It has always struck me as singular that, whereas in
other walks of life experience is regarded as an asset, in diplomatic matters it is denounced as a liability. There are, I would suggest, three reasons for this misconception. Diplomacy demands no obviously technical training, as do architecture, medicine or engineering. The public assume, therefore, that diplomacy is an art which any man of common sense can master, and that the professional diplomatist has been trained only in the conventions of court procedure and in the mastery of foreign languages. He is thus regarded by his more impatient compatriots as something pretentious, un- English and old-fashioned. Diplomacy, again, has suffered much as a profession from the external apparatus by which it is surrounded. An Ambassador represents, not merely the interests, but also the majesty of his country: he is obliged to live in a large house and to maintain a large staff : his entertainments must be lavish and well appointed ; and on ceremonial occasions it is customary for him to array himself like a zany and to deck his own person with scarves of coloured silk and badges made of steel, and silver, and enamel. The emphasis cast thereby upon the externals of his profession inevitably detracts in the public eye from the true seriousness of his functions.
• * *
Previous page
