See page 141
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The jurisdiction of an ambassador over the members of his train is
limited to minor matters. A criminal would be sent home for trial, the
ambassador collecting and forwarding all the evidence.
I have purposely deferred the subject of the selection of diplomatic
officers until after a consideration of the service itself, in order
that we may the better understand what is needed in such an officer.
It will be observed that the requirements for a successful diplomat are
wholly unlike those for a consul. To be successful in the consular
service one must first of all be a good business man. One should have a
mind for details, a quick and keen commercial insight, an acquaintance
with the material facts of life, and the proper training would be that
of the merchant or the journalist, supplemented in some cases by that of
the lawyer and jurist. There is a definite, body of information which a
consul should have at his command, a body of rules whose authority he
must not transgress, and in the transaction of his business if he looks
to precedent it is only for present guidance.
The diplomat on the other hand should first of all be a statesman. To
belong to the first rank, along with the greatest in the world, he must
have the gift of prophecy and the grace to keep it quiet. In the pursuit
of a great national ambition he should have wisdom to foresee, genius to
plan and tact to execute. His study is of men, the history and the
political institutions of men, the history and tendencies of his own
times, and the capacities and characteristics of different races. These
things are his science, furnishing the basis for his art, that art which
Bacon called the highest of all—the art of “working” men. He cannot, in
the nature of the case, expect to receive very definite instruction from
his government, unless it be upon a specific line of policy and an
acquaintance with the treaties between the two countries. Precedents are
of value to him as a guide to present action, but more especially as
affecting future policy; for a nation’s foreign policy is influential
among other nations and satisfactory at home in proportion as it is
self-consistent and just. In great international emergencies the
diplomat sometimes does the work of a military chieftain, but with these
differences: his means are peaceful, his warfare is necessarily in
secret, the results are bloodless, and, when all is done, the skill with
which he has fought is seldom recognized except by the historian.
Fortunately the practical problem of choosing men for the diplomatic
service does not contemplate deeds of such momentous character—at least
not for beginners—but it does indicate the magnitude of the scale of
operations sometimes carried on by this service which makes history no
less than do military campaigns. It is evident, moreover, that no course
of study however long can prepare a man for the diplomatic service,
except in an elementary way. It goes without saying that such elementary
preparation should be made before entering the service, and that it
should include among other essentials a knowledge of French, Spanish or
German, especially the first which has been called the language of
diplomacy.
But after all, the only satisfactory preparation for the diplomatic
service is experience. Some years ago the United States began a system,
pursued more or less by other nations, of appointing young men to
various legations as attachés without salary. In this capacity they
became acquainted with diplomats and the “ins and outs” of diplomacy,
and incidentally gave their superiors a chance to discover their fitness
or unfitness for the service. The advantages of such a system, which has
been abandoned except as to the appointment of military and naval
attachés, must be apparent to all, and it is hard to see why it should
not be reinstated.
In the absence of definite training and knowledge to furnish a basis for
examination the diplomatic service is either exceptionally fortunate or
exceptionally unfortunate. As long as the good of the service is kept
chiefly in view in the selection of candidates, even though the service
be regarded as political, it is well that technical knowledge cannot
interfere seriously with the appointment of the most promising
candidate. On the other hand, when the service is regarded as a
legitimate means of rewarding political friends it will suffer all the
more for the want of a restraint such as the examination affords, just
as with the consular service, only in a greater degree.
Diplomatic officers are more apt to change with the change of
administration than are consular officers, for the reason that the
service itself is more political in character. Some authorities go so
far as to justify the change on the ground that the administration ought
to be unrestricted in carrying out its policy, and therefore should be
represented abroad by those of its own political faith just as it is in
the cabinet. It must be admitted that there is a great deal to justify
this contention, but it should be said that the analogy with the
President’s cabinet is hardly fair; for in the latter case the parties
are the units, and we recognize the right of the stronger party to full
executive power; but in the case of the ambassadors the nation is the
unit which he represents, not the party. Theoretically the change of
diplomatic officials with the change of administration cannot be
justified, and practically a sweeping change is certainly demoralizing
to our interests. In the most important positions, however, it may
sometimes be best that the President be allowed to substitute those of
his own party.
With the present system of recruiting the diplomatic service the most
essential point is to lodge the testing power in the hands of capable
and incorruptible men, so that those who are “appointed for examination”
will not necessarily pass because of the influence which supports them.
I will now leave the subject with you, merely remarking in closing that
diplomacy, especially American diplomacy, which lies outside of and
beyond our present theme, is of fascinating interest and will well repay
careful study. Our diplomatic history is brief, but it is glorious,
chiefly because it has made for righteousness and peace, not to
ourselves only but to all the world.
* * * * *
“Professor, will you kindly give the remainder of the articles of the
Congress of Vienna”?
“Certainly. Besides the first and the last which have already been
given, they are as follows:
“Art. II. Ambassadors, legates, or nuncios only have the representative
character; (that is, can represent the person of the sovereign).
“Art. III. Diplomatic agents on an extraordinary mission have not, on
that account, any superiority of rank; (e. g., our commissioners at the
Hague conference would not for that reason outrank our diplomatic
representative there, supposing the latter not to be a commissioner).
“Art. IV. Diplomatic officers shall take precedence in their respective
classes according to the date of the official notification of their
arrival. The present regulation shall not cause any innovation with
regard to the representative of the Pope.
“Art. V. A uniform mode shall be determined in each state for the
reception of diplomatic agents of each class.
“Art. VI. Relations of consanguinity or of family alliance between
courts confer no precedence on their diplomatic agents. The same rule
applies also to political alliances.
“Art. VII. In acts or treaties between several powers which grant
alternate precedence, the order which is to be observed in the
signatures shall be decided by lot between the ministers.”
Q. “Are these the only international rules concerning diplomats”?
A. “They are the only ones given in the Diplomatic and Consular
Register”.
Q. “Are they universally accepted”?
A. “By all except Turkey, which recognizes but three grades—ambassadors,
ministers and chargés d’affaires”.
Q. “Suppose we send a diplomat of the second rank to any country: have
we a right to receive one of the same grade in return”?
A. “Certainly, and no more. Italy, however, sends us an ambassador,
while our representative to Italy is a minister”.
Q. “Professor, you will allow me to disagree with you upon the propriety
of wearing a uniform”?
A. “Certainly, what have you to say”?
Q. “Well, nothing new; it is only that as a people we have taken a
wise stand in favor of simplicity as opposed to meaningless
conventionalities, and that it should characterize all our official
relations with foreign powers, otherwise we would seem to compromise
our position”.
A. “I’ll admit,” said the Professor, “that yours is the view ordinarily
taken and officially adopted in our country. But I still maintain that
it is a wrong view because it is founded upon a wrong principle, namely
that ‘the rule should emanate from home’. Why, suppose you go to visit a
neighbor and you find that the rules of his household are somewhat
unlike your own: would you not as far as possible try to conform to
them? Of course you would; and the complaisance that is to be expected
between neighbors is a duty as between ambassadors, because it is their
business to remove friction, not to create it. Oh, well, these are
trifles and need not be dwelt upon were it not that they are conspicuous
trifles.
“But the mention of these matters of etiquette reminds me of a
suggestion by Schuyler, to the effect that a bureau of ceremonies should
be added to the State Department—just as in Paris there is a Service du
Protocol—both to facilitate its correspondence and to serve as an
intermediary between the Department and foreign diplomats in Washington.
There are many reasons—small in themselves, but rather weighty taken
together, why this suggestion is worth heeding. The Master of Ceremonies
plays a very important as well as a conspicuous part in nearly every
capital except Washington; and perhaps he is all the more necessary with
us because we have so little ceremony”.
After dismission a group of ladies was observed in earnest conversation
waiting for a word with the Professor, who soon advanced with: “Do you
wish to speak to me”?
“Oh, we were just wondering”, said one of them, “why women wouldn’t make
good ambassadors”.
“They do”, said the Professor, “and excellent ones, too, for women are
generally diplomats both by nature and training”.
“I never heard of one’s being appointed”.
“No, it is always her husband that is appointed; but this is dangerous
ground. It is a fact well known in the service that a discreet wife can
almost double her husband’s efficiency. In the first place she hears as
much gossip as he does—as much, I say—and if she can keep it, why that
is the best way that a diplomat can learn what is going on. But aside
from court gossip, a great deal of an ambassador’s influence depends
upon his position in society and this in turn depends very much upon the
kind of wife he has. An indiscreet wife, one who is over fond of gossip,
or under fond of society, might be a positive disqualification for the
best kind of ambassador. It should go without saying that the wife
should be patriotic; only sometimes diplomats will marry abroad. On this
point Schuyler says that Bismarck always insisted that German diplomats
should marry German wives. Women are very important social factors at
every capital, and even sovereigns find that they are to be reckoned
with. A good story is told by Schuyler which illustrates this fact and
which shows at the same time what diplomacy can do in small things. I
give it as nearly as I recall in his words:
“The court of Vienna is bound by very strict rules of etiquette, which
not even the Emperor feels at liberty to overstep. And the society of
Vienna has adopted still stricter ones. In order for an Austrian lady to
be able to appear at court, she must show at least four generations of
nobility. It is said that some years ago when the first bourgeois
ministers were appointed in Austria, while they were officially invited
to a court ball, their wives were omitted. The ladies were indignant and
brought a sufficient pressure to bear upon the husbands to induce them
to resign their offices if their wives were not invited to the ball. The
Emperor was in a dilemma, for he could not dispense with such useful
ministers, neither could he override the rules of court etiquette. He
adopted, however, a very simple expedient—he ennobled the long-deceased
great-grandfathers of the ladies in question, which thus gave them the
personal right to appear”.
“Have diplomats nothing better to do than simply to get along peaceably
with each other”?
“It must be confessed that in spite of the grand part they are expected
to play upon occasion, a large share of their time and attention is
devoted to the art of being agreeable—not a mean art in its way, though
it demands attention to trifles after a fashion that would be
exasperating to some minds.”
“Then I understand that it is in this exasperating art, the minor
tactics of diplomacy, that women have the credit of excelling”?
“It is in this that they certainly do excel; and indeed in major tactics
or world politics one need not ask for a better diplomat for her day and
her nation than ‘Good Queen Bess’, not to mention other illustrious
examples”.
“Well”, said one of the ladies, as they turned to go, “since to be an
ambassador a woman must either be born one or marry one, why we might as
well settle down to minor tactics where we are; so have a care,
Professor, for we may not have learned the art of being agreeable”.
[Illustration: PRECEDENCE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: Man looking at large map on desktop]
LECTURE
V