The Daily News. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1922. DIPLOMACY.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 November 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1922. DIPLOMACY.

When Lord Curzon delivered his remarkable address in the City of London, and outlined his views on foreign policy, he was well aware that he was treading on very thin ice. It will he noticed that he relied more upon dialectical skill than the laws of logic, and that is why the essence of his speech had neither the true ring of sincerity nor the force of conviction. As a wide traveller in the Far East, Foreign Under-Secretary and Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon has acquired a first-hand knowledge of Indian and Eastern affairs that few statesmen possess, and his vice-royalty was a period of strenuous activity and departmental reform, though it cannot be forgotten that his final administrative act in India was the partition of Bengal, which led to prolonged native agitation, and though that agitation in the course of time subsided, it only smouldered till aroused later on by Indian agitators. It is remarkable that. Lord Curzon,'who possesses, in a modified degree some of the traits that distinguish' Mr. Lloyd George, should have thought fit to sneer at the ex-Premier as an irresponsible amateur in foreign policy. Without doubt Lord Curzon early in life became ilnbued with the venerable traditions concerning the administration of foreign affairs; the super-sanctity of its environment, the ealm, ponderous tone of its communications, and the nieeities of its phrases, so skilfully chosen as to admit of a loophole of escape if occasion demanded. All very striking , and impressive as befitting the Victorian period, but times have changed, possibly for the worse, at any rate the day of the old diplomacy has passed, though the ethics still remain. Lord Curzon found it convenient to explain that he deprecated the dictionary definition of diplomacy wherein it was described as skill in managing international relations j by adroitness and artful management. This absurd meaning was evidently brpught forward purposely in order to discredit Mr. Lloyd George. In the first place Lord Curzon sarcastically “conceded great superiority of intellect to his late colleagues; then he emphasised that a man with such peculiar gifts must exercise unusual influence on foreign affairs, proceeding to enunciate that what the country wanted to eschew more than anything else was the policy of adventure. Perhaps the most unkind cut of all was the assertion that what Britain had to do was to “get back to” the condition of mutual esteem existing between Britain and France before the war. The Coalition Government never departed .from that policy. It was France that took the bit between her teeth and threatened to proceed to extreme measures with Germany over the reparations, and it was only Mr. Lloyd George’s intense personality and “peculiar gifts” that averted a catastrophe beyond all conception. It was France that entered into a secret understanding with the Kemalists which emboldened them to create a crisis in the Near East. Both France and Italy contributed towards the extremely difficult task which Britain had to face alone, backed up by the Empire so promptly and practically as to convince the Turks they would rue the day on which they defied British authority. What part could Lord Curzon’s diplomacy have played under such circumstances ? It would have been a contemptible farce, as Mr. Bonar Law’s Government is finding out to its sorrow. Lord Curzon has now to admit that the policy of the Turks “is one of Nationalism gone wild—almost suicidal in character. The pretensions of the Turks cannot be tolerated; they have not any justification; they are an affront to the Allies and a challenge to' Europe.” He naturally avoids all reference to the effect of the break-up of the Coalition and the charges of Jingoism hurled at its members. It is the attitude the Conservatives adopted that put new hopes into the Turks of obtaining all they wanted if only they would not fight. To merely tell the Turks they “must learn the strength of Britain and the might of Europe are rocks against which they will hurl themselves in vain,” may be picturesque word painting, but the Turks know perfectly well that the ' words are meaningless in the light

of the avowed policy of Mr. Bonar Law’s Government. This is the dilemma the Government has now to face, and the solution of the problem should completely justify ®he policy of directness and determination followed by Mr. Lloyd George, and prove that the old diplomacy must give place to the new, even at the risk of undesirable consequences, unless Britain is to become a back number.