Evening star., 1947-10-19
Is Diplomacy Dyino?.

- NiPIO'HOS/ H/hS:~
In connection with the proposal to estab-
lish 57-nation Little Assembly," Sir
Hartley Shawcross of Britain has made
a moving appeal to the United Nations,
particularly to Russia. He has called upon
it to improve its manners and calm its
temper-to put an end to wild war
mongering" charges and to the "vitupera-
ton, the recriminations, the inflammatory
and provocative speeches" that have come
to envenom international relations. But
Andrei Gromyko's harsh reply indicates
that Sir Hartley has addressed himself to
stone wall and that the fire-breathing
Vishinsky line is to continue So a de-
pressed world must ask itself whether ira
ditional diplomacy is definitely dead and
whether the ugly new rough-and tumble
holds out any hope for peace
Diplomacy, "the art of reconciling the
interests of the peoples one with another"
has had its belittlers. At one time, as the
Britannica points out, it was simply "a
process of exalted haggling, conducted with
an amazing disregard for the ordinary
standards of morality, but with the most
exquisite politeness." 1t was a thing of
such "falSe-friendly and circumlocutory"
language that some cynic was once moved
to remark that when a diplomat says
yes he means perhaps; when he says
perhaps he means no; when he says no
he is no diplomat" In the last century,
however, It's ethical content increased
markedly. The good manners and the
temperate words had a genuine moral base,
and civilization was we'll served. Indeed,
taken all in all, diplomacy came not merely
to mirror civilized thinking, but also to do
good job for civilized peace. Though it
failed to head off some wars, it certainly
averted others that would have occurred
had it not existed.
The point may be made of course-and
it may be true-that these are times when
traditional diplomatic methods are impos-
sible. The Second World War was a de-
civilizing event over vast area of the
globe. 1t has left in it's wake problems so
immense and complex that the customary
international niceties, the polite usages,
the polished and judicious words may be
altogether inconsequential. In fact, es-
pecially since Russia appears determined
to abandon then1 it may be that nothing
can be accomplished by proclaining their
virtues now. 1t may be that diplomacy
just has to lose its temper, take off its
gloves and spats, stop being mannerly and
abandon itself to name-calling and brutal
frankness. That is to say, given the fixed
Kremlin line, given an age of gracelessness
and taut nerves, people and governments
may feel psychologically inpelled to get
lot of things off their chests in a way which
would lead to war in other eras, but which
today may serve as safety valve
But another, less optimistic view would
be this: That diplomacy has fallen upon
evil days because civilization itself is sick
at the core and that the present trend
must be checked and reversed to avert
tremendous dangers. As Lord Balfour de-
clared after the First World War, How is
the task OF peace-maker to be pursued If
you are to shout your grievances from the
heusetops whenever they occur? The only
result is that you embitter public feeling
that the differences" between one country
and another Suddenly attain magnitude
they ought never to be allowed to approach.
that the newspapers of the two countries
agltate themselves, that the parliaments
OF the two countries have their passions
set on fire, and great crises arise, which
may end, haue ended sometimes, in inter-
national catastrophes"
Once again-this time to group of Brit
lsh Laborites-Premier Stain has spoken
more or less soft and peace-loving words.
But the vituperative Russian line else
whereas expressed by Mr.. Gromyko, Mr..
Vishinsky and the Soviet press-has played
major role in bringing diplomacy to its
present low estate despite such warnings
as the old one from Lord Balfour. The
world can only hope that all this will
change for the better some day-before it
is too late for peoples to live together again
as civilized human beings.