DIPLOMACY

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 10, 1900

In the North American Review of June, 1900, there was published an article entitled “British and Russian Diplomacy.” The following portion of the article on diplomacy in general is of peculiar interest just now, and to the people of the United States, since the one world-problem is now, and is for some time expected to be, wholly one of diplomacy. This article can be accepted as authoritative; for it was written by “A Diplomat” who is officially “attached to the legation in the capital of one of the great Powers,” who “is an authority on international law, and has made a special study of Asiatic affairs, especially of their relation to the purposes and ambitions of the nations of Europe.”—

That part of statesmanship called diplomacy is the art employed by governments in their dealings with one another, or against one another, to obtain the most for the least; to secure, over and above such conditions as are guaranteed by natural law, or by treaties, or by the possession of superior power, advantages which may be won by resourcefulness in bargaining and skill in finesse, re-enforced by unscrupulousness when necessary.

This is not the official definition, I know, but the sole or even principal object of diplomacy is not, as some maintain, the defense of the members of a state in their rights and interests. This task is the routine and drudgery of diplomacy. It is performed mechanically, as it were, and without serious hitches, under the tutelary wing of international law—unless, indeed, one party is very inferior to the other in civilization, in which case the restraints of right and law are conveniently ignored. In its vital and essential aspects, what I must be pardoned for calling its higher flights, diplomacy is still to-day, as it has been from the time of its origin during the struggle of the Italian republics with the transalpine powers down to Talleyrand and Bismarck, the art of deceiving and overreaching.

If, as has been asserted, the American commonwealth enjoys the privilege of possessing a diplomacy which has never stooped to the tortuous ways employed by others, it is not, as is implied, because the exercise of the craft can be, if its adepts be so minded or educated, directed solely by principles of directness, frankness, and tact. It is because, until lately, the United States has not been implicated in international politics, and its action abroad has been limited to the consideration of its commercial or social interests, whose defense is a task which can be performed in the light of day. By inaugurating an imperial policy and annexing the Philippines, the United States has plunged into the field of international rivalry, and will soon feel the necessity of adopting the occult weapons of other Powers.

Diplomacy may achieve its ends, if they are frank and honest, through the instrumentality of a man like Franklin, who was guided throughout his foreign career by truth and common sense. Many a diplomatist reaches a venerable age in his profession without having practiced it otherwise than in the form of learned discussions with secretaries of state, and references to texts and jurisprudence or appearances at stately balls and dinners. But even these must admit that, at least potentially, every diplomatist contains an agent committed to cunning and unscrupulousness, whose calling must find him ready to accomplish, when national interest claims it from him, acts which in private life would be considered immoral or criminal.

If it were necessary to adduce proofs in support of the view given here of diplomacy, the disposal of secret funds, sometimes enormous, by most diplomatic agents, and the scandals connected with the activity of military attachés in different capitals, could be quoted as conclusive ones. Politics are governed by a special code of ethics—that which is contained in the maxim “the end justifies the means;” and, although nations keep up the comedy of virtuous pretenses, they subscribe to acts of injustice or fraud performed in their behalf, and secretly condone them. It is quite as much as humanity can do to create in its midst a sincere feeling of reprobation against private villainy. This is not stated as an apology for vice, but to show that the ethics of humanity, like everything else in the world, are a relative and conventional quantity, and that we shall always find our infirm nature ready to seek relief from the restraints of conscience in the reservation of spheres of action where our primitive instincts can have full play.

With nations, it is the field of politics; with individuals, it is the field of love. If, for instance, the strewing of a battlefield with thousands of human corpses in the name of national interest is a meritorious and even glorious action, while, on the contrary, the willful destruction of one man by another in the name of private interest is condemned and punished as a crime, why should the practices of diplomacy entail reprobation and odium, though the same practices in private life be destructive of reputation?

Diplomacy is essentially a game of observation and cleverness; one in which patience and caution alternate with boldness and promptness of action; in which intelligent management neutralizes the disadvantages of a naturally unfavorable situation, or even snatches victory out of the conditions of defeat. . . . It follows that success in diplomatic enterprises depends mainly on agility and suppleness of thought, on elasticity of political conscience, on the powers of adaptability and assimilation, and not on any of the transcendent qualities of mind and character, which are too unwieldy and heavy to be of much use on the quicksands of international politics, where, indeed, they are likely to do more harm than good unless allied with great address. They will provoke admiration and esteem, but they will seldom lead to practical success.

Among the qualities indispensable to a good diplomatist, the most important are knowledge of human nature, and skill in putting that knowledge to account. Psychology is the source of inspiration of diplomacy. An intelligent and, when occasion demands, unscrupulous use of the insight psychology gives into the workings of the brain and soul, is the triumph of diplomacy. Personal attractions and social accomplishments are among its most powerful adjuncts.

The golden age of diplomacy was in the time of absolute monarchs or ministers, when the action of states depended not on definitely fixed conceptions of national interest, but on the ideas and passions of one man; when kings were governed by fair favorites, and these in turn by lieutenants of the bodyguard; when a witty word or timely compliment turned the political scales, and when golden weights restored them to their former balance. To-day the opportunities of diplomacy have considerably decreased. Scientific conceptions of the nature of the state have, in most cases, transferred its center of gravity from the sovereign to the nation. Closely defined and rationally elaborated, commercial and political ideas have taken the place of the fumbling, empirical, and dishonest methods of the past. The mutual relations of most of the modern states are governed by fixed rules, which act, as it were, automatically, and leave little room for the display of diplomatic talent.

International negotiations are reduced to-day, in American and European capitals, to the solution of mathematical equations from which personal factors are nearly entirely eliminated, and in which hard facts and figures provided by statistics are opposed to one another by men responsible to public opinion, so that the possibility of one party’s gaining a marked advantage over the other is very small indeed. Mutual concessions, “give and take,” are the principles on which they are conducted. The discussions are carried on with the help of specialists, commercial, technical, and military, so that often only a nominal direction is left to the diplomatic agent.

But although in America and Europe the possibilities of diplomacy have narrowed down to the maintenance of mutual good will between nations, or the conclusion or prevention of alliances by appeals made to reason, national interest, or national feeling, in Asia a wide field of action exists for the higher arts of the craft. There, European governments meet the native authorities and one another on the ground of stealth, duplicity, treachery, and corruption. There, local conditions of weakness and putrefaction foster unclean ambitions in the foreign breast, and have established between the European Powers a deadly rivalry, which has recourse to every means suggested by unscrupulousness.

In a general way, the greater the corruption in a country, the weaker and more degraded the character of its people, the greater is the sway of diplomacy. Secrecy and the prohibition of discussion relating to public affairs, such as exist in autocratic countries, provide it with additional chances. Turkey, China, Persia, and all the other countries which make up the East, represent, with the exception of reformed Japan, the promised land of the diplomatist. There, humanity offers . . . an unusually abundant crop of weaknesses and vices to trade on. The diplomatist develops into perfection, and dominates most, in the midst of ignorance, degradation, and corruption. . . .

The Russian diplomatic service is one of the most formidable machines in existence, comparable in many respects to the Jesuit organization. It exhibits the same deeply planned and unswerving purpose, the same discipline, the same merciless elimination of worthless elements, the same spirit of sacrifice, the same resourcefulness. The Russian government knows exactly what it wants, forms plans for a distant future, and carries them out with a steadfastness and tenacity of purpose to be secured only by the conditions of autocracy. From its agents it demands success, and does not care how it is obtained.

The practice of Russian diplomatic agents in places where it pays to do so, as in the East,

and in the Balkan countries, and maybe others, is to inquire not only into the political conditions of the state, but also into the workings of Society, written with a capital S. There is no household of importance into which his curiosity does not throw a searching glance. Domestic troubles, the relations of husband to wife, the morality of both, a loss at cards, the amount owing to the butcher,—all these items of information and many others are greedily collected, some by the agent himself, the greater part by his subordinates, whose mission it is to be watchful and report everything they see and hear. This information is classified, docketed, and combined so as to be turned to account for political purposes at a favorable moment. How far unscrupulousness of method is carried by these arch-diplomatists it is unnecessary to specify. Recent events in China and in the Balkan Peninsula are sufficiently eloquent.

The result of such an organization is evident. Russia triumphs everywhere. Her interests in Turkey are as important as those of England; and though she is in a far better position than her rival to carry out threats, she has recourse to this means only in the last extremity, always preferring the insinuating and unctuous methods of diplomacy, which spare pride and vanity, the two deepest motives of humanity. It is wonderful to watch her tactics in the East, where she knows that success is a question mainly depending on the art of ingratiation. With admirable skill she lays herself out to win the good graces, not only of persons in actual power, but of any and every individual whom a jerk in the balance of imperial favor may some day invest with important functions—that is to say, everybody. She neglects no one, and is aux petits soins [pays fostering attention to the smallest details] with every native, to whom her caresses and flatteries are all the more delightful because the European world is generally so contemptuous, indifferent, or brutal to him. She follows the careers of native officials with jealous attention, recommends and pushes those who show the dispositions that suit her, puts obstacles in the way of the others. Not only does she excel in taking advantage of opportunities, but she is unsurpassable in the art of creating them. In a word, she is masterful in the highest degree, and proportionately successful. . . .

The object of this is not to censure the methods of diplomacy, nor to approve of them. It is simply a statement of facts, meant to serve as a contribution to the comprehension of the political action of states in the busy and complicated struggle which secretly rages between them, until it breaks out into flames of war.