Search results

It is an especial privilege to appear before the members of the Council of Foreign Relations because of their notable endeavor to facilitate an intelligent appreciation by our people of policies and action in the field of foreign affairs. Not only have you provided a forum but in-establishing a quarterly review under highly competent direction you have made one of the most helpful contributions to a better understanding of foreign relations than has ever been made by private enterprise. The need is obvious.

The postulates of our foreign policy were determined by the ideals of liberty. The dominant motive was the security of the Republic; it was a policy of "live and let live," with no imperialistic designs or thought of aggression. There was a deep-seated conviction that the opportunities of a hard-won freedom would be threatened by the ambitions of European Powers constantly seeking their own aggrandizement by the forcible imposition of their will upon weaker peoples, and that the peaceful aims of the new nation could be achieved only by keeping clear of the toils of European politics and strife. It was this conviction of the necessity of maintaining an independe it position which led to the declaration of neutrality in 1793 despite the treaty of alliance with France, which had sprung from the exigencies of the Revolutionary struggle. The words of the Farewell Address were more than a solemn admonition of the foremost American patriot—they set forth principles which those who established our foreign policy held to be its corner stone.

I desire to take this opportunity to present some observations on the conduct of our foreign relations, not to define particular policies, but to consider method and control.Recent developments abroad have marked the passing of the old diplomacy and the introduction of more direct and flexible methods responsive to democratic sentiment. Peace-loving democracies have not been willing to rest content with traditions and practices which failed to avert the great catastrophe of the world war. Public criticism in some instances overshot the mark and becoming emotional enjoyed the luxury of a bitter and indiscriminate condemnation. The most skilled diplomats of Europe were charged with having become "enmeshed in formulae and the jargon of diplomacy"; with having "ceased to be conscious of pregnant realities". More potent than the critics were the exigencies due to the war which required the constant contact and direct interchanges of responsible leaders.

It is my purpose to present to you some aspects of the work of the Department of State. In view of the nature and scope of the discussions at this meeting I do not need to emphasize the extraordinary importance of our international relations at this time. But I feel that such discussions, despite their wide range, would be inadequate unless they also served to bring about a better understanding on the part of the business men of the country of the essential instrumentality through which intercourse with foreign governments is conducted.

AbstractBeing Mr. Hughes' presidential address before the Twenty‐sixth Annual Meeting of the National Municipal League at Indianapolis.