"Secropen Diplomacy"

A queer way of practicing diplomacy is to sign an agreement, keep the text secret, and then create a furore in the international press by openly alluding in provocative, general terms to what has been agreed. Such a course might be christened "Secropen Diplomacy." Such was the course steered, last week, by British Foreign Secretary Sir Austen Chamberlain and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand. They sent a resume of their secret agreement to U. S. Secretary of State Frank Billings Kellogg, who was not authorized to divulge its text, did not.

Although the ensuing furore attained prodigious bulk, all that was told by screaming headlines and columns of speculation simmered down to this:

An understanding has been arrived at between Great Britain and France as to what program they are prepared to sponsor jointly at the next session of the League of Nations Preparatory Disarmament Committee, which has never yet taken any decisive action.

Pertinent comment can be compressed into three observations:

1) A basic difference exists between the naval requirements of Great Britain and France. The Empire depends primarily upon surface craft to rule waves. The Republic must rely upon submarines to blow up such surface ships as approach her shores--because France has a huge army to support and cannot spare the cash to compete with Great Britain in surface warboats. Submarines, being the cheapest effective naval weapon of defense, are in high favor with the "coast-defensive"* navies of France and the U. S.

2) The submarine issue and a similar but very technical disagreement over the "categories" in which naval limitation would be practicable has hamstrung every session of the League Disarmament Committee, and resulted in the abstention of both France and Italy from the Coolidge Naval Limitations Parley (TIME, June 27, 1927). Incidentally the Coolidge session adjourned in disagreement when the U, S. and Great Britain became hopelessly deadlocked over the issue of "categories."

3) If an Anglo-French understanding of any real value has been arrived at, it must embrace compromises respecting submarines and categories. But the "Secropen Diplomacy" stunt of last week is open to a grave suspicion that it may be empty of any real compromise, and designed simply as a blatant advertisement that France and Great Britain stand together diplomatically however unready they may be to limit armaments.

At Rome the authoritative news organ Tribuna declared: "Fascist Italy detests all this international journalistic chatter and the hypocritical welcome thereof as the beginning of a new era in international relationships."

* The British navy might be called "sea-defensive," since no modern navy can stomach the description "offensive."