Revolution: 20th century phenomenon; #12 (Reel 2)

I could go on listing new functions embassies have taken on rather than do that. I'd rather consider why it is basically that the number of jobs in embassy Di's has expanded in this way and I think one can only say that it is a reflection of the growing complexity of government inside every country. Whether you like it or not the trend is unmistakable. Government intervenes the more it has to take part more in all sorts of forms of activity. This is a manifestation of the technological revolution amongst which we live and inevitably it spills over internationally. So one of the results is that diplomacy is no longer the exclusive province of the professional diplomat. The range of subjects dealt with now is so wide that

inevitably a large number of specialists from other demands have to be brought in. Secretaries of State today can no longer act independently of the rest of government in the way that great predecessors did for the Foreign Office or the State Department. To be effective in its international work nowadays it has to work in very close cooperation with other government departments and agencies and indeed a great deal of quite a lot anyway of very important diplomacy nowadays is conducted direct by other agencies not by the classic the professional diplomat. If you think of the well crisis ever going to be in March of this yeah they the key conference that was the conference of Governors of central banks in Washington. That was diplomacy but it was not in the hands of the professional diplomats.

So the diplomacy has extended as I say beyond the range that it used to have. Now doing so developed new institutions and again this is something that we tend to take for granted and forget but think of a range of initials A U.N. seat EC affair ECM the C F the gap you could go on you now have ours. These are something which is a very new phenomenon the way our mountain lateral organizations pre 1939 but relatively few of them there was a League of Nations it was the International Court of Justice it was Universal Postal Union International Labor Office and a few other things like that. But there were very few mountain lateral organizations of any real political importance the league and the court the international

court were virtually the only ones and the other organizations were relatively small and unobtrusive technical agencies. Now here in the last 20 years there has been an enormous advance in technique. There's no question that ability is to handle subjects which are the classic techniques. We're not equipped to do new abilities have been developed new forms of common international interest discovered. I'm not suggesting that these new organizations are able to moderate and compose major political differences between great pas. They're not a universal panacea but they are still an advance in diplomatic technique. I

think you can distinguish what I'm Mike told the uncommitted organizations by which I mean organizations which are designed to have either all the countries in the world or countries in a particular region irrespective of national ideologies. From what you might call the committed organizations which have any of the interests of a particular group chosen for what they have in common. And here again we've got a completely new invention in diplomacy. I my own print word for it is the organic alliance. And we forget how recent as a development that is when General Eisenhower was appointed supreme allied commander in 1940 to. This was the first time in history

that. An international commander had been appointed in supreme command unfettered. Commanding a truly international army and commanding it through a truly international integrated staff has never been done before. When the institution was revived in peacetime in 1949 it really represented a giant stride in diplomatic techniques. The Western Allies discovered it was possible to pool military planning. And this represented a completely new degree of intimacy in international relations. And now it is well on them a sensitive and difficult side. When national security was involved this I think was a real revolution in technique. Now historically it was caused

cause by the Soviet threat. But irrespective of the historical cause irrespective of whether you approve of nature or not it was a real advance in technique it proved that it was possible to pool vital national interests. So it's a sort of Quantum Leap and I think that I myself would attribute in part to the success of nature although perhaps even more to the success of the Marshall Plan and of the CD the impetus which enabled the movement for European unity to move on to achieve the European Economic Community. It had been shown that given the will and a sufficient degree of common interest sovereignty economic sovereignty in the case of the common market could be a pool successfully and one of the interesting

things to note is that this same example is being copied not with the same success yet but it is being copied all over the world. Not only in terms of customs unions and economic unions but in terms of political unions the Organization of African Unity the same idea has pervaded the whole field of diplomacy. Progress of course hasn't all been forward and as we've taken steps forward in some demands we've taken them back in others and I think one is going to recognize again in the last 20 years a generation in they what used to be called the sanctity of international relations and the inviolability of envoys. It's become relatively

common for diplomatic relations to be broken in a fit of pique and form. It's not frivolous for lightweight reasons. It's become relatively common to sack and back on diplomatic premises and indeed even to hold diplomats hostage. Again you may say that that's good for a rather smug lot but I suggest it's not very good for peace. Finally technology has affected the plainness. When I was in Warsaw I said in our embassies after three as it became second nature to assume that you were wherever you were actually that you were being listened to you were barred and not any of the words of your house and every part of your house that the devices can even extend

to listening to people in the open now. So one of the things I remember and it illustrates how unpredictable technology can be. The Dutch ambassador on day had to have his chimney swept. Result was that all the lights in the house went into effect. And you can read back on how it feels to settle. So I think we've had read Gration as well as progress. Let me turn finally to some of the effects on foreign policy itself. I've said that the salient fact of international relations in the last 10 15 years is the nuclear confrontation between the two superpowers. And I am not in a position to tell you what the outcome of that will be. For the purposes of this talk I can only make a arbitrary assumption

that maybe peace will be preserved. Because really unless I make that assumption the rest of what I've got to say is quite relevant. But one of the interesting things about the nuclear bomb and its revolution its effect is that it has changed not only the relations between the nuclear powers and selves but it's had a very profound effect in my view on their relations with other powers. In the first place it's given the two superpowers as a degree of common interest. I don't want to exaggerate the importance of that but because the results of a nuclear exchange would be so catastrophic The result has been that the superpowers have got a certain common interest in the preservation of peace and this is being shown in progress.

Not sensational progress but progress in some ways the test ban treaty and the recent nonproliferation agreement. But it's also affected as I say relations with other parts of the world. It's not just that it's no longer morally acceptable for a superpower to deploy the whole of its effective force including a nuclear bomb against other parts of the world. But the existence of the nukes has limited the extent to which even conventional minute trip are can be deployed. The risks that if conventional power goes too far it may lead into a nuclear. It may draw of the great powers in and lead into a nuclear situation. Whether this was wanted on not and then the spread of conventional armaments among lay

the non-nuclear countries among the developing countries has also produced the situation which is new and indeed a number of people I think would say this may be a healthy development. It means that the country is if you like in the third areas of the world the uncommitted areas of the world are no longer so completely I'll cast by the sort of military technology that the great powers can deploy. But that is have to of course its effects in another direction as well as aggravating the danger is when the country is the uncommitted countries quarrel between themselves. Now I think the nuclear revolution and a virtual completion of the dig process of decolonization have transform

in my view the whole basis of relations between the advanced countries and the developing countries relations between the great powers themselves. I still it seem to me much the same as they always were relations of power mitigated by fear and a degree of common interest in peace. This is pretty much the conventional and classic situation. But relations towards the rest of the world are not to say they adopt the attainment of Independence. The adoption by a large number of the independent countries of nationalist and neutralised policy is a stance of neutrality in the ideological confrontation have created a number of new problems at the same time. Economics have produced a rather disturbing picture. I can

best illustrate this I think in terms of for instance British trade. Over the last 10 years there's been a complete shift in the pattern of British trade 10 years ago about 37 percent of our trade was with the Commonwealth largely with the developing world. Twenty five percent of it was with Europe. There's proportions have been reverse today 37 percent is with the ARPANET only 25 percent with the Commonwealth. And you have this disturbing thing that the areas where international trade is growing maced are between the richest countries. This I think. Is only one aspect of a much wider problem. The disappearance of the system means that in large areas of the world

there is no wrong and agreed or at least if not agreed a generally accepted mechanism for the maintenance of peace. I've talked of the moral and the practical limitations on intervention by the great powers. And yet in a world where interdependence between every part is great and there is no agreement on who should be the policeman. This is the central importance of the United Nations in a world which is shrinking in the sense I mean growing more closely dependent every part on the other it becomes more and more necessary to have an all fired which can preserve peace kind of just differences. And yet we haven't got one. There's a dilemma here that the preponderance of military economic and political power is concentrated in a small number

of countries but those countries where in the 19th century there was at least a degree of common agreement among them on the system of the concept of PAS. Today the countries where power is concentrated cannot agree between themselves on how it should be used to maintain peace. And of course even if they could agree it doesn't follow that the rest of the world would welcome to form an organization for peace imposed on them by the advanced parties. And we come to what I think is the most dangerous long term fact part from the nuclear weapon and that is that in this world today power and wealth are nearly all concentrated in a small region roughly the northern temperate zone. Whereas

positive and population are concentrated in the remainder and what he said dangerous is that this dividing line between rich and poor countries. The are of course there are varying degrees of wealth in the northern tier. There are varying degrees of poverty in the rest of the world but the broad line of division caring sides to a very large extent with racial boundaries. It caring sides. Not only is hunger is poverty is frustrated aspiration concentrated in the one area but the Gulf is in fact as of today growing wider. This it seems to me is a completely new situation in international affairs. It's one which curves for a degree of

generosity and altruism on the part of the advanced countries which history scarcely leads us to expect. We've seen the magnificent example that the United States set in initiating with the concept of foreign aid first for Europe with the Marshall Plan and later other parts of the world. We've also seen the enormous difficulties that giving aid gives causes and I wonder they say it's more blessid to give than to receive. We're not beginning to realize that it may be more best to give than to receive that perhaps it is hard to receive gracefully without disrupting the society which is doing the receiving. So I'm going to end this talk by saying that I think this this

is what I meant by the diplomatic revolution. This division between North and the sides which it seems to me and between rich and poor are to present the many serious long term dangers facing us not with the solitary exception of the nuclear weapons. That is what I meant by the diplomatic revolution. I don't know how many of you are familiar with Khan's massive work on thermonuclear world. One of the reviewers wrote that he didn't know whether Khan was a great writer and anyone who finished his book was a great reader. Well I think you're a great listener and I thank you. I was. Thank you sir we now open the session to questions from the floor with reference to what I said about the

effects of publicity on negotiation. How effective do I think the various negotiations on there are and would do a bit better I think would be conducted in private. Well the United States it seems to me is not a party which has sought to make great publicity and propaganda out of these negotiations it is the other side. The guy is running on sour long I didn't do among the changes of diplomatic method of the last 20 years has been the invention of diplomacy by propaganda and this is one of the things which is happening in Paris. It's something we have to learn to live with said the communist bloc but he tend to behave this way. I think it calls for an enormous patients and. Only

a I don't know any more than you do want the results of those negotiations will be but the record of negotiating with communist countries and in the last 20 years or so is generally that this is the way the background against which you negotiate. Sometimes the break comes in a public speech. It was from a cow I think. Or Molotov I mean who made the remark at the UN which led to the Korean truce the Korean truce negotiations lasted nearly two years. In the end you sometimes get that sometimes you don't. The concept of giving aid to a country and on the concept of what's called in the jargon tying the aid so that the money you give has to be used to buy products from the dental country. I'm not in any sense an expert on aid programs I never really

had to to work on them in detail. I daresay I don't know I dare say in an ideal world aid would never be tied you know that it would always be for the receiving country to decide where they wanted to spend the money and so on and so forth. But life isn't like that. If you want someone to give you a new auditorium I don't want you need to have that space the college the something they need. By and large you have to find a chap who is interested in giving that sort of thing. And this is one of the reality is that we live in democratic societies with parliamentary government. If the people of your country the people of my country are to be willing to sustain aid programs I often have to be comforted by the fact that a proportion of the aid will be spent on

exports from America or from but every day. Do I think that India has profited by breaking away from British rule. Well I don't believe any Indian with a few Indians would take that and it seems to me that is the decisive thing. We have the British Empire now have we had a sort of unhappy episode around here which 150 years get out. And about. We learnt a lesson then and from 1840 onward. It's a remarkable thing this and it was obscured to a large extent for a period at the end of the 19th century the period but the basic philosophy of what used to be called the British Empire post 1776 was set when there was trouble

in Canada. And Lord Dyer I'm with Sam Dr. John McCain to devise a workable system for the Canadian colonies and write the Dardenne report which set it as the objective that they colonies as they were then called should be led to self-government and independence. And Dante's while I freely admit that 30 years ago even 20 years ago very few British statesman foresaw the speed with which the races would be achieved. But the aim with that question is that Britain has always supported the United States stand in Vietnam. And if the US government decides to escalate the war and resume bombing can she expect continued British support and the best immediate answer to that is to quote a former president who said that's a very iffy question if I was asked that because I'd said that

there was no one all fired which could maintain pace and stability in the world did I think because I'd said this might be resented. Did I think that a multinational sort of universal government was a possibility. I want to actually getting back to my original remark that no one country ever maintained peace and stability in the world. That's strictly true in the 19th century the British Navy came very close to it. And that's the good point about British navy if you like but a lot of the world didn't appreciate it. And didn't want to have the British do it. They wanted to run their own chef. Now are we going to get round this by having a world government. Well you and I will see. I don't

know that this is a this is a gross I think I I tried to say this in my talk I think there is a grave in the techniques of multilateral cooperation. There is a trend to accept that the world has shrunk and it's all much more closely linked than it was. And to accept some of the marvels of that but at the same time. Fundamentally the international scene is anarchic. There are a series of independent pas which I can't see Congress I can't see Parliament I can't see the Supremes Soviets passing through sovereignty over to a world government and I think this is a very long term perspective. The great hope is that we can keep a sufficient degree of cooperation. It will be full to cooperation is

the great hope is that it shouldn't go. You know we shouldn't make the nuclear mistake given what I said about day advances in technique and diplomacy. I do I think that diplomacy can get best cope with this problem of the division between the rich and upon nations. Well I don't want to pick you up on words but we're talking about foreign policy and the mechanics of it is not as important as the substance of it. I don't know I think aid programs meant slam port. I mean this it seems to me is the fundamental thing that Ways and Means have got to be fond of helping that part of the world which at present is forming further and further behind. To add to help it to start moving forward to stock closing the gap. This can only be done I think with great

expenditure of money and with whether we should achieve this and I don't know. Mr. Francis Robert McGinnis deputy director general of British Information Services in New York speaking at the twenty sixth annual Institute on world affairs is topic in keeping with this institute central theme of revolution was the diplomatic revolution. This is James H Mason inviting you to join us next week on this series for another presentation from the Institute on world affairs. This program was produced by the Department of Telecommunications and film at San Diego State College in California. This is the national educational radio network.