The League of Nations

acy and the New The Old Diplom

[We are glad to publish this article, which is of considerable topical interest. As will be evident from our note at the foot of a correspondent's letter to the Editor—" Diplomacy and The Hague" —we are largely in agreement with the writer.—ED. Spectator.] THE professional diplomats have recently been startled by the procedure adopted by Mr. Snowden at The Hague. Dis- regarding the seethings of the Quai d'Orsay, saying exactly what he means in none too guarded words, he has left the diplomats fiddling with their carefully compiled dossiers,

helplessly awaiting the result of the speeches made by the statesmen. In doing so he has raised again the question of

the amateur diplomat versus the professional, which was discreetly aired in the Saturday Review of August 10th; where, however, no real solution is found. The correspondent came to the conclusion that there are certain posts, notably Berlin and the still-looming Moscow, which can usefully be filled by the amateur ; yet he notes the difficulty which will be apt to hinder the " adoption " of amateurs into the Foreign

Office--namely, that the best men will not enter a service in which the " plums " are given to outsiders. In order that the amateurs should have the best possible backing from their staff it is, nevertheless, essential that the best type of man should be found. The difficulty is a very real one.

A SIGNIFICANT CONTRAST.

Yet we have recently had two examples, both of them in the sphere of disarmament, which make more obvious than ever the necessity for some change in our diplomatic methods. These are (a) the Anglo-French naval compromise, and (b) the MacDonald-Dawes meeting, and all that it may lead to. In the first case the professionals, led by the "experts," and disregarding all the lessons taught by the League, by methods of secrecy achieved an understanding. It was then sprung upon the world, by methods which themselves savour strongly of the old diplomacy, and the world, in less than a fortnight, rendered the agreement a dead letter by the sheer weight of its adverse opinion. In (b), on the other hand, public opinion was enlisted in advance, and General Dawes, in one of the most statesmanlike speeches which have been made in the last ten years, emphasized the fact that every step up to the result must be made in the view of the public, and that any agreement must be couched in such language as can be understood by the man in the street, however much it may be anathema to diplomats. In both cases the professional diplo- mats were surprised. In the former they were hurt, and in the latter they were—perhaps still are—sceptical.

This is not the place to discuss whether they had reason to be

hurt, nor indeed very fully whether they have reason to be scep- tical; though there are many indications that, in the latter case, at least, they may be wrong. What is indeed surprising, how-

ever, is that they can ever have been surprised ; in fact, in this surprise of the diplomates de earriere lies the whole difference

between the old diplomacy and the new. The former gains its objects in spite of—or at least without reference to—public opinion. The latter attains success first by making sure that its objects are such as public opinion will approve and,

secondly, by knowing—and this is also supremely important—

that, by bringing public opinion to bear at the crucial moment, the battle may be as good as won. Conversely, as our case (a) illustrates but too clearly, if public opinion be mobilized against a project, it cannot finally succeed. The factor which has been introduced into diplomacy—partly by the post-war

democratic wave, but mainly by the use made of this factor by the League—is the rapid mobilization of world public opinion.

THE PLACE OF THE PRESS.

In this connexion it is interesting to note that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has been much criticized for including in his telegram to Mr. Snowden the words "every newspaper . . . backs you." This is held to savour of govenunent by the Press, and where the Press is officially inspired, an organ of propaganda rather than one of opinion, this may be so. In this country, however, it is true to say that the Press reflects, or honestly tries to reflect, the best public opinion, and, in quoting it, Mr. MacDonald was giving the best evidence avail.

able that Mr. Snowden had not merely his party but the whole country behind him. The Press of a country is the best key that the foreigner possesses to the psychology of that country. The extent to which professional diplomats are out of touch with the feeling of the peoples is further emphasized by the surprise of the Quai d'Orsay at the outburst of feeling in our Press. Mr. MacDonald gave to this solidarity its due prominence, and the effect, let it be reinembered, was at once visible in the columns of the Journal des Debuts. The great movements to-day are the moveirients of public opinion, and the diplomats must learn to know them.

But to bring this about it is necessary that each one of our diplomats should at least have some training in gauging public opinion in countries other than his own. The leading articles in foreign papers should be his study, and the cartoons in the Review of Reviews his Bible. He should know, moreover, 'not only what the Frenchmen and the Finns are likely to think, but why they are likely to think it.

And this, of course, is the very last thing that a professional diplomat is ever likely to learn. Straight from his university and school, he is plunged into a service in which every face he sees is a false one. For, just as we edit our stories for a parson, we never speak our whole minds to a diplomat. We are amiable and explanatory, and as tactful as we can be, but we are not truthful. In a word—we are diplomatic.

Now here it behoves us to be cautious. In spite of all we have said we have still to remember our initial difficulty—i.e., how to recruit the best men for the service.

A POSSIBLE SOLUTION.

The solution which I should dare to suggest, foreign as it may appear to our traditions, is that -diplomacy should be a profession rather than a "service," so that a man may leave it and rejoin, as he cannot rejoin a service. We should also remove the ridiculous age bar, which practically ensures that no entrant to the diplomatic service should have any know-. ledge of the world whatsoever.

Thus, just as a budding barrister may for a time enter

journalism, why should not the diplomat do the same, or even engage in trade ? And, just as a man may—though only a few do—become a barrister at forty, so he should- be able to become a diplomat. In his contact with the outer *odd the professional's outlook would thus be broadened, and with the influx from outside would come the breadth of wider ideas. Our representatives abroad, like our barristers, would have eaten of the tree of knowledge, and be qualified to earn their'bread:

For the trouble with our foreign offices—I speak advisedly

in the plural—is that they are not in touch even with their own nation. They are recruited largely from the aristocratie classes, trained by older members of those classes, and, in the countries where they are stationed, gravitate largely to those classes. The whole diplomatic game, therefore, receives a social bias, and, at the same time, loses touch with the people and classes which are really vital to-day, and are-really moving affairs. We live in a democratic age. The voice of the people is as the voice of God, and is becoming more immediately effective. The Almanach de Gotha was once a document Of some importance. To-day it is a survival, almost an ana- chronism, and therefore not worthy of too exclusive a study by our secretaries of legation. The voice of the people is to be heard, not in the salons, but in the cafés ; and *here that voice is to be heard, there should our secretaries be found also. In this way it will become possible for the diplomats to co-operate more intelligently with the League, for in this way we shall get men who are capable of thinking in the way demanded by the League.

Finally, lest any say that by this contact diplomacy would become corrupt, we need only point to the' exampleof the law. Nowhere will be found a body of men more devoted to their duty, or feeling themselves more of a service. With this example before us we need not fear for diplomacy. And to remove the last difficulty, surely the man who serves his country in diploinacy shoUld receive as high a recompense as he who serves it' in the law, or even in commerce.

A. M: AV;