It is not to be supposed that modern diplomacy has so completely changed
character as to lose all of its disagreeable features, for there is
still more or less mediaevalism attaching to it—at least if the popular
conception be true. And perhaps in some degree it must always be so; for
the office is unique in its opportunities as well as its inducements to
dissimulate, mislead and misrepresent. In the first place, the diplomat
undertakes his mission under secret instructions. The public may know
what are the duties of the consular service as fully as the consuls
themselves; but not so with the diplomatic service, for to the public it
is a closed door. Moreover, our diplomat may reason with himself that
business of any kind involving competition is a kind of warfare; that
diplomatic business is especially so because it is international, that
there is no penalty for the breaking of an international law, and thus
he may be led to conclude that “all’s fair in love and war”, especially
war.
It may be necessary for some if not all of the members of a legation to
maintain a “discreet inquisitiveness”; it certainly is necessary for all
to know how to meet indiscreet questions with non-committal answers; yet
the finesse of diplomatic intrigue is dangerous ground and British and
American diplomats have, in the main, done well to avoid it. The chief
of a legation especially should remember that his office is a noble one
and should be kept above the stifling air of intrigue; that the dignity
of a nation may easily be compromised by the mere suspicion of
complicity therein, and that to those among whom he moves he both
represents his country officially and typifies his countrymen
personally. The American diplomat has gained something of a reputation
for going straight at the mark—of leaving no doubt as to the attitude of
his government and the policy he is to follow, and is not this the true
diplomacy? The ruling purpose should not be to gain one’s point, but to
preserve the national dignity while using all honorable means to gain
the point.
So much depends upon the manner of a diplomat. Men ordinarily admire and
covet a certain plainness and directness of speech which in business may
amount even to bluntness. But frankness of speech which in any other
occupation might prove only disadvantageous, in diplomacy amounts to a
complete disqualification. In business a diplomat must be all ears and
no tongue until the time comes for him to speak, then he must know
exactly what to say and what not to say. He may feel that every man has
a right to an opinion and to the expression of it, but being a diplomat
he must remember that his opinion will be regarded as official whether
or not he intends it so, and therefore it must be guarded religiously.
In society, somewhat to the contrary, there should be no outward
indication of a studied reserve—nothing that would serve as a restraint
upon his freedom of movement and conversation. He should be a man of
engaging manners, of suave and polite address, and of affability and
urbanity in conversation. He should not only be well trained in the
usages of good society, but should also thoroughly acquaint himself with
the traditional usages and customs, the etiquette of the court where he
is to reside.