democratic control of foreign relations, there need be no misgiving as to the continued malleability of its institutions. They are simple and practical and will continue, as in the past, to accommodate themselves, promptly and almost imperceptibly, to new conditions as they arise. CHAPTER VI SECRET AND OPEN DIPLOMACY THE first requisite for the democratic control of foreign relations is the dissemination of information among the public. Without information it is plain that there can be no control. "Open diplomacy" has become therefore the shibboleth of democracy in the field of foreign affairs, and our first step must be to consider exactly what it means. Like many watchwords it is used frequently with slight discrimination. The very sibilancy of its antonym, "secret diplomacy," commends it to the undiscriminating as a club wherewith to belabor whatever may displease them in the progress of the world's affairs. In order to arrive at a true definition, it is necessary to distinguish between policy and accomplished facts, on the one hand, and current negotiations, on the other. Open diplomacy rightly understood calls for complete frankness with respect to the first and a maximum of publicity, but not complete publicity, with respect to the second. FRANKNESS AS TO POLICY AND ACCOMPLISHED FACTS Formerly the policies of states toward one another were in the nature of things secret. Military conditions alone prevailed in Europe when the Italian cities began at the end of the Middle Ages a systematic diplomatic intercourse, and diplomacy, being but the handmaid of war, shared war's essential secrecy of purpose and operation. This condition of affairs has been modified only with the development of democracy. If the present world system of sovereign states were maintained and each state were a pure monarchy, there would probably be little question of open diplomacy. Each monarch, consulting privately with such counsellors as he might choose, would pursue, according to his nature, a policy of greater or less state selfishness toward all other states. Open diplomacy would supervene only as enlightenment and altruism might grow among rulers. However, broader repositories of political power have been developed. When through the institution of ministries rulers were placed in commission, examples arose as recently as that of Napoleon III-of strong-headed or vain monarchs endeavoring by secrecy to hold the play of foreign relationships in their own hands to the exclusion of their ministers; and, since the people have come to be generally recognized as exercising the ultimate sanction of government, we have had instances of monarchs and ministers practicing secrecy as against them. Such was the case of King Carol of Rumania, who concluded successive treaties with the Triple Alliance signed only by himself and his Premier and not communicated to the other members of the Cabinet or to the Chambers, as required by the constitution. Unconstitutionality is not, however, the more important aspect of secret diplomacy. Its arrangements are usually constitutional enough, and rulers, whether monarchical or democratic, are more often than not honestly devoted to the interests of their people. Certainly this is true of the members of democratic governments. The impulse to secrecy springs as a rule not from a desire to deceive the people but from a supposed imperative necessity to |