, received preferment from Mr, Eamsay MacDonald, who was not at any of the so-called "public" sehools. Sir Eobert Vansittart went to the head of his branch of' the Civil Service during the Eoreign Secretaryship of "Unele" Arthur Henderson, a trade unionist. As to Sir Eobert Vansittart and Sir Alexander Cadogan, these two men come as near to being rivals as is compatible with their existing and cordial co-operation as Nos. 1 and 2 of the British diplomatic service. Indeed, Sir Alexander was at one time earmarked as Sir Eobert 's suecessor. But at the moment the two men form a team. The combination of Sir Eobert 's brilliance and Sir Alexander 's cautious thoroughness is one about which lesser lights at the Foreign Office sometimes wax almost lyrical. The present arrangement came about as a result of the temporary eclipse of Sir Eobert Vansittart after the failure of the Hoare-Laval plan to dismember Ethiopia in December, 1935. At that time Sir Alexander was in China as British Minister. He was recalled to take over Sir Eobert Vansittart 's duties. But the final collapse of the sanctions policy before Sir Alexander had returned was accepted as the vindication of Sir Eobert, who came back from leav'e and Tesumed his duties as head of the permanent officials of the Eoreign Office, where he has remained ever since, with Sir Alexander as his close collaborator. The events of those strenuous months in 1935-36 when Italy and the League of Nations were at grips and the Hoare-Laval plan was sufdenly sprung on a disturbed world have given rise to a widespread belief that Sir Eobert Vansittart is the tail that wags the dog in the framing of British foreign policy. But it cannot be too strongly stressed that responsibility for foreign policy do'es not belong either to Sir Eobert personally fior to the permanent officials a£ a group, but to the Cabinet. Nnturally, the members of the permanent staff of the Foreign Office, particularly Sir Eobert as their chief, have a profound infiuence , on pdlicy. They know all the moves in the game. They have weighed the pros and the cons. And they assuredly have their own views aS to the right course to adopt. But in the final resort it is the Cabinet which directs the major strategy of the country's foreign policy, leaving to the Eoreign Seeretary and the permanent heads of the Foreign Office the task of deciding on the tactical moves by which the political objectives are to be attained. NOvertheless, during the wave of resentment that swept across England when the terms of the HoaTe-Laval plan became known, the newspapers contained veiled criticisms of Sir Eobert for the part he was supposed to have played in drafting the proposed settlement. "We must know," asked one of them, "how these pro-

posals were conceived. What relatipns had these final terms to the schemes prepared recently by the Eoreign Office experts of Erance and Britain?" Another newspaper spoke of "an elaborate long-contained conspiracy against the League" which it declared had been hatched in the Foreign Office. It is true that Sir Eobert actually accompanied Sir Samuel Hoare to Paris and was present during the discussions. But when - Sir Samuel stood up to defend himself in Parliament after his resignation, he was careful to assume full responsibility. He uid not even refer to the faet that he had had the benefit, or otherwise, of Sir Eobert 's advice. An Opposition Labour member, Mr. Ernest Thurtle, who was less cautious and referred scrathingly to "Eoreign Office experts," drew down on himself a strong rebuke from a How M.P., Colonel John Gretton. "We have been shocked," Colonel Gretton declared, by Mr. Thurtle 's remarks, "because it has always been held in this country as a constitutional maxim that the permanent officials" are not responsible for the policy of the Government. They give their advice- when they are asked for it, and they give the benefit of their long experienee to the Minister who comes into power, but they are not responsible for the success or failure of the policy of that Minister." We may conceive of Sir Eobert, therefore, as one whose primary task is to assemble all the arguments for and against Great Britain's adopting any given line of conduct in respect of any major issue. He is there to give advice

both to his immediate chief, the Eoreign Seeretary, and to the Cabinet as a whole. It is its job to decide whether or not his advice shall be followed. Cabiiiet deliberations are conducted in impenetrable seereey, but it is a safe guess that Sir Eobert 's ad.viee has been rejected on many xnore occasions than one since he became Perinanent Under-Secretary in 1930. Sir Eobert is the oldest of the band pf old Etonians who run the Eoreign Office, and his preseiit chief, Mr. Anthony Eden, is the youngest. In some respects both of them, however, have rather similar gifts. Both in particular are excellent linguists. Mr. Eden graduated in Oriental languages, Arabic and Persian. Sir Eobert, who, in the early days of his diplomatic career, spent two years at Teheran and six at Cairo, also has a first-hand acquaintance with these languages. ' But he is much more at home in French and German, particularly Erench. It was not till the Versailles Peace Conference that Sir Eobert definitely came to'the front as a Candidate for the highest British honours in the diplomatic profession. After Versailles he was for four years private seeretary to Lord Curzon. When the Labour Pafty took Office in 1928, Sir Eobert became an Assistant UnderSecretary at the Eoreign Office and principal private seeretary to Mr. Eamsay MacDonald. Two years later he moved to the top of the permanent officials, succeeding Sir Eonald Lindsay, the present British Ambassador in Washington. Since then, exeept for the brief interlude after the Hoare-Laval debacle when he was on leave for several months, Sir Eobert has been in charge. Sir Eobert finds in literature relaxation from his heavy diplomatic responsibilities. He has published several volumes of poems- he writes Erench verse with facility — and one of his plays, "The Cap and Bells," was produced for a short run. Wealthy as well as accomplished, Sir Eobert has been twice married. His first wife was an American, daughter of General William C. Heppenheimer; his second, English, the daughter of the late Mr. Herbert Ward, who lived in Paris. Through his second wife, Sir Eobert is thus connected by marriage with Sir Eric Phipps, who married Lady Vansittart 's siste? and who, after several years as British Ambassador in Berlin, has recently been transferred to Paris. Both Sir Eobert Vansittart and Sir Eric Phipps have a strong affection for France and the Erench, and it can be taken for granted that the present British policy of close co-operation with France is one which both of tHem cordially approve. Opinions will naturally differ as to whether the adoption of this policy is the result of the persuasivenoss of Sir Eobert 's tongue, or is the inescapable outcome of the political and geographical position in which, Great Britain is placed. What is undeniable is that while Sir Eobert has been Permanent Under-Secretary, Brtish foreign policy has always kept very clbse to that of France. There have been times when Erance has responded nnwillingly, as during the great crisia of Sir Eobert 's career when the League was applying sanctions against Italy. There have been other times, as at present, when Erance and Great Britain have been in the closest' accord, with the French following Britain's lead in most major issues of European policy. Tall and with a face which is inclined to look Tather gloomy until he smiles, Sir Eobert is one I of the enigmas of diplomacy. Even John GunI ther, author of "Inside Europe," has no anecdotes to tell about him. Perhaps the best clue to his character and the kind of regime Sir Eobert has established at the Eoreign Office is to be found in the faet that his juniors universally know him as "Van," Beyond that, it is the best tradition of tbe English diplomatic service that all should be silence.