The Courtiers of Civilization: A Study of Diplomacy

Chapter 7: The Courtiers of Civilization

55 7    The Courtiers of Civilization The portrayal of the professional diplomat in Western civilization is rather ambiguous, of dubious accuracy, and ultimately testifies to flagrant ingratitude. Diplomats’ predicament is particularly apparent in their clash with rulers and warriors, where it is revealed that they are, after all, victims of their vocation’s call. Ambassadors will continue to be absent from neoclassical pedestals; only the glimpses of past glamour will still shine. In fact, the good diplomat is the courtier of civilization by being a symbol of peace, a custodian of public virtues, and the flag bearer of the practices of a functional and civilized international society. Thus, the mission of the diplomat is both tragic and epiphanic, and with no safe bounds. Ambactiare, to go on a mission, is the primary and fundamental meaning of diplomatic destiny. The circumstances and substance of a diplomatic mission change from time to time, but, regrettably, this does not apply to the reputation of the diplomat. The diplomat has survived the trials and traps of modernity, but has not advanced much beyond the fate of the Renaissance envoy, namely, to uphold his or her country’s interests, “aided by no more than his own wit, courage and eloquence.”1 The diplomat’s reputation is structured by real causes, but no less, by implicit rumors and disguised insinuations. Jules Cambon has rightly commented that diplomats are not “the spoilt child of history.”2 The dim view taken of diplomats’ profiles is striking in comparison with the heroic posture in which statesmen, rulers, and captains of war like to portray themselves, particularly, since most crises in international relations are of their making. Diplomats somehow managed to avoid a 56 The Courtiers of Civilization coherent definition of their character and socioeconomic status. By now their privileges are not attached to a specific social class; and they have remained one of the king’s men, while other public servants converted themselves into being the representatives of the “people” as well. As historical actors, diplomats have assumed many personae—honorable spies, strangers, shadowy agents, courtiers who serve their countries and kings, as well as timid appeasers and dull bureaucrats. Apparently, their characters are no longer synchronized with the swift pace of modern life. The diplomats’ cautious and reasonable rhetoric and prudent pleading run against the popular temperament, as they perform for audiences who prefer clear-cut statements. The diplomatic golden rule would seem to have proved to be too abstract and too elusive. From the very beginning, the diplomatic character was imbued with dubious dualities. Sir Henry Wotton’s aphorism, perhaps the most quoted in the history of diplomacy, has been elevated to embody the epitome of the diplomatic craft, despite its origins in a misunderstanding .3 While the description of the ambassador as “an honest man, sent to lie for the good of his country” corresponds well with the charm and duplicity of Hermes, the messenger of the gods, it does not fit the accusation that diplomats are timid and inept. But when the image of the diplomat as an honorable spy was in decline, the great revolutions of the eighteenth century gave rise to new and more devastating accusations against diplomats. For the continental revolutionaries, as well as for the American proponents of a “new diplomacy,” diplomats were the agents of the old regime, messengers of an international order infested with entanglements and machinations.4 The gravest accusation leveled against diplomatic envoys was that diplomacy itself is inherently corrupt, and by implication also futile and unnecessary. Diplomats became easy prey for the hunt. They were victims of their vocation, since the practice of diplomacy calls on them to be ambiguous and moderate, and to suppress the truth when necessary. Diplomats were blamed first for the outbreak of the First World War, because of their secretiveness and intrigues, and then for devising the policy of appeasement. With the emergence of the Cold War era new theories and strategies of threats and signals were assumed to be more effective than ordinary diplomatic channels. Last, diplomats were influenced by political trends, as described by Eban and Kennan: “domestic opinion is liable to make the diplomat the scapegoat for the nation’s inability to get its own way.”5    In the one place where diplomats could have found refuge—literature— they are often vilified and ridiculed. Writers, from Anthony Trollop to The Courtiers of Civilization 57 Graham Greene...