SUPREME COUNCIL. This term was evolved to denote the organ of supreme control at the Peace Conference at Paris in 1919. It was thought by some that this device was a new one, and the phrase "Diplomacy by Conference" was coined to express it. But, in fact, a similar procedure was followed at Vienna dur ing 1814-15 and subsequent years, with strikingly analogous results.
The Peace Conference started by excluding all but the Great Powers from anything but formal deliberations. The original supreme organ was known as "The Council of Ten" and consisted of the heads of the delegations of the Great Powers and of their respective foreign secretaries. This body was found too unwieldy, and it was considered that its numbers caused leakage and undue publicity. To meet this difficulty President Wilson pro posed, and Mr. Lloyd George supported, the experiment of a Council of Four ("The Big Four"), who were the above-named, together with M. Clemenceau (France) and Sig. Orlando (Italy). The Japanese occasionally sent a representative when their in terests were involved, thus making a fifth member. By this device business was transacted rapidly, informally and secretly. After the departure of President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George on June 28, 1919, the Council of Four was superseded by a Coun cil of Five which included Japan. The leading diplomat of each Great Power attended on behalf of his country. This arrange ment ended in Jan. 192o, and the United States then withdrew her representative altogether. The Supreme Council (as it was now called) did not, however, die at once, though it ceased to sit at Paris en permanence. Part of its functions were transferred to the Ambassadors' Conference (q.v.) and part to the League of Nations (q.v.).
Nevertheless attempts were repeatedly made to establish a system of "periodic reunions" between the premiers or leading men representing each Great Power. There were nine such meet ings in 1920, six in 1921 and two in 1922. At the Conference of London (Feb. 21—March 14, 1921) it became quite clear to the Great Powers that Germany had, in the military sense, become in capable of resisting them. It was also doubtful whether any forcible measures could actually produce substantial sums by way of reparation. On this point, grave divergences appeared between England and France. The supreme test came at the Conference of Paris (Aug. 8-13, 1921). At that meeting there was a complete division between the French and British views over the assign ment of territory in Silesia respectively to Germany and to Poland as a result of plebiscite, Finding agreement impossible Mr. Lloyd George appealed to the League of Nations to settle
the Silesian boundary, and M. Briand agreed to accept the award of the League on behalf of France.
Mr. Lloyd George's appeal showed quite clearly that the Su preme Council was no longer a body able to settle disputes be tween its members, in spite of the informal and unofficial char acter of its proceedings and of the close personal intimacy be tween its members. None the less, two further meetings took place. That at Cannes ( Jan. 6-13, 1922) failed because M. Briand was overthrown by the majority in the French parliament, while the Council was actually sitting (Jan. 12). A desperate effort by Mr. Lloyd George to retrieve the situation by summoning a new Council at Genoa (April I o–May 19, 1922) failed because of French hostility to the proceedings. The failure of the Supreme Council would appear to have been inherent in the circumstances of its origin and constitution.
Like the similar organism created by Lord Castlereagh in 1814, it was evolved to meet a certain need, and decayed when that need ceased to be imperative. It was necessary at Vienna in 1814 and at Paris in 1919 to devise some method by which the work of the Peace Conference could be rapidly thrown into shape and decided without too many plenipotentiaries encumbering the discussion and too much outside pressure embarrassing the deci sion. The fact is that "Diplomacy by Conference" appears to be a method, a system or a means for oiling the wheels and for easing pressure. But it cannot, of itself, remove pressure or create harmony and cannot at present be accepted as a permanent system for conducting the affairs of the world.