THE NEW DIPLOMACY

Harold Nicolson, who grieved deeply over the transition from old to new diplomacy, is doubtless experiencing a revival of faith as a result of the Anglo-French conversations now being held in London. For there is little difference between the methods being employed to bring France and England closer together, and the frequent visits paid by M. Jules Cambon to the British Foreign Office in the years immediately preceding the World War. To be sure, present-day publicity precludes the possibility of the once popular secret alliances, but this factor is merely a sign of the times. Even President Wilson could not claim that the statement issued by the representatives of the two nations is at variance with his ideal of "open covenants of peace, openly arrived at."

Cynics may claim that the appearance of openness and sincerity in the statement is but an indication of agreements of a nature not fitted for public consumption, but there is little reason to believe that the British have Machiavellian designs. Unquestionably they are much disturbed over the potential dangers to their seacoast towns and cities in the rapid increase in the number of airplanes being constructed in Germany, and their plan for a regional pact for air defense is designed to meet this danger. But in this era of nationalism, no nation can be blamed for a close regard for its own interests.

The new diplomacy, if there be such a thing, is not embodied in the League of Nations, despite the rantings of Hearst and Coughlin. Nor is it to be discovered in treaties which will be made public only in autobiographies and memoirs published many years hence. For public opinion--always the weightiest imponderable in democratic nations--will not countenance a return to the devious methods of pre-war Europe. If the recent London Naval conversations, and the talks now in progress between France and England, have any significance, it is the clear manifestation of an attempt to achieve real understanding between the men whose task is to further the desires of their people for peace and security.

It will be impossible to determine the effectiveness of this new method of approach until Germany has responded to the advances of England and France. If she persists in adopting her present isolationist attitude, she will drive her former opponents to far closer ties than have yet been cemented. But if she is able to recognize that Messrs. Eden, Simon, Laval and Flandin are doing all in their power to prevent another armageddon, and are sincere in their desire to right some of the wrongs inflicted on her by the Versailles Treaty, the new diplomacy will be firmly entrenched.

Once again, in fear of a common enemy, France and England are drawing together. Once again, an armament race is in the offing. Once again, the vital factor in preventing that race is Germany. The next few months will prove whether history repeats itself, or whether the leaders of Germany are willing to cooperate in an endeavor to bring about economic improvement through a subsidence in the international distrust and insecurity that is the arch enemy of progress.