d said, 'I conclude that you do not like secret
diplomacy.'
"'I do not; I do not,' he fervently exclaimed. 'All our trouble comes
from these secret meetings of four men [referring to the Big Four],
who keep no records and who tell different stories of what takes
place. Secrecy is to blame. We have been unable to rely on any one.
To have to run around and see this man and that man is not the way to
do. Most all sympathize with you when alone and then they desert you
when they get with others. This is the cause of much bitterness and
distrust. _Secret diplomacy is an utter failure._ It is too hard to
endure. Some men know only how to whisper. They are not to be
trusted. I do not like it.'
"'Well,' I said, 'you cannot charge me with that way of doing
business.'
"'I cannot,' he replied, 'you tell me the truth. I may not like it,
but at least you do not hold out false hopes.'"
The foregoing conversation no doubt expressed the real sentiments of the
members of the Italian delegation at that time. Disgust with
confidential personal interviews and with relying upon personal
influence rather than upon the merits of their case was the natural
reaction following the failure to win by these means the President's
approval of Italy's demands.
The Italian policy in relation to Flume was wrecked on the rock of
President Wilson's firm determination that the Jugo-Slavs should have a
seaport on the Adriatic sufficient for their needs and that Italy should
not control the approaches to that port. With the wreck of the Fiume
policy went in time the Orlando Government which had failed to make good
the promises which they had given to their people. Too late they
realized that secret diplomacy had failed, and that they had made a
mistake in relying upon it. It is no wonder that the two leaders of the
Italian delegation on returning to Paris and resuming their duties in
the Conference refrained from attempting to arrange clandestinely the
settlement of the Adriatic Question. The "go-betweens," on whom they had
previously relied, were no longer employed. Secret diplomacy was
anathema. They had paid a heavy price for the lesson, which they
had learned.
When one reviews the negotiations at Paris from December, 1918, to June,
1919, the secretiveness which characterized them is very evident.
Everybody seemed to talk in whispers and never to say anything worth
while except in confidence. The
|