AMERICAN DIPLOMACY.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 April 1921, Page 4

AMERICAN DIPLOMACY.

The language used ’by diplomatists in their international communications is invariably of such a nature as to' imply far more than is expressed, as well as to give ample room for being construed in more than one way. This, of course, has its uses—and abuses—and at times induces perplexities, .though leaving the door open for further negotiations. It is, therefore, necessary to closely study all such communications, and to read between the lines in order to ascertain their real meaning, not only as regards the two countries immediateconcerned, but as to other countries affected by the questions which are the subject matter of these Notes. It is a matter of common knowledge that the United States’ diplomatists have adopted a peculiar method of their own which apparently is meant to invite criticism, to be followed by explanations which not infrequently place a different construction on the original pronouncement. A striking illustration of this method has recently been given in connection with the American State Department’s informal Note concerning German reparations and resuming friendly relations with Germany That Department has admitted conducting informal negotiations with the American Mission regarding reparations, and this was followed by an authoritative statement that the United States will insist on Germany “acknowledging her moral responsibility for the war and paying her obligations to the limit of her ability.” To the casual reader this statement might well be taken to mean the acknowledgment of blame for the War and the duty of making all the reparation in Germany’s power must be S. condition precedent to entering upon peace relations between the two countries, but it by no means follows that such is the case, the wording being purposely vague. The text of the American Note also states that the United States recognises in Herr von Simons’ memorandum “Germany’s sincere desire to re-open negotiations, which, once resumed, may lead to a prompt settlement that will satisfy the Allies’ just claims.” This has been construed as meaning a revision of the Versailles Treaty and the creation of a new basis of settlement, and it became necessary for Mr. Hughes to issue an explanation to the effect that the intended was merely a resumption of the reparation negotiations —quite a different matter. Apparently the American Government is now realising how difficult it is to placate Germany without giving umbrage to the Allies. According to M. Luzanne (a member of the Viviani delegation to Washington) America will neither ratify the Peace Treaty nor the League Covenant, 'but will make a separate peace with Germany, but M. Viviani is under the impression that American sympathy is with the Allies, and that she would intervene in the event of the peace of Europe being again threatened; also that the Knox resolution will be held up until after the reparation question is settled. It would seem that while the American authorities are anxious from a trade point of view to resume friendly relations with Germany, they are also aware that German duplicity and unreliability necessitates the provision of satisfactory safeguards that can only be obtained by co-operation wijh the Allies, and the hostility of the Senate to such a course renders it impossible. Surely they must also resognise that beating about the bush is not likely to result in finding a solution of the problem. It would be far more consonant with the dignity and status of this great nation to face the issue courageously and determinedly, formulate a definite and clear policy, and abide by the result. The present method of blowing hot and cold merely encourages Germany in her contumacious attitude, whereas the sooner the Germans are convinced they must face the music, the greater will be the chance of an early settlement with the Allies. America’s plain duty is to come out in the open, and either co-operate with the Allies or with Germany, otherwise she must stand absolutely neutral, and not presume to dictate what either the Allies or the Germans shall do. The very fact that she insists on Germany admitting responsibility 'for the war shows on which side her confidence should be placed.