DIPLOMATS.
SIR EDWARD MALET made the farewell dinner given him by the English Colony in Berlin the excuse for a very interesting discussion as to the qualities which are to be looked for in a diplomat, and as to the comparative advantages of giving the great Embassies to outsiders of distinction rather than to regular members of the diplomatic service. In Sir Edward Malet's view the best -diplomat is the diplomat who is least heard about. The moment a fuss is made about him something is wrong, for as long as he can keep everything smooth, which is the object and essence of his calling, he can attract no atten- tion. "It is a question whether a very brilliant man can ever be fitted for diplomacy. The very keenness of his intellect will impel him to attempt to dazzle the public by great and little successes ; but the victories of diplomacy should be achieved in silence or their spoils are often lost." After giving two instances of outsiders wkra failed because they were too clever—one telegraphed his successes to the English Press, and so utterly spoilt their effect ; and the other quarrelled so fiercely with his colleagues and the Government to which he was accredited, that he had to be recalled—Sir Edward Malet went on to declare that they wanted no coruscating diamonds, but only honest buttons. "The world is a huge body clad in a garment of States. We diplomatists studded all over the earth are the unob- trusive buttons which hold these garments together. As long as we perform this function satisfactorily we pass unnoticed, because the garments continue to sit properly." It was only when they broke loose or came off, added Sir Edward Malet, that diplomatists became an object of attention and discussion. "For instance, I am going to come off, and on that account alone I have recently been more written about in the newspapers—I say it with pride—than during all the eleven years that I have been Ambassador."
In a word, Sir Edward Malet is all for what we may call the soothing idea of diplomacy. The diplomat is to perform the functions of a warm poultice. He is to be soft and warm and comforting, and to allay all unnecessary irritation in the minds of foreign Governments. This per- petual process of poulticing the minds of Kings and Emperors and their Foreign Secretaries is clearly, in his opinion, the only original function of the diplomat. He is never to act on his own responsibility or initiative, but merely to carry out the orders of his chief like a faithful subordinate, plus the poultice, which he has been trained from his youth upwards to compound and apply with deftness and discretion. Well, that is not a bad de- scription of the work of the diplomatist. From many points of view it seems, indeed, the only true one. There is, however, another side which Sir Edward Malet has wholly ignored. The really great diplomatist has been, and is, and always will be, a good deal more than a mere poulticing clerk in a lace coat. Sir Edward Malet is himself a ease in point. His influence upon foreign policy has been much more than that obtained by mere poulticing according to prescriptions telegraphed from London. The really efficient diplomat, though he will be careful not to give unnecessary offence, will never stop at the work of smoothing over differences. He will, besides this, and besides getting to know and understand not merely the outside but the very heart of the other view of any question in dispute, be ready and willing to take responsibility upon himself and to act on his own initiative. By this we do not, of course, mean that the efficient diplomat will ever be insubordinate or disloyal, or carry out not the intentions of the home Government, but his own whims. The efficient diplomat will, however, like the really efficient servant in all walks of life, study to realise his master's exact and true intentions, and then, whether he personally likes them or not, take every possible and safe means to carry them into effect. What we mean can best be shown by a more concrete instance. An Ambassador understands that the Cabinet have adopted such and such a course of policy, and mean to pursue it. Under these circumstances, if and when a sudden oppor- tunity arises for decisive action, the Ambassador is justified—nay, it is his duty—to act without reference home. If he is willing, on occasion, to act in this way, taking, of course, the personal risk of disavowal if he has committed a blunder, he may serve his country much more effectually than if he is always waiting on the tele- graph-wire, unwilling to move an inch without distinct orders. The mere poultice-diplomatists are much too apt to take up the line of never acting unless somebody at the other end of a wire has first made himself responsible for their acts. But here, as in all other delicate and difficult transactions, what is wanted is an agent who thoroughly comprehends what he is wanted to do, but who will use his power of initiative. A private soldier, whose one idea is to obey his orders literally, is an impossible agent in matters of moment. Sir Edward Malet is also in the wrong when he appears to suggest that clever men are not wanted in diplomacy, and that intellectual force is, if possible, to be avoided in an Ambassador. Of course you do not want your Ambassador to be a gasconading, bom- bastic bully, or a Dr. Johnson who will not mince his words or restrain his thoughts for any one. But you may easily have a man of the highest intellect who has not these defects. In truth, the ablest men are, as a rule, free of them, because they have judgment, and judgment prevents men making fools of themselves,—the defect, as Sir Edward Malet hints, of clever men. Depend upon it, a man of first-class brain-power who is willing to take responsibility to gain the object of the Foreign Office is a more efficient diplomat than the poulticing clerk of- humdrum abilities who rises before us to fill Sir Edward Melees requirements. But having suggested what sort of man makes the best Ambassador, it must next be asked whether he should be sought among the ranks of the trained diplomats, or from outside. Sir Edward Malet says confidently, Not from outside ; and, on the whole, we are inclined to agree with him. Sometimes it may be necessary, for reasons of wealth or pedigree, or because the service has not at the moment got an able enough man of the proper age, to fill a great Embassy with an outsider; but if there is a diplomat who possesses the qualifications we have laid, down, in our opinion at least a trained diplomat is very greatly to be preferred. If, that is, A and B, men pretty nearly equal in brain-power, are mentioned for the post, and if A is a diplomat, by far the best chance for a successful filling-up of the post is to give it to A. If, however, A is very greatly inferior to B in mental capacity, and .B is otherwise eligible, then appoint B, for nothing will ever make up for real lack of brain-power. And while we prefer the trained diplomat to the outsider, we prefer him still more to the person, half diplomat and half outsider, whom it has of late become the fashion to appoint to Embassies. We have nothing to say against our Foreign Office—it is probably one of the ablest of the public departments—but we are of opinion that to promote Foreign Office officials to Embassies is a capital blunder. They possess combined all the faults of diplomats and outsiders. There are, of course, brilliant exceptions ; but they are liable to have neither the detachment of view which belongs to an able outsider, nor the instinctive tact which comes from a diplomatic training. They seldom escape from their official traditions, and too often the task of working with their colleagues has proved quite beyond them. Again, it is almost impossible to get men trained in the Office, and within sound of the voice of the Secretary of State, to take any responsibility. They cannot and will not do it. Of course, as we have said above, there have been, and are, brilliant exceptions to all this ; but as a rule the Foreign Office is a bad training- ground for an Ambassador. The best Ambassador is he who has had trained into him the instinct for the manage- ment of foreign relations, and has not had trained out of him all power of taking responsibility in carrying out the orders of his chief.
Previous page
