The Death of Diplomacy
By Our Correspondent GENEVA gSELECT band of Western journalists here was able to celebrate the beginning of the fifth week of the conference with a visit to East Berlin by specially chartered aeroplane. They were the guests of the East German Government, and, as things turned out, had a much more varied week- end than their colleagues who remained in Geneva. The object of this generosity was to 'give a background to the conference in Geneva'; it ran to a flying visit to the new steelworks settle- ment of `Stalinstadt' on the River Oder ('the first real Socialist town in Germany'), while one or two of the party managed to see some Bertolt Brecht at an East German theatre. In between, everybody saw government spokesmen, three. times, and heard yet more about revanchism and militarism in West Germany. One of the jour- nalists, a Dutchman who had been in three separate Nazi concentration camps, explained that those who had felt the weight of the jack- boots know all about the dangers of German militarism and, furthermore, did not require Germans to explain the matter to them.
The subject of the division of Berlin was also touched on, and the East Germans complained bitterly about the difficulties of a divided city, especially in town planning and water supply. The suggestion that the Western plan for a unified but 'occupied' city obviated this led to some interesting cross-examination, which finally resulted in the statement that rather than see this they would prefer a city more or less permanently divided. Asked if the East Germans were, there- fore, prepared to sacrifice practical considerations to political expediency, the answer was an un- mistakable 'yes,' which, for once, was pleasantly unequivocal:" It was also made quite clear to the journalists that the East German Government did not propose. to wait until the Federal Republic had 'completed their atomic rearmament' in 1961 in order to complete a separate peace treaty with the Eastern bloc. '
In Geneva, meanwhile, after five weeks' `negotiating' the Russians are still fresh, the very models of modern professional optimists. An interesting feature of the proceedings is that the Russians have been relatively gentlemanly : the speeches of Gromyko drip with careful polite- ness. It has been left to the East Germans to provide the vituperation, and the lies. This is one of their chores in the Communist bloc : they will have to carry out the Goebbels propaganda tac- tics, so that the Russians can appear rather well behaved by comparison. The latest episode has been a particularly revolting personal attack upon. Mr. Herter.
A conference in the classical sense is something in which everybody tries to see what he can get out of the other. As matters move along, there is a certain give and take and eventually something is agreed to, the dismemberment of a country or the division of spoils. This affair is completely different. The Russians make a speech, and the West protest. The Russians make another speech, putting the same point in slightly different form. Blandly assuming that theirs is the only proposition to be considered, they continue to hammer on the same point, changing a word here and a sentence there. Slowly and steadily, as with a political prisoner, they grind away, hoping to wear down resistance. One day (their attitude is) these silly people will give up, sign the confession, and a quick trial can be held, with Mr. Gromyko and delegation as judge, jury and prosecuting counsel.
From all this, it must follow that the Western side is on the defensive; and so they are. They have been so from the very first day. Mr. Lloyd, with his experience in Parliament and at the Bar, has done very well in what there has been of the 'cut and thrust of debate'—better than his Western colleagues—but he is very much in the position of a defending counsel doing the very best for a client of whose chances he is not too sure.
It is tempting to imagine that if only we had one of the diplomatic giants of yesteryear with us, all would be well. The Russians, those terrible negotiators, would be put in their place, and we would regain the initiative. This is wishful think- ing. When war could be considered the con- tinuation of policy, there was some point in negotiation of the classical type, because most words were backed with threat of force. This is no longer so. Everybody, even in Geneva, is agreed that war would get nobody anywhere. No progress can be made in negotiation, therefore, because nobody is quite convinced that anyone would fight.
It might be that what we are witnessing here is the death of classical diplomacy. We have reached nuclear stalemate; from the feeling in Geneva, we have reached a diplomatic stalemate as well.
'How informal can you get?'
Previous page
