BRITISH DIPLOMATS OF TODAY
By A TRAVELLER IN EUROPE
THERE is much to be said for the convention that mem- bers of the diplomatic service, like civil servants generally, shall be immune from public criticism. They themselves are not allowed to indulge in public controversy, so they cannot answer back. And if our Ambassador at X or our Minister at Y became the target of Parliamentary questions or newspaper attacks it might undermine his position vis-à-vis the Government to which he is accredited and compromise his relations with his own staff. These considerations have persuaded those who have been pro- foundly disturbed by the incapacity and inactivity of many members of the British diplomatic service to refrain from open criticism.
But our present emergency is so great that a good case can be made for temporarily disregarding what is in ordinary circumstances an excellent rule. While we may still con- sider it improper to criticise this or that Ambassador or Minister by name, we are, I contend, entitled to discuss the service as a whole in precisely the same way as we now discuss the War Office or Sir John Anderson's department, and as we now point to the weak spots in our defences. If we start on the assumption that the safety of the realm now imposes heavy obligations on the individual citizen, it seems not unreasonable to ask British diplomatists to look on their jobs as a kind of national service, and not merely as a comfortable, agreeable and reasonably remunerative profession. Let us ask no more; let us formulate no loftier principle. And with this criterion in mind let us look at some of the capitals of Europe and see how the interests of Great Britain are served by the diplomatists on the spot. For obvious reasons, no names will be mentioned, and no distinction drawn between Ministers and Ambassa- dors. But having just returned from a long tour of the Continent, I will give concrete cases.
Take, first, the Minister resident in A—in a country traditionally well-disposed to Great Britain. He has made it plain that he holds no very high opinion of the people among whom he dwells, and that he thinks he has been given a tiresome post. He professes contempt for British public opinion and, naturally, dislikes the British Press. He has openly declared his sympathy for Nazism and ex- pressed the view that it would be a good thing if the Nazis could be persuaded to take ovd Rumania and run it efficiently.
The Minister accredited to B is indolent, and as there is little work to do, he refrains from doing it. He does not wznt to know anything about the country he is living in, and he takes good care to meet as few as possible of its people. The German Minister, of course, is as busy as a beaver: his parties are lavish and well attended and much of his propaganda is successful. The British Minister in B has not even tried to get into touch with those who mould public opinion. * Cabinet Ministers at B have barely met him, and some of B's most prominent citizens are finding it necessary to stimulate British propaganda over the head of the British Minister in order to counter German propaganda.
The question of conscription in Great Britain is one of the principal topics of discussion on the Continent. No doubt there have been sound technical reasons for the Government's decision to wait and see. Yet I have still to find that any serious attempt has been made by any British Minister on the Continent to explain them. So far as Con- tinental opinion is concerned, the absence of compulsory military service in Great Britain has been inexcusable. We are made to look like a decadent people, unwilling to shoulder our burdens. Not even the covey of recently appointed Press attaches seem to have made any impression upon the Continental Press. I have visited half a score or more European countries in the past few months: wherever I went I found that people wanted to hear something about conscription in England. They were all very critical ; but when I, as a layman, had pointed to one or two objections to conscription (culled from some newspaper) I found that my friends were quite willing to consider the matter in a new light. No one had talked to them like that.
In capital C there is a minority problem. The British Minister is interested only in the dominant majority, in spite of the fact that the minority is extremely powerful and stands within measurable distance of achieving power. Neither he, nor, so far as I know, any member of his immediate staff, has tried to establish contact with this minority. They have made no attempt to learn its language or its history. The members of this minority are therefore tending to turn to Germany for support. It is an undisputed fact that this particular minority wants British friendship above all, and that this friendship, properly expressed, would entail no new commitments. It would, in fact, ensure an orderly development of what may otherwise turn out to be a very awkward problem.
I have more notes about other capitals beside me as I write, and their purport is the same: British diplomatists as a body have not adjusted themselves to the post-War world; most of them still associate only with members of what were before the War the governing class, but who are now completely out of touch with events. "How seldom," said a distinguished British visitor to D, when dining with our very able Minister there, "do I meet in our Legations and Embassies people who do things, who play an active part in the life of the community. Our Ministers seem to think they are committing a social error unless they associate only with people whose fathers or grandfathers have been something or other." To most of our diplomatic repre- sentatives on the Continent, the new men, the house-painters, the Socialist agitators and the bakers' sons, who know nothing about golf and are unsure about what is the right end of a racehorse, are unknown. Many of our Ministers despise public opinion, so they make no attempt to mould it, as they so. easily could. When a new British Minister arrived at E, a post where there is little to be done beside "goodwill diplomacy," he found newspaper representatives waiting for him in the hope of getting a "nice, friendly statement." He sent his footman to tell them that he had nothing to say to the Press.
What is most suggestive of all is that foreigners them- selves, and particularly those who attach most importance to British friendship, are becoming increasingly critical of the British diplomatic service. Even the least outspoken among them now speak openly about incompetence and even of discourtesy. Is it unreasonable, then, to maintain that the blame for some of the errors of recent British foreign policy, and most of the misunderstandings to which they have given rise, must be sought in the inadequacy of our diplomatic service?
Previous page
