TOPICS OF THE TIMES

Southland Times, Issue 18859, 26 June 1920, Page 4

TOPICS OF THE TIMES

The Smith American republics have no great love for the United States and some of' the notes that have been despatched from Washington to Chile, Peru and Bolivia in connection with the Arica and Tacna dispute have been severely commented on. Tho Argentina newspaper Frcnsa has been particularly caustic, which describes the notes as the “fruit of diplomatic inexperience,” but adds that they' “do not reveal any political plan that should alarm the .South American continent or give Argentina any motive for suspicion.” In its first editorial on the subject the newspaper asked whether the notes, “which affect the sovereignty' of those Stales, respond to a resolved policy according to which the United States constitutes itself the inherent protector of New World republics?” and “what should he the attitude of. Argentina?” These questions were answered a few days later, the journal stating it hiis a “profound knowledge of the functioning of the American State Department,” and asserting that Department “never cultivated a ’diplomatic mode of procedure and docs not possess a diplomacy.” It declares the Department is “an organ of internal [>olitics, rather than international,” and th;il the Secretary’s tenure of office is unstable, due to Andrew Jackson’s policy of “to the victor belongs the spoils.” “There docs not exist in Washington a mode of conducting traditional diplomacy, nor scarcely a chancellery,” continues the Frensa. “For this reason the United States frequently' assumes attitudes incomprehensible to other nations in attempting to apply party judgments and local politics to international v life. Men of the United States have generally written on tfelicate and susceptible international questions with the crudeness with which (hey treat interna! politics. These antecedents induce us to think (he form of the notes in question does not respond to a political plan of a continental protectorate which is contemptuous in regard to lesser republics. They tire an instance of inadvertence and iack of diplomatic tact.” Discussing the attitude of Argentina the editorial says, with what seems to be an effort to (one down the effect of its earlier utterance; “The United States accepts all occasions for demonstrating her friendship to Argentina. No motive exists, (hen. for suspicion or distrust in our country' as to the South American policy of that nation. Argentina’s future line, of conduct should he such its to always lend influence toward conciliation in conflicts between European countries and the United States, and in South America support of the United States in all attitudes which would assure peaceful solutions to conflicts and the prosperity of sister republics.” The attitude and the achievements of the French delegates at the Versailles Treaty discussions have been dealt with by Captain Andre Tardieu, who was one of the French representatives, in a series of articles in ITllustration. Dealing with what he terms the “question of silence” he gives some interesting sidelights on the Peace Conference. Captain Tardieu recalls how the press placed great hope in the first of President Wilson’s fourteen points, which demanded that conventions be prepared with the knowledge of the general public. But, he says, its hopes were dashed when it became known that President Wilson himself declared this did not mean the making public of negotiations, but referred only to making public the debates on engagements made before they became definite. M. Clemenceau is declared by Tardieu to have been the greatest advocate of publicity, but he asserts that M. Glemenceau’s efforts in this direction were not seconded by the Allied Governments, which are said to have refused even his proposal to make public the terms of the treaty when it was ready tff be handed to the Germans. They permitted only a 1

summary to be published before the treaty was signed. Captain Tardieu quotes M. Cknienceau as having said: ‘There is a general expectation among the public, which desires that all the subjects of our deliberations he known. It is our advantage to show it (he results of our work.” “Difficulta s began lit once, which continued to be multiplied for the next six i months,” comments Captain Tardieu. “If j the conference had not been held in 11* ranee the French Government would have been accused of defending French rights, but France's position was complicated b}' the conference being held in France, The press and delegates alike considered that the hospitality received from France imposed on I I'ranee the special duty of protection for their benefit.” Tardieu declares that to prevent the conference from pursuing its heavy task with indifference Mr Balfour, Stephen Pichon. one of the French delegates, received -the newspaper men, but says that in March, when the conference was considering certain much debated points, the Supremo Council asked them to abandon these receptions. ■To the suggestion that if the public had been informed I on Peace Conference doings France would | not have been obliged always to yield to the Allies, Tardieu replied; “It is false that , I - ranee always yielded. Generally, on the contrary, she obtained satisfaction.” Tie then gives a list of points proposed which hj ranee succeeded in having changed. Among them were immediate admission of Germany to the League of Nations, no interallied j occupation of the left bank of (he Rhine, no trench occupation except perhaps for eighteen months, France to pay Germany for all State property in Alsace-Lorraine no cession of the Sarro mines to France and no special regime for the Sarre population.