The Tale of Don Estevan de Gamarre.
There are many important occasions when the diplomatist will require all his wit and all his prudence. It will often happen that he has to tell bad news or give unpalatable advice to a prince accustomed to be flattered by his ministers, who for various private reasons usually conceal bad news from him. Let me give an example of what I mean: Don Estevan de Gamarre had served the King of Spain for many years with zeal and fidelity both in war and in diplomacy, particularly in the Low Countries where he had been ambassador for a long time. He had a relative in the King’s Council fully disposed to put the ambassador’s services in the best light, and yet he received no reward, while late-comers of all kinds received advancement to high offices both at home and abroad. He resolved to go to Madrid to discover the cause of his evil fortune. He complained to his relative the minister, giving a number of instances in which important services which he had rendered had been passed over and forgotten. The minister having heard him, quietly replied that he had no one to blame but himself, and that if he had been as good a courtier as he was a brilliant diplomatist and faithful subject, he would have received the same advancement as those whose deserts were less, but that his sincerity was an obstacle to his good fortune, for his despatches were always full of distasteful truths which set the King’s teeth on edge. The King’s Teeth on Edge. For instance, when the French gained a victory he told the story faithfully and without regard for Spanish feelings in his despatches. Or if they set siege to a town, he would predict its certain fall unless help were sent. Or in another case, where an ally had expressed displeasure because the Spanish Court seemed likely not to keep faith with it, he insisted that the King should keep his word in language which was neither diplomatic nor persuasive, and all the while other Spanish negotiators in other parts of France, with better eye to their own interests, were informing the King that the French were decadent, that their armies were undisciplined and quite incapable of effective campaigning, and so on: to which the minister himself added that the King in Council could not too highly reward those who sent such good news, nor too readily forget a man like himself who never wrote anything but the unpalatable truth.
Deceit in Favour in Madrid.
Thereupon Don Estevan de Gamarre, in his surprise at this picture of the Court of Spain drawn for him by his relative, replied: ‘Apparently fortune in Madrid favours the deceiver and the favour of the Court may be won by mendacity. I have no longer any qualms about my future.’ He then returned to the Low Countries, where he profited so easily by the advice of his relative, that, to employ a Spanish term, he won several mercedes, and he saw his own affairs prosper in the measure in which he succeeded in inventing reasons why the affairs of the enemy must come to nought. From this one may conclude that the Court of Spain wished to be deceived, and gave its ambassadors a free rein to make their own fortunes at the expense of the true interests of the monarchy. There is a moral here both for ministers at home and for ambassadors abroad, on which I need not insist. The truth requires two agents, one to tell and another to hear.
On Treaties and their Ratifications.
Between sovereign states there are many kinds of treaty, the principal of which are treaties of peace, armistices, commercial treaties, and those which regulate alliances or guarantee neutrality. There are both public and secret treaties. There are even contingent treaties, so called because their success depends upon future events. When the ministers of two equal Powers sign a treaty they make two copies of it which are called a double instrument. In each copy the ambassador who draws it up places the name of his own prince at the head and signs his in order at the foot, thereby indicating that neither he nor his master relinquishes his claim to the first place in Europe. And since all new treaties are based upon the precedent of old ones, and probably refer to measures taken under previous treaties, they are always drawn up in the same form, and often in the same number of articles. Now in drawing up a treaty it is the duty of the enlightened diplomat to see that the statement of policy contained in the document in hand does not conflict with or injure some other enterprise of his government. He must also see that the conditions are laid down so clearly that they cannot be subject to diverse interpretations. It is obvious from this that the negotiator must be master of the language in which the negotiation is conducted, and especially that in which the treaty itself is written, otherwise he will find himself in endless difficulties and complications. The meaning of a treaty may easily turn on a single word, and unless the diplomatist is thoroughly at home in the language in question he will not be in a position to judge whether the words proposed to be used are suitable. Ignorance of foreign languages indeed is perhaps the most serious drawback with which diplomacy can be afflicted. Now though princes and sovereign states entrust negotiations to diplomatists armed with full powers, none the less they never conclude or sign treaties except upon their own explicit ratification given with their own hand and sealed with their own seal, and the treaties are never published until they have been ratified, and cannot take effect until they are published except in cases specially provided for, where certain articles and sometimes the whole treaty is deliberately kept secret.
On Writing Despatches.
While the art of handling a foreign court is the principal part of diplomacy, it is no less important that the diplomatist himself should be able to give an exact and faithful account in writing of his own court, both in respect of the negotiations in his charge and in respect of all other business which arises. The letters which a diplomatist writes to his prince are called despatches, and should be stripped of verbiage, preambles, and other vain and useless ornaments. They should give a complete account of his actions, beginning with his first démarche on arrival at the foreign court, describing in detail the manner in which he was received, and thereafter proceeding to report step by step the ways in which he proposes to arrive at an understanding of all that goes on around him. Thus the despatches of a really adept diplomatist will present a picture of the foreign country, in which he will describe not only the course of the negotiations which he himself conducts, but a great variety of other matters which form the essential background and setting of his political action.
A Portrait Gallery.
It will contain the portraits not only of the King himself but of all his ministers, and indeed of all those persons who have influence upon the course of public affairs. Thus the able diplomatist can place his master in command of all the material necessary for a true judgment of the foreign country, and the more successfully he carries out this part of his duties, the more surely will he make his master feel as though he himself had lived abroad and watched the scenes which are described. In present circumstances all French diplomatists, both ambassadors and envoys, are permitted the honour of communicating direct with the King in order to give account of their stewardship abroad, whereas in previous times they were only allowed to transmit their reports through a Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The latter procedure undoubtedly caused them to be more circumspect both in the matter and in the style of their despatches. This is to be regretted, for there is nothing more important than that the diplomatist living abroad should feel himself able to write with candour, freedom, and force, in all his efforts to describe the land in which he lives.