The Courtiers of Civilization: A Study of Diplomacy

Chapter 6: Diplomats and Their Milieu

45 6    Diplomats and Their Milieu Diplomacy is a way of life, from apprenticeship to retirement. Throughout, the diplomat dwells in a milieu which is socially artificial , but very real in its demands. As aristocratic privileges have been lost, diplomats now face a domineering bureaucracy, while struggling to reconcile their various roles, abroad and at home. The aristocracy dominated the diplomatic apparatus well into the twentieth century. Members of the upper classes were bound for diplomacy as a matter of social standing, wealth, and their contractual relation with sovereigns. It was a setting of convenience and mutual dependency that was exploited by both sides. The alliance between the monarchy and the nobility established the tradition of privileges and courtly manners as the foundation of diplomatic practice. The hostility to the exclusive milieu of diplomacy went hand in hand with the progressive decline of the aristocracy, and the separation from social class allowed merit to be the primary criterion in the choice of envoys.1 Until the state took responsibility for expenses, wealth was a necessary requirement for sustaining ambassadorial hospitality, and payment for junior staff. Gifts furnished by sovereigns were not enough as compensation . The rising cost of embassies induced monarchs to sell titles in order to raise money to finance important posts. Lawrence Stone provides the following description of the needs of an English nobleman aspiring to fulfil his diplomatic obligations: “to equip himself for the post he had to have horses, coaches, sumptuous clothes for himself, and rich liveries for his attendants. Once abroad, he had to maintain his horde of servants and attendants, to entertain lavishly. For these enormous costs the English crown made only a grudging contribution.”2 46 The Courtiers of Civilization The memoirs of British diplomats of the last century make it clear that a privileged family was a primary requisite for a diplomatic career. The pattern of being educated in a public school, and then Oxford or Cambridge, is recurrent in the records of the Foreign Office. Diplomats were considered to embody the ideals of a gentleman—in manners, loyalty to king and country, and in the pursuit of gentlemanly excellence, particularly as sportsmen.3 David Kelley complained in his memoirs of his alienation in the Foreign Office, due to not having been educated in a public school, but rather in a London day-school. It was Herbert Warren , the President of Magdalen College, who secured his nomination to the foreign service.4 Already Wicquefort and Callières were of the opinion that the nobility does not, necessarily, make for good diplomats. And Nicolson pointed out that some of the earliest and most able English diplomats had come from humble origins, and that sound diplomacy was the invention of the middle class.5 With the rise of foreign ministries, bureaucracies replaced social class as the regulators of diplomatic life. In addition to the routine complaint about excessive privileges, criticism of diplomats now focused on the dysfunctions of the diplomatic service. Richelieu’s decree of 1626 demanding that external affairs be concentrated within one ministry founded a pattern that lasted well into the twentieth century. The new bureaucracies of the eighteenth century devised the standards for the operating procedures of the foreign service, though patronage lasted until the twentieth century.6 Every foreign service operates as a divided bureaucracy, separating the home ministry from the staffs in scattered embassies. The expansion of foreign ministries in the last century made them the target of a populist resentment and political skepticism. Bureaucratic routine became the symbol for lack of foresight, paucity of originality, and absence of inventiveness.7 Routine, as much as it is nonheroic, enhances both structural and political stability. The foreign services of Europe and North America managed to reform and even revolutionize their bureaucratic operating standards. The United States, after operating for a long time with a completely neglected foreign service, employed in 2010 a staff of 30,260, among them more than 12,000 professional officers representing it in 260 missions.8 However, reforms were introduced with neither real constituency , nor with public interest in diplomacy or diplomats.    The training of diplomats, it seems, will never be satisfactory. The study of certain skills cannot replace the slow adaptation to the diplomatic Diplomats and Their Milieu 47 role, both social and professional. But, what makes a good diplomat is beyond training, as it depends on human nature in all its diversity...