On the manner of negotiating with princes / On the uses of diplomacy; the choice of ministers and envoys; and the personal qualities necessary for success in missions abroad

by Monsieur de Callières

The Ambassador a Man of Peace.

The best diplomatist will usually be found to be a man of good birth, sometimes a knight trained to the profession of arms, and it has occasionally been found that a good general officer has served with success as an ambassador, especially at a time when the military affairs of either state were prominent subjects of negotiation. But diplomacy is not to be regarded as linked with war, for, although war arises out of policy, it is to be regarded as nothing more than a means to an end in itself. Therefore the ambassador should be a man of peace; for in most cases, and certainly wherever the foreign court is inclined towards peace, it is best to send a diplomatist who works by persuasion and is an adept in winning the good graces of those around him. In either case it will be observed that the public interests will be best served by appointing a professional diplomatist who by long experience has acquired a high aptitude for the peculiar office of diplomacy. Neither the soldier nor the courtier can hope to discharge the duties of diplomacy with success unless they have taken pains to instruct themselves in public policy, and in all that region of knowledge which I have already described as necessary for the negotiator.

Lawyer Diplomats.

It is true that sometimes a lawyer diplomat has made a great success of negotiation, especially in countries where the final responsibility for public policy lay with public assemblies which could be moved by adroit speech, but in general the training of a lawyer breeds habits and dispositions of mind which are not favourable to the practice of diplomacy. And though it be true that success in the law-courts depends largely upon a knowledge of human nature and an ability to exploit it—both of which are factors in diplomacy—it is none the less true that the occupation of the lawyer, which is to split hairs about nothing, is not a good preparation for the treatment of grave public affairs in the region of diplomacy. If this be true of the advocate or barrister, it is still more true of the magistrate and judge. The habit of mind engendered by presiding over a court of law, in which the judge himself is supreme, tends to exclude those faculties of suppleness and adaptability which are necessary in diplomacy, and the almost ludicrous assumption of dignity by a judge would certainly appear as arrogance in diplomatic circles. I do not say that there have not been great lawyers and great judges who were endowed with high diplomatic qualities, but again I place these considerations before my readers in the belief that the more closely they are observed the more surely will they lead to efficiency in the diplomatic profession.

Diplomacy demands Professional Training.

Let me further emphasise my conviction, which, alas, is not yet shared even by ministers of state in France, that diplomacy is a profession by itself which deserves the same preparation and assiduity of attention that men give to other recognised professions. The qualities of a diplomatist and the knowledge necessary to him cannot, indeed, all be acquired. The diplomatic genius is born, not made. But there are many qualities which may be developed with practice, and the greater part of the necessary knowledge can only be acquired by constant application to the subject. In this sense diplomacy is certainly a profession itself capable of occupying a man’s whole career, and those who think to embark upon a diplomatic mission as a pleasant diversion from their common task only prepare disappointment for themselves and disaster for the cause which they serve. The veriest fool would not entrust the command of an army to a man whose sole badge of merit was his successful eloquence in a court of law or his adroit practice of the courtier’s art in the palace. All are agreed that military command must be earned by long service in the army. In the same manner it should be regarded as folly to entrust the conduct of negotiations to an untrained amateur unless he has conspicuously shown in some other walk of life the qualities and knowledge necessary for the practice of diplomacy.

Fatality of Bad Appointments.

It often happens that there are men in public life who have won a reputation for themselves without earning it. That is possible in the political world, which has many camp followers and hangers-on of all kinds, and there is always a risk that a minister in search of an ambassador for a foreign post will use the occasion to pay an old debt to some powerful patrician family or to some blackmailer behind the scenes. Those who take the responsibility of appointing to high diplomatic offices persons of this character are responsible before God and man for all the injuries which may thereby accrue to the public interest. It cannot be too plainly stated that, while in many cases where trouble has arisen the negotiator himself is to blame, the true responsibility must rest with the minister at home, who not only devises the policy itself but chooses the instruments of it. It is therefore one of the highest maxims of good government that the public interest must be supreme, and that therefore both the prince himself and his ministers must steel themselves to resist the pressure of friends and relations who seek employment for unworthy persons. In diplomacy, above all things, since peace and war and the welfare of nations depend upon it, the best minds, the most sagacious and instructed of public servants should be appointed to the principal foreign posts regardless of the personal affairs of the prince himself or the party attachments of the chosen ambassadors.

‘We have fools in Florence, but we do not export them.’

Nothing should stand in the way of the creation of a vigilant, sagacious, and high-minded diplomatic service. Men of small minds should content themselves with employment at home, where their errors may easily be repaired, for errors committed abroad are too often irreparable. The late Duke of Tuscany, who was a remarkably wise and enlightened prince, once complained to the Venetian ambassador, who stayed over-night with him on his journey to Rome, that the Republic of Venice had sent as resident at his court a person of no value, possessing neither judgment nor knowledge, nor even any attractive personal quality. ‘I am not surprised,’ said the ambassador in reply; ‘we have many fools in Venice.’ Whereupon the Grand Duke retorted: ‘We also have fools in Florence, but we take care not to export them.’