The New York herald., 1921-03-25
Robert Lansing ON Woodrow Wilson's Diplomacy
The ExSecrey Reveals "Th the Downfall
of Versailles and Kept Out of Peace

State. nor indeed would he even ac-
knowledge their receipt.
On the meaninglessness Of the term
elf-determination" and on the conse-
quent danger OF its indiscriminate use
Mr.. Lansing was clear and explicit.
On the rather casual assumptions,
legal and otherwise, involved in the
system of mandates he was searching
and sharply critical. To Lord Robert
Cecil's plan, which, IL adopted. would
have placed In the hands of the Five
Powers the control of international
relations and the direction in large
measure of the foreign policies OF all
nations, he was vigorously opposed,
because OF its frank disregard of the
fundamental principles of interna-
tional law and it's overriding of the
rights Of the small States. For Presi-
dent Wilson's fundamental principle
Mr.. Lansing endeavored to persuade
him to substitute the self-denying
covenant, under the terms OF which
each high contracting Power would
guarantee It's own conduct and inter-
national action rather than the secur
ity and freedom from attack of any
other Power. This ingenious plan was
rejected by the President without con-
sideration, although 1t appears to have
commended itself to Col. House %.
79) and also to Mr.. Henry White and
Gen. Bliss Up. 12D.
1T is obvious that President Wilson
was the only one OF the American rep
resentatives at Paris who favored the
affirmative guaranty, but, as he pos
sessed the constitutional authority to
determine independently the policy of
the United States, his form of guar
anty was written into the revised draft
OF covenant submitted 10 the Com
mission on the League of Nations, and
with comparatively little change was
finally adopted in the treaty OF peace
with Germany"
"The sincerity OF Mr.. Wilson's belief
in the absolute necessity of the guar
anty which ne proposed to the preser-
walton of international peace cannot
be doubted. While his advisers were
practically unanimous in the opinion
that policy, as well as principle, de-
manded change in the guaranty, he
clung tenaciously to the affirmative
form. The result was that which was
feared and predicted by his colleagues.
The President, and the President
alone, must bear the responsibility for
the result" (Pp. 124-5)
This terrible burden must be borne
by President Wilson throughout the
long course of history because of his
marked and lifelong defects of intellect
and OF temperament. When he had
once reached a conclusion satisfactory
to himself neither the views OF others
nor argument nor facts could move
him. In Mr. Lansing's words:
Tile seemed to think that, having
marked out a definite plan of action,
any deviation from 1t would show in
tellectual weakness or vacillation of
purpose. Even when there could be
no doubt that in view of changed con
ditions it was wise to change a policy
which he had openly adopted or ap-
proved, he clung to it with peculiar
, tenacity refusing or merely failing to
modify it. Mr.. Wilson'S mind. once
made up. seemed to become inflexible.
1t appeared to grow impervious to ar
gument and even to facts. 1t lacked
the elasticity and receptivity which
have always been characteristic OF
sound judgment and right thinking.
He might break. but he would not
bend. This rigidity Of mind accounts
in large measure for the deplorable
and, as it seemed to me. needless
conflict between the President and the
Senate over the Treaty Of Versailles.
1t accounts for other incidents in his
career which have materially weak
ened his influence and cast doubts on
his wisdom. 1t also accounts, in my
opinion, for the Presidents failure to
prepare or to adopt a programme at
Paris or to commit himself to a draft
OF a treaty as a basis for the negotia-
tions. which failure, / am convinced.
not only prevented the signature of a
short preliminary treaty of peace but
lost Mr.. Wilson the leadership in the
proceedings. as the statesmen of the
other great Powers outlined the treaty
negotiated and suggested the majority
of the articles which We're written
into 1t. 1t would have made a vast
difference if the President had known
definitely what he sought, but he ap-
parently did not. FTe dealt in gen.
eralities, leaving but not committing
to others their definition and applica-
ton. He was always in the position
of being able to repudiate the inter-
probation which others might place
upon his declarations of principle"
Opp. 211-2.)
Such will probably be the final judg-
ment as to why the Peace Conference
failed to satisfy the world and as to
why the United States Senate refused
20. 10.